Upland Agriculture in The Philippines Po

Published by
Upland Agriculture in the Philippines

Potential and Challenges
Imprint
As a federally owned enterprise, we support the German Government in achieving its objectives in
the field of international cooperation for sustainable development.
Items from named authors do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Published by
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Registered offices
Bonn and Eschborn, Germany
T +49 228 44 60-0 (Bonn)
T +49 61 96 79-0 (Eschborn)
2/F PDCP Building

Rufino cor. Leviste Streets
Salcedo Village, Makati
Philippines
T +63 2 892 9051

I: www.enrdph.org
Responsible
Dr. Walter Salzer
Environment and Rural Development Program
Program Director and Principal Advisor
E: walter.salzer@giz.de
Source and Copyrights

© 2014 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Authors
Dominik Fortenbacher, Kristine Alave
Editors
Erlinda Dolatre, Jurgen Schade, Christian Staiss, Walter Salzer
Layout / Design
Opalyn A. Agulay
Copyright on Photos
The photos in this publication are owned by GIZ unless otherwise indicated on the photo.
Printed and distributed by

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Place and date of publication

Manila, Philippines
August 2014
Contents
Figures and tables 5
Acronyms and abbreviations 6
Acknowledgement 7
Executive summary 8
1. Why do we need sustainable Agroforestry systems in the Philippines? 10
Socio-Economic Situation in the Philippine Uplands 10
Natural Resource Degradation and Reduced Ecosystem Services in

the Philippine Uplands 13
2. Defining Upland Agriculture and Agroforestry Systems 18
Upland agriculture does not necessarily mean agroforestry 18
Agroforestry – a menu of different production systems 20
3. Political Framework 24
The institutional and legal framework of natural resource

governance in the uplands 24
Past Government Programs and its successes 26
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) 27
Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP) 27
Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) 28
Co-Management of Public Land 31
4. Ecological Benefits from Agroforestry 34
Agroforestry and biodiversity 34
Agroforestry and carbon storage 36
Agroforestry and soil protection 38

Contents
5. Economic Benefits from Agroforestry 42
Methodology and results for calculation of economic profitability of different crops

and production systems in the Uplands 42
Reality Check: Wasted potentials and missed opportunities 47
6. Challenges to overcome 50
Why do we have a low adoption rate of recommended Agroforestry systems? 50
The problem of tenure security 52
The devolved extension service system 55
Poor market access for smallholders 56
7. Modelling sustainable agroforestry systems 60
Model for Assessing the Sustainability of Agroforestry Systems (MASAS) 60
Linear Programming model for determining sustainable upland agriculture 63
8. Conclusion 70
Annexes 74
Figures and Tables
Figures
1 Trends in rural and upland population in the Philippines based on
data from different studies 10
2 Development of forest cover in the Philippines 13
3 Reasons for decline in forest cover 14
4 Ecosystem services of forests 15
5 Illustration of different agroforestry systems 21
6 Illustration of Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT) 22
7 Governance of lands of public domain: The 1987 Philippine
Constitution, legislated laws and administrative issuances 26
8 CBFM Allocations 30
9 Shannon Index Values derived from Plant Function Types for different
agroforestry systems in Leyte 36
10 The carbon storage potential of different crops in several
agroforestry production systems in Leyte 37
11 Sample cumulative frequency of the poverty index by tenure status 55
12 Development of MASAS 62
13 Average MASAS score for different agroforestry systems 63
14 Four basic steps in solving a problem by Linear Programming 64
15 Screenshot of developed upland agriculture LP modeling GAMS 65
16 Optimal cropping pattern - Scenario 1: Business as usual 66
17 Optimal cropping pattern - Scenario 2: Food self-sufficiency 66
18 Optimal cropping pattern - Scenario 3: Access to credits 67
19 Optimal cropping pattern - Scenario 4: Carbon storage 67
Tables
1 Amount and source of income for upland households 12
2 Average annual income from different agroforestry systems in Panay 21
3 Forest land allocation 28
4 Soil loss caused on steep slopes caused by mising erosion prevention
measures 39
5 Results of economic indicators for crop profitability analysis 45
6 Comparison of Gross Margin (PhP/ha), yield (kg/ha) and
price (PhP/kg) between GIZ and DA-BAS data 47
7 Results of regression model showing significant factors for tree
farming 54
Acronyms & Abbreviations
A & D Alienable and disposable IRR Internal Rate of Return
BAS Bureau of Agricultural Statistics ISFP Integrated Social Forestry Program
BAU Business as Usual LGUs Local Government Units
CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims LP Linear Programming
CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title MASAS Model for Assessing the Sustainability of
Agroforestry Systems
CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
NPV Net Present Value
CBFM Community Based Forest Management
NVS Natural Vegetative Strips
CBFMA Community-Based Forest Management Agreement
PCA Principal Component Analysis
CMA Co-Management Agreement
PFTs Plant Functional Types
CRMF Community Resource Management Framework
DA Department of Agriculture Pg Petagram
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform POs People’s Organizations
DENR Department of Environment and Natural PPP Public Private Partnerships

Resources
REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization and Forest Degradation
FLUP Forest Land Use Plan RoL Return on Labor
FMB Forest Management Bureau RUP Resource Use Permits
GAMS General Algebraic Modeling System SALT Sloping Agricultural Land Technology
GIZ Deutsche Geshallschaft für Internationale SLE Seminar für Ländliche Entwicklung
Zusammenarbeit
TEV Total Economic Value
GM Gross Margin
TLA Timber License Agreement
ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre
UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention
IFMA Integrated Forest Management Agreement on Climate Change
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the following student researchers for undertaking research on agroforestry
in the Philippines:
Andreas Röhlig, Tamara Mertes, Campbell Moore, Jana Schwarz, Emily McNulty and the SLE Study
Group.
Thanks are also in order to the professors from the different universities in Germany and in the
Philippines, particularly the University of Hohenheim, West Visayas State University and the Visayas
State University, for their assistance in the various studies included in this knowledge product.
The CBFM component of the GIZ’s Environment and Rural Development Program also lent help in
collecting data and in the research.
Lastly, the authors would like to thank the approximately 350 farmers who answered questions and
accommodated the requests of the researchers from GIZ for this project.
Executive Summary
Agroforestry has a long history of cultivation in many upland areas in the Philippines. As the country
faces demographic challenges that threatens its forests and the livelihood of millions of rural residents,
introducing and strengthening agroforestry practices remains the best avenue for eradicating poverty while
protecting the environment that has suffered decades of exploitation and neglect.
Agroforestry provides many environmental services that are vital to the welfare of people in the uplands and
lowlands. Agroforestry systems help restore the environmental and watershed functions of uplands that
support food and water production. Agroforestry also strengthens the resilience of communities to natural
hazards, such as flooding or landslides. It also keeps the soil healthy and reduces erosion. Agroforestry
systems are crucial in storing carbon and in conserving biodiversity. Upland farmers can benefit from
practicing agroforestry as it helps them mitigate environment risks and generate income. Agroforestry
practices promote soil and water conservation leading to improved yields and a more sustainable level of
agricultural productivity.
Despite the long history of agroforestry in the Philippine uplands, its practice in the Philippines is not
modernized. In order to encourage more farmers to adopt state of the art agroforestry pratices, national
agencies and local governments should strengthen their cooperation to meet the institutional, technical and
economic challenges in the sector.
Land tenure insecurity remains a hindrance to farmers in the Philippines. Having land tenure gives farmers
access to financing and encourages them to invest in their land. Co-Management of forest lands jointly
by DENR and LGUs should be explored to allow upland residents to use forestland in accordance with
environmental laws. Agricultural extension workers should also strive to reach out to farmers to ensure
continuous adoption of sustainable practices. Service to farmers should also not just cover agricultural
topics; farmers should be also taught how to market their crops. Local and national governments should
help upland farmers access markets and supply chains. Partnerships with private companies should also be
explored.
Agroforestry systems in the Philippines
9
Upland Agriculture in the Philippines - Potential and Challenges
“What will happen to the Philippine uplands in 40

years? If the current trend continues, it will be
denuded, degraded, and straining under the weight
of 30 million Filipinos.”
Why do we need sustainable

Agroforestry in the Philippines?
Socio-Economic Situation in the Philippine Uplands
Between 17 and 22 million people in the Philippines live in state-owned uplands,

which are also declared as public forestlands. Most of the upland population has
no legal tenure rights and has been often excluded from government census. As
a consequence only informal approximation of the actual population size in the
uplands exists.
Migration from lowland areas is the major cause for population increase in the
uplands. Only 6 million people lived in the uplands before 1945.1 Since 1948, 12
million have migrated to the sloping lands and the rate of migration to the uplands
has remained high since the 1980s.
It was estimated that the upland population in the 1980s to be 14 million, of

which 8.5 million people residing on public forest lands. In the late 1990s, the
upland population accounted for 16 million people in the Philippines. Based
on the relatively high population growth rate of the poor in the Philippines, the
upland population is been estimated to be more than 20 million nowadays shown
in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Trends in rural and upland population in the Philippines
2
based various data from different studies
1 Lynch, O.J. & Talbott, K. (1998). Legal Responses to the Philippine Deforestation Crisis. Journal of
International Law and Politics, 20, 679-713.
10
Chapter 1 Why do we need sustainable Agroforestry systems in the Philippines?
2, 2013. Available from: http://faostat.fao.org/site/550/default.aspx#ancor Cruz (1988): Population pressure and migration:
Implications for upland development in the Philippines. Journal of Philippine Development, 25(1). Lasco, R. & Pulhin,
J. (2006). Environmental Impacts of Community-Based Forest Management in the Philippines. International Journal of
Environment and Sustainable Development, 5(1), 46-56. Lynch & Talbot,1998.
© Photo by ANGOC 11
Despite the economic growth rate of the Philippines in the last 10 years, poverty still prevails in the rural
parts of the country. Three-quarters of the poor in the Philippines make their living from agriculture and
fishing activities. More than 50% of households in rural areas are still below the official poverty threshold.
Among the rural population, upland settlers are the poorest. Several studies conducted on behalf of GIZ
show that an average household in the uplands have an average annual income between 40,000 and 90,000
Philippine Peso (PhP). Considering an average household size of 4.7 people, the average daily income can
be estimated to be between PhP23 and PhP52 per person, which is below the World Bank-defined poverty
line of 1.25 US$ a day.
The reasons for the high poverty incidence in the Philippine uplands are manifold. The main reasons
cited are low farm productivity, limited access to rural advisory services, the unavailability of alternative
employment opportunities, and very limited access to basic social services.
Table 1. Amount and source of income for upland households

3
Upland Household Income (PhP/ upland household/ year) and sources
Study and Number of On farm Income from Non farm Remittances Total
Location households income other farms income
interviewed (agricultural
(N) laborer)
GIZ (2011a),
36,440 PhP 12,000 PhP 28,000 PhP 11,000 PhP 87,440 PhP
Southern
797 (910 US-$) (300 US-$) (700 US-$) (275 US-$) (2,186 US-$)
Leyte
GIZ (2012), 36,440 PhP

19,000 PhP 41, 200 PhP
Panay Island (910 US-$)
103 (475 US-$) (1,030 US-$)
22,200 PhP
J. Schwarz
16,611 PhP 4,350 PhP 11,469 PhP 7,119 PhP 39,550 PhP
(2012), Leyte
96 (415 US-$) (109 US-$) (287 US-$) (177 US-$) (989 US-$)
and Southern
Leyte
“The people living in the uplands survive on subsistence

farming and are the poorest in the country. However, the
poverty could be eradicated by harnessing existing resources.”
3 ANNEXES 2, 5, and 6
12
Natural Resource Degradation and Reduced Ecosystem Services in the Philippine

Uplands
While upland population continues to increase, forest resources are decreasing because of timber extraction,
farm expansion and shifting cultivation. The Philippines is one of the most deforested countries worldwide.
At the beginning of the Spanish colonization in the 16th century, forests covered around 90 percent of the
total land area of the country. At the end of the 19th century, forest cover was reduced to 70% of total land
area, an equivalent of 21 million hectares (ha). The declining trend continued in the 1950s when only 50%
of the Philippines’ land surface was covered by forest.
Forest cover today is estimated to be only between 18% and 23%, of which less than 1 million ha are old-
growth forests. Deforestation reached its peak during the 1970s. By the early 1980s, only 30% of the former
total of 10 million hectares of dipterocarp forests stood in the Philippines. Estimates of the annual rate of
deforestation range from 150,000 ha to 320,000 ha during the 1980s. Today, the annual deforestation rate
is placed at 100,000 ha, according to FAO and DENR data. The rapid deforestation over the three decades
changed the Philippines from one of the world’s largest timber exporter to a net timber importer.
Figure 2. Development of forest cover in the Philippines

Multiple causes have been identified for the rapid decrease of forest cover in the Philippines. Clear-felling
of primary forests during 1960s and 1970s, when the government handed out timber license agreements
on a large scale converted primary forests to degraded secondary forest. Forest lands in mountainous areas
that were opened up were occupied by poor and landless people from the overpopulated lowlands, which
curtailed the regeneration of the forests. Through shifting cultivation, the remaining secondary forest were
converted to farmlands and then were left idle by farmers after the soil became less fertile, fallow and
dominated by cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica). The burning practices also triggered uncontrolled forest
fires. The combined effects of logging, shifting cultivation, and uncontrolled fires have led to the conversion
of forests to grasslands.
13
However, there is no definite consensus on the influence of shifting cultivation on the decrease of forest
cover. A 2001 study estimates that 60% of the area of forest cover lost resulted from shifting cultivation
(“slash-and-burn” or “kaingin” in the local language).4
Other studies doubt that shifting cultivation is the dominant practice of land cultivation and that it is
no longer the major contributor to deforestation, but large-scale logging concessions and agricultural
land expansion.5 Another study also sees commercial logging as a major contributing factor to forestland
degradation and that it is accelerated by the migration of upland dwellers, who made use of access roads
and skid trails established by commercial logging companies.6

Nevertheless, there is a common understanding that unsustainable agricultural activities practiced by
poor rural households can be identified as one of the reason for the ongoing deforestation. Encroaching
cultivation is often a response to poverty and government inaction over implementation and enforcement
of the comprehensive agrarian land use reform program. Inequitable systems of land tenure, in which a
large proportion of the fertile lands in the country is owned by a small number of families, are a particular
problem in the Philippines. Since almost all arable land in the lowlands are being claimed, poor people are
increasingly forced to migrate to fragile upland ecosystems.
Figure 3. Reasons for decline in forest cover
After 2nd Marcos Era Starting in

World War (1965-1986) the 1970s Today
Primary forest Under the Marcos Landless Lowland Upland dwellers Between 15
accounts for 50% Era, large scale population established and 20 million
of total land timber license migrate to agricultural people lived
cover agreements uplands using plots on logged in the upland
have handed forest roads forestland (former forrested
out (commercial established through “slash areas and
logging) by logging and burn”. still classified
companies forestland), forest
(approx. 12 Occupied cover decreased
million people forestland by 18% - 23%.
migrated) became less
fertile and people
migrate to new
areas (shifting
cultivation)
4 Guiang, E. B. (2001). Communitiy Based Forest Management in the Philippines: A Preliminary Assessment
Quezon City.
5 Kummer, D. M. (1992): Upland agriculture, the land frontier and forest decline in the Philippines,
Agroforestry Systems, 18, pp. 31–46
14 6 Cramb, R. (2001). Agricultural Land Degradation in the Philippine Uplands: An Overview. Canberra.
Forest ecosystems provide a wide array of goods and services that benefit humans either directly or indirectly.
The services derived from forest ecosystems can be classified into four categories: provisioning, regulating,
cultural, and supporting services.
Ecosystem services have economic values and therefore, it can be argued that forest ecosystems can be
considered as a form of capital, albeit a natural one. They are perceived as natural assets that produce a
variety of valuable services and products that can be traded and commodified and that frequently could
not be reproduced artificially. Forests provide humans with materials such as timber, food, medicine, and
water. They regulate the climate and mitigate natural calamities and support ecological processes like soil
formation, nutrient cycling and biodiversity. Forests have religious, cultural and recreational importance to
many communities.
7
Figure 4. Ecosystem services of forests
Provisioning Services Regulating Services Cultural Services

Products obtained Benefits obtained Non-material benefits
from ecosystems from the regulation of obtained from ecosystems
ecosystem processes
Food Spiritual and religious
Fresh water Climate regulation Recreation and eco
Fuelwood Disease regulation tourism
Fiber Water regulation Aesthetic
Biochemicals Pollination Inspirational
Genetic resources Calamity prevention/ Educational
mitigation Sense of place
Cultural heritage
Supporting services
Services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services
Set formation Nutrient cycling Primary production
Anthropogenic pressures on the upland areas threaten the ecosystem services provided by forests. Agricultural
expansion caused by continued population growth and unsuitable cultivation practices in the Philippine
uplands has led to an increased occurrence of soil erosion and soil degradation. It is estimated that 8.3 million
ha out of total 30 million ha are eroded. As a consequence nutrient mining, reduction of aboveground
biomass and declining yields have evolved to be a serious problem.
Forests in the Philippines have comparatively high floral and faunal diversity and this is currently under
threat. Thirteen thousand species of plants, which comprise 5% of the world’s total plant species can be found
in the Philippine uplands. Because of the rapid rate of deforestation, endemic species are now endangered
or even extinct. The Philippines is one of the few nations classified as a biodiversity hotspot, which implies
that the Philippines have lost at least 70 percent of its original habitat already. This places it among the top
priority hotspots for global conservation.
7
MEA, 2014. Available at: http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.300.aspx.pdf. [Accessed 13 February 2014].
15
The value of ecosystem services in a forest can be estimated by calculating its Total Economic Value
(TEV). The TEV of a forest is the Net Present Value (NPV) of all services it provides to humans – whether
provisioning, regulating, supporting or cultural. The NPV of a service is the monetary value of its provision
in the present and in the future.
GIZ conducted a study to calculate the TEV (Annex 1) of forestlands in the town of Silago, a typical
ridge-to-reef municipality in Southern Leyte province, using a stated-preference valuation method called
contingent valuation. Ninety households (54 from the lowlands and 36 from the uplands) were asked to
identify and rank the ecosystem services they value most. They were also asked how much they would be
willing to pay to achieve three alternative scenarios: (a) the conservation of the present forest area, (b) the
improvement of forest conditions via the extension of forest cover by 10%, and (c) the issuance of licenses
to extract any amount of materials from the forest for subsistence purposes. According to the study, the
overall value of conserving the forest in Silago was placed at PhP 3,898 per year per ha.
16
Upland Agriculture and
17
“Agroforestry is a collective name for land-use

systems and technologies where woody perennials
(trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are deliberately
used on the same land management as agricultural
crops and/or animals, either in the same form of
spatial arrangement or temporal sequence.”
- LUNDGREN & RAINTREE (1982)
Defining Upland Agriculture and

Upland Agriculture does not necessarily mean Agroforestry
In the Philippines, upland zones are where both agriculture and silviculture are
practiced on areas with altitudes ranging between 500 meters and 2,000 meters
above sea level and areas with rolling to steep land, with slopes ranging upwards
from 18%. Uplands occupy approximately 50% of the land surface of the country.
Upland agriculture takes place on deforested and degraded forestland areas. A total
of 6 million ha of public forestland are under agricultural cultivation. The quality
of this land varies from terraced and irrigated plots that are suited to grow rice, to
steeply sloping land suited to growing coconut palms and tree crops. The crops
grown in the uplands include annuals (primarily maize, upland rice, sugarcane and
various root crops), perennial crops (e.g. coconut, pineapple, coffee), and fruit and
timber trees.
Farming systems in the uplands are primarily oriented towards subsistence

production and shifting cultivation, permanent cultivation, home gardens,
grazing, and any combination of these. Over time there has been a tendency
towards intensification of land use, with long-fallow shifting cultivation systems
evolving into permanent upland cultivation.
Agroforestry can be identified as a special form of upland agriculture. The term

agroforestry covers a whole slew of different land use systems where trees or woody
perennials are integrated on agricultural parcels cultivated with annual or perennial
crops. In the Philippines the term agroforestry is often misunderstood. People
sometimes also describe monocropping practices (sugarcane, maize and rice) in
upland areas as agroforestry, because it is taking place in so-called state owned
forestland. In order to avoid confusion the term agroforestry in this publication
shall be applied only for agricultural systems that have trees or woody perennials
as a system component.
Increasing the tree cover of farms using agroforestry systems provides multiple
benefits for the environment and communities. It protects the soil from direct solar
radiation and erosion, helps capture water and nutrients and can imitate a multi-
story canopy, similar to the natural forest vegetation. Furthermore, agroforestry
represents a sustainable way to produce sufficient food and generate income.
Nutrients for the crops may come from animal manure and/ or leaf material,
minimizing external inputs required for an agroforestry system.
18
Chapter 2 Defining Upland Agriculture and Agroforestry Systems
19
Agroforestry systems traditionally produce a broad variety of products such as fruits, vegetables, spices,
resins, medicines, and timber. These products are used primarily to meet household needs but also to
generate significant income through the sale of such products in local and international markets.
“People stick to multi-storey systems even though more

efficient and better agroforestry systems exist”
Agroforestry - a menu of different production systems
Agroforestry systems in the Philippines are categorized based on the spatial arrangement of the crops: multi-
storey systems, alley systems, boundary planting of trees and contour cropping systems.
Multi-storey systems are the most widely adopted, followed by alley cropping systems. Multi-storey systems
are characterized by a random mix of various species, with no structured crop management. The upper
canopy is composed of “light-demanding” species, while the understory is occupied by shade-lovingspecies.
In the Visayas, upper canopy crops include coconut-trees and mango-trees, while understory crops include
coffee, ginger, jackfruit, lanzones and pineapple. This system is often the least productive due to the
difficulty of managing and maintaining different crops simultaneously. In addition multi-storey croppings
are established in or close to residences and therefore have a limited areas of expansion.
Alley cropping is the planting of trees in multiple rows, with different annual and perennial crops cultivated
in the alleys between the tree rows. In alley cropping systems, hedgerows of trees or shrubs are commonly
grown along parallel contours forming alleys on which food crops can be cultivated. The purpose of
establishing alley cropping systems is to “diversify farm products, reduce surface water runoff and erosion,
improve utilization of nutrients, reduce wind erosion, and modify the microclimate for improved crop
production.
20
Chapter 2 Defining Upland Agriculture and Agroforestry Systems
ALLEY
Figure 5. Illustrations of different agroforestry systems
Alley cropping systems have clear economic advantages over multi-storey systems. A GIZ study (Annex 2)
compares the profitability of different cropping systems in Panay Island. The multi-storey farming system,
with combinations of annual and perennial crops including fruit trees and timber/forest trees, is dominant
(59%), according to the study. Alley cropping systems accounts for 14% of farmers and boundary systems
(11% of farmers) followed.
Alley cropping provides the highest income per ha of farmland as seen in Table 2. The systematic arrangement
in alley crop systems and the establishment of planting lines make for better and more efficient crop
maintenance (e.g. weeding, fertilization, pest control). Consequently, yields and revenues in alley cropping
systems are on average higher.
Table 2. Average annual income from different agroforestry systems in Panay

Type of Number of farmers Average annual Average Farm Size Average annual
Agroforestry systm income, PhP (hectares) Income per ha
contour 12 19,060.25 1.714 11,120.33
multi-storey 58 21,570.70 1.863 11,578.48
cropping
boundary 10 39,208.10 2.139 18,330.11
alley cropping 14 47,320.36 2.485 19,042.40
Total 94 29,660.21 1.975 15,017.83
21
The Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT) was introduced by the Mindanao Baptist Rural Life
Center, a non-government organization, in Southern Mindanao in 1978. It is the most widely used alley
agroforestry system in the region, thanks to the efforts of various governments and non-government
organizations that promoted it. SALT is not a recent farming technology and it has been practiced for
decades in many Southeast Asian countries. SALT entails the use of technology package of soil conservation
and food production that integrates several soil conservation measures, involves planting field crops and
perennial crops in bands 3-5m wide between double rows of nitrogen-fixing shrubs and trees planted along
the contour. This technique minimizes soil erosion and maintains the fertility of the soil.
While SALT is widely adopted in Mindanao, it is not well known outside the region. Few farmers take up
SALT because of the high amount of labor needed to establish and manage the hedgerows; the lack of ready
sources of planting materials; and the fact that hedgerows may reduce crop yields and consequently income,
through their strong above- and below-ground competition with the crop.
Field crops in SALT farms include legumes, cereals, and vegetables, while main perennial crops are cacao,
coffee, banana and fruit trees. The double hedgerows of leguminous shrubs or trees prevent soil erosion.
Their branches are cut every 30-45 days and incorporated back into the soil to improve its fertility. The crops
provide permanent vegetative cover which aids the conservation of both water and soil. The legumes and
the perennial crops maintain soil and air temperatures at levels favorable for the better growth of different
agricultural crops.
Figure 6. Illustration of Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT)8
8 Tacio, H. (1993). Sloping Agricultural Land Technology: a sustainable scheme for the uplands. Agroforestry Systems, 22, 145-52.
22
Political Framework
23
Local governments
to effectively per
“Who is responsible for the management of the MOREFORESTs
uplands? There are several answers to this question, resource managem
which reveals the complexity and the confusion in DA and DILG) to
upland management.”
to the local governm
Political Framework
The institutional and legal framework of natural resource
governance in the uplands
Functioning political institutions and well-designed government programs are
crucial in addressing the decline in forest cover, the reduced provision of ecosystem
services and the vulnerable socio-economic conditions in the uplands. To achieve
sustainable land management, policy and institutional dimensions that may
affect outcomes have to be taken into account. Besides adopting appropriate
technologies, sustainable land management policies also have to integrate socio-
economic principles with environmental concerns. It has to take into account the
multiple objectives and services which upland ecosystem provide.
Thus, policies for upland development in the Philippines have to focus on following
dimensions:
Protection of natural resources and prevention of degradation

of soil and water quality
Economic viability of policies and supported measures
Social acceptability of policies
Enhancement/ maintenance of productivity and services
Security to reduce the level of production risk
Classification of forestlands in the Philippines is vague and out-of-date. Upland

areas are still classified as public forest land, even though approximately 5.7 million
ha out of 15 million ha of upland forests is used for farming9 and less than half of
upland areas remains under any significant level of tree cover.10 Public forestlands
are owned by the State and are under jurisdiction of the DENR. This means that
the DENR has the primary mandate on land administration in public forestlands
even if they are used for agriculture purposes.
Public lands are further divided into forest reserves and national parks, civil and
military reservations, lands allocated to communities, lands allocated to the private
sector and unallocated. Unallocated land accounts for around one-fourth of the
public lands and is de facto under open access.
Around 14.19 million hectares (47%) are classified as Alienable and Disposable
(A&D) lands, which means the land can be under private ownership for agricultural
activities.11 The national policy stipulates that only A&D land may be privately
titled, whereas forestlands are reserved to public ownership in perpetuity. In many
cases, the boundaries of A&D lands and forestlands overlap.
9
Baguinon et al, 2007, 10
Cramb, 2001, 11
PFS, 2011
24
s and communities must be fully capacitated Land use plans (Enhance
Chapter 3 Political Framework
rform the resource management function. resource management plans
sees the mandated agencies charged with both should be the major bases
ment and local governance (e.g. DENR, DAR, both protective and econom
o provide these capacity-building requirements
ments and communities.
25
Insecure land tenure and land use rights influence effective
Upland Agricultureimplementation of national
in the Philippines - Potential laws
and Challenges
The Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) strategy is
implemented through DENR DAO No. 96-29. The CBFM Program
provides long-term security of tenure to organized local communities
through the issuance of the Community-Based Forest Management
Agreement (CBFMA) and other land tenure instruments under the
various people-oriented forestry programs that were implemented in
theEnvironment
According to the past. and Natural Resources Framework (2006) government estimates in the
early 1980s suggested that 13% of productive forests and 21% of old growth productive forests were found
on A&D lands, whereas 29% of total area in permanent or annual crops was on forestland.
Although tenurial instruments such as CBFMA have gained positive
Other problemsgrounds in high
include the the past decade,
number there are
of agencies still issues
dealing thattitles
with land hinder
andfull realization
valuations and ineffective
of itsthem,
coordination among goalsthe
and
lackobjectives, i.e. to give
of public confidence local
in the communities
land theinsufficient
title system and right to land-use
planning by localpossess and develop
government units. forestlands.6 Among these are: unstable policies
on tenure and resource use; complicated and unclear procedures and
limited technical assistance; weak technical capabilities of community-
based implementers;
Figure 7. Governance and inadequate
of lands of public domain: Theinvestments from Constitution,
1987 Philippine various sources legislated
laws and administrative
to develop issuances
their areas. 7
Figure 2.
Governance of
lands of public
domain: The
1987 Philippine
Constitution,
legislated laws
and administrative
issuances
(Source:
Governance of
Lands of
Public Domain.
Guiang, 2012)
Local Government Code, Disaster Risk Reduction Law,

Climate Change Act
6 Bacalla, n.d.
Government programs: successes and challenges
7 Pulhin, J. M., Dizon, J. T. & Cruz, R. V. O. (2008) Tenure reform and its impacts in the Philippine forest lands. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conference of the
International Association for the Study of Commons (IASC), 14-18 July 2008, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK. http://iasc2008.glos.ac.uk/conference%20
The Philippines implemented various programs on forestry since 1945 but none of them had a holistic policy
papers/papers/P/Pulhin_1233.pdf
approach and addressed only a small number of the upland population. The ineffective land administration
system in the Philippines compounded the problems in the administration and management of these lands.
This left a large portion of the upland population without legal land tenure right or in cases where land
Jun_2013.indd 14 6/19/2013 5:24:59 PM
tenure exists, the land ownership or land use right is hard to prove. Land tenure maps are not available for
much of the country, the titling system is still paper-based with a lack of back-up copies, and the majority
of land transactions are not reported to the government.

26
So far the only legal basis for issuance of land tenure rights on public land has been granted in government
initiated social forestry programs, such as the Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP) and the Community
Based Forest Management (CBFM) Program. But only around 4 million people of the estimated 17-22
million people residing on public land are covered by these two programs.
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)

Before looking at the forestry programs that grants tenure in the uplands, the circumstances and the policies
that force people to migrate to the infertile slopes have to be analyzed first. Idle and very extensively used
land in the lowlands are common but a people have no access to it.
Most of arable lands in the lowlands are owned by a limited number of families, a throwback from the
landownership arrangements during the Spanish colonization period. During the Marcos administration,
the average size of large agricultural holdings even doubled in the time between 1965 and 1980, despite the
growth in population. Despite the land reforms under the CARP after the Marcos era, little has changed.
Under CARP, which was enacted in 1988, all lands exceeding seven hectares should be acquired by the
government and distributed to landless farmers. However, implementation of the CARP failed to a large
extent due to political, administrative and fiscal constraints. The continuing non-availability of arable land
in the lowlands has propelled the migration from fertile lowland to often infertile uplands.
Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP)

While CARP included parts of the uplands for redistribution, it was not enough to address other issues
pertaining to natural degradation. As a means to address the links between forest degradation and poverty,
the DENR developed Community forestry (ISFP, CBFM) programs which granted households limited
access to public forest lands.
ISFP was launched in 1982 as a major initiative in upland development. It was designed to maximize land
productivity, enhance ecological stability and improve socioeconomic conditions of forest communities.
Land use rights were given to upland occupants through the issuance of Certificate of Stewardship Contracts
(CSCs). These are 25- year leases, renewable for another 25 years, and are inheritable, but not transferable.
These leases are conditional on adopting defined ‘agroforestry’ practices such as planting of fruit trees.
The ISFP program granted individuals with tenure rights to use forestlands. However, the limited financial
and human resources of the DENR and its centralized structure have not made it possible to monitor the
practices and check if communities follow the conditions of their leases. Thus, the ISF program has not been
adequate to the task of promoting sustainable agricultural development in the uplands.
In summary the major flaws of the ISF program can be traced back to insufficient follow up and backstopping
of ISF farmers, non-compliance with sustainable agroforestry based land use practices, and unlawful and
undocumented selling of CSCs to other individuals.
In 1996 it was decided to integrate CSC holders under the ISFP in the CBFM program developed in 1995.
However, since CBFM was designed as a communal approach, individual CSC holders had to be organized
in communities. In areas where organization was impossible, the CSC for individuals remained valid for the
remaining years.
Most of the CSCs were issued in the mid-1980s and are now expired. The DENR has not yet decided to
renew the CSCs, which puts former legally cultivated upland farms in a legal limbo as they are without proof
of land use rights.
27
12
Table 3. Forestland Allocation
Category of allocation Esimated area (ha) % of total forest land and

unclassified areas
A. Classified forest lands 14,765,000
1. Allocations to address public goods (forest 4,165,000 28%
reserves, national parks)
2. Allocations for civil and military 296,000 0.02%
reservations
3. Allocations to LGUs under communal Minimal area
forests or co-management agreements
4. Allocations to communities 4,900,000 33%
a. CBFMA and related tenure
b. CADCs and CADTs
5. Allocations to private sector (mostly 1,760,000 12%
existing TLAs, IFMAs, fishponds, grazing
lands)
6. Unallocated forest land (not covered by 3,644,000 25%
any of the allocation instruments)
B. Unclassified forest land (to be allocated to 1,089,000
de facto claimants of occupants)
Total 15,854,000
There is some overlap among CADCs, CADTs and CBFMAs; of the 9million ha of land allocated
to communities, at least 2.5 million ha is under CADCs, some of which already have CADTs
(World Bank 2004). The rest is covered by CBFMAs or related tenure instruments.
“The joint management of forestlands by LGU and

DENR can be potentially successful. However, tenure
issues, capacity and technological lack, as well as
conflicts in interests between local and national
authorities, hinders a successful implementation.”
Community Based Forest Management (CBFM)

CBFM, issued in 1995, has become the central government’s program to address
upland poverty and forestland management in the Philippines. It was declared
as the national strategy for forestland management, thereby subsuming former
related and similar initiatives.

12 Guiang, E. and Castillo, G. (2005). Trends in Forest Ownership, Forest Resources Tenure and Institutional
Arrangements in the Philippines: Are They Contributing to Better Forest Management and Poverty Reduction? Food
and Agriculture Organization.
28
The program objectives consist of three pillars: protection of environment,

improvement of the socio-economic conditions through equitable access to and
sustainable development of forestlands resources, acceptance of rights for indigenous
peoples to their ancestral domains. The CBFM strategy hinges on the government’s
work with communities in public forests to promote ecological stability and provide
livelihood. The 1997 DENR strategic action plan for CBFM targeted 9 million
hectares of forestlands to be placed under community management. However it is
estimated that only 4.9 million ha of 15 million ha classified forestland has CBFM
agreements.
Communities, as represented by People’s Organizations (POs), enter into an

agreement with DENR to be granted with communal land rights for 25 years.
POs can use forest resources but they must protect, rehabilitate, and manage the
remaining primary and secondary forests. The DENR and the POs jointly develop a
Community Resource Management Framework (CRMF), which is translated into a
5-year work plan. The activities include natural forests management, degraded lands
rehabilitation (reforestation) and agroforestry.
29
Studies show CBFM has not met its targets.13 Management of these projects highly
depends on the support from outside agencies and most of the POs struggle once they
lose external support Thus, financial viability of supported projects is often rather
low. In addition, it appears that farmers are not convinced on the financial viability
of tree farming. In areas outside CBFM, very few farmers adopt commercial tree
farming. Where smallholders have adopted tree farming, a number of researchers have
reported that poor germplasm and silvicultural management plague smallholders,
critically affecting their financial viability. Farmers also did not find tree planting a
credible source of income as they were burned in the 1980s by government extension
agencies who promised that it would be extremely profitable. This promise, which
was unfulfilled, was based on overoptimistic timber yields of fast-growing trees and
the high timber price prevalent in the past.
In principle, POs can harvest resources from CBFM areas. In practice, though, this is
difficult because most of the organizations have not followed their agreements and are
unable to meet the requirements for the issuance of harvest or resource use permits.
Over the past 10 years, the logging bans issued by past and present presidents have
also discouraged DENR field staff from issuing harvesting permits even to CBFM
areas. Thus, community organizations which have spent resources reforesting their
CBFM areas see no incentive investing effort in forest development activities and
maintenance of forest plantations.
In response to the problem of shifting cultivation in the uplands, the government is

promoting agroforestry as the main alternative production system. Agroforestry in this
context basically concentrates on fruit tree cultivation. Similar to forest plantations
also fruit tree cultivation has not succeeded. Causes are lack of maintenance, lack of
inputs as well as knowledge deficits in farming technologies.
14
Figure 8. CBFM Allocations
13 Tesoro, F. (1999): Community Resource Management as a Strategy for Sustainable Economic Development;
GUIANG et al. (2001): Community-Based Forest Management in the Philippines: A preliminary assessment
14
Kummer, D. (1992). Upland Agriculture, the land frontier and forest decline in the Philippines. Agroforestry
Systems, 18, 31-46
30
“ Tenure problems can be avoided if the DENR and the

LGUs share the management and the responsibilities
in public forests. The main instrument for this is a
co-management agreement, which is enshrined in
the Local Government Code of 1991.”
Co-Management of Public Land

Much of the responsibility for environmental management and rural development
has been devolved to local governments (municipalities and cities) under the Local
Government Code enacted in 1991.
In this context, the DENR and local governments can sign a Co-Management
Resource use guidelines and permit procedures (resource use permits, transport licenses) conducive to sustainable utilization
Agreement
of forest(CMA)
resourcesfor institutionalizing
should joint management
facilitate the establishment and value
of forest-based shared decision-
chains for economically viable land management,
making of public
creating forests
basis for located within
employment, the local
livelihoods government
and rural unit (LGU). One of the
development.
features of CMA is the establishment of a Steering Committee, which serves as a joint
decision-making body in the implementation of the CMA. Another feature of the
CMA is the issuance of sub-management agreements under the CMA. “Individual
Co-management
Property Rights,” the common term to denote tenure status forIssuance utilization ofandtenurial instruments
development of the should
Co-management forestlands
be the by appropriate
individual strategy
households
for or families, should
Tenure must be to the open access areas to ensure clear
be issued
issuedmanaging forest and
to legitimate forestland
current andresources withinresources
prospective the territorial
managers. user rights astenure
However, a basis for sustainable land management.
boundaries
holders must beofknowledgeable
the local governments.
in resourceLocal governments
management planning, implementation,
must also play an active supervisory role (including
management, and monitoring & evaluation (see GIZ’s MOREFORESTs knowledge
monitoring) of those previously issued tenure within their
product for more information).
territorial boundaries.
31
Both DENR and local governments should ensure that the tenure holders abide
by the rules. A Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP) should be prepared before a CMA
can be signed. This is to ensure that management practices are in accordance with
the appropriate land uses and management prescriptions to be followed by the
sub-management agreement applicants. The conditions for the issuance of sub-
management agreements are stipulated in the local ordinance drafted by the Steering
Committee and approved by the legislative body of the municipal government. The
ordinance will solicit the roles and responsibilities of the co-management partners
including the sub-management agreement holder, DENR and local government. The
sub-management agreements endorsed by the DENR could be used later as a proof
to process the utilization permits for timber harvesting.
Even though the basic principles of joint management of public forestland were already
formulated in the Local Government Code in the year 1991, the implementation of
this policy is relatively new. So far, clear national guidelines for the implementation of
CMA are still missing and thus interpretation of the CMA approach varies between
regions. Some regions see CMA as a strategy to grant upland occupants with land
tenure rights in form of sub-management agreements, while others only recognize it as
a strategy to establish a joint decision-making body, without mandate for the issuance
of sub-management agreements. In regions where CMA as land tenure instrument
already exists, an in-depth evaluation has not yet taken place. But it is clear that
implementation of CMA, strongly depends on LGUs, its interest and resources.
MOREFORESTs About the Framework
32
Ecological Benefits from
Agroforestry
33
“Agroforestry provides threatened species

with migratory channels and breathing room.
Human communities also benefit from improved
environmental services.”
Ecological Benefits from

Agroforestry
Agroforestry provides multiple benefits to people living in the uplands.
Establishment of agroforestry systems helps restore environmental and watershed
functions of uplands. Recovered environmental services strengthens the capacity
of uplands to supply different amenities, e.g. food, fodder or fuel for people living
nearby and in the lowlands. Furthermore, agroforestry strengthens the resilience of
an area to natural hazards, such as flooding or landslides. It also increases an area’s
carbon and water storage capacities, reduces soil erosion, and protects biodiversity.
Agroforestry and Biodiversity
Agroforestry systems in the tropics can resemble natural habitats and therefore
play an important role in conserving biodiversity. Species that are not able to adapt
to the conversion of natural forest into a more open land cover can find valuable
substitute habitats in agroforestry systems .It is important nevertheless to preserve
undisturbed habitat for all those species that are forest dependent and are likely to
be lost with the conversion of their natural habitat into farming systems.
A review of 36 studies found that species similarity between natural forest patches
and complex agroforestry systems was 65 percent for mammals and 25 percent for
herbaceous plants.15 Furthermore, agroforestry systems can form a matrix around
the remaining forest patches that facilitates interpatch migration of species and
therewith allows keeping up the gene flow between subpopulations in fragmented
habitats.
According to a GIZ study (Annex 3) that quantified biodiversity in different

agroforestry systems common in the Philippines, coffee plantations, compared to
most agroforestry systems and mahogany, have a high diversity of plant function
types (PFTs). Overall results also support the hypothesis that human influence
and the disturbance regime (land use intensity and management practices) are the
major factors in determining the richness of species in agricultural systems.
The GIZ study shows that low input systems such as native coffee plantations
show high PFT values because of its complex vegetation structure. Meanwhile,
coconut monocropping systems and mahogany plantations have low PFT values.
The transformation from low input systems (e.g. native coffee) to more intensive
agricultural practices go hand in hand with the deterioration of soil conditions
and a loss of functional diversity.
15 Bhagwat, S. et al. (2008). Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity. Trends in

Ecology and Evolution, 23(5), 261-67.
34
Chapter 4 Ecological Benefits from Agroforestry
35
Figure 9. Shannon Index Values derived from Plant Function Types for different agroforestry
systems in Leyte
Agroforestry and carbon storage
The potential of agroforestry systems to increase carbon stocks is recognized globally and in the Philippines.
Different studies of carbon storage and sequestration have shown that establishment of agroforestry systems
can increase carbon sequestration and storage. A strategy for carbon sequestration in the forestry sector
includes the establishment of permanent agroforestry plots to substitute for slash-and-burn agriculture
and to conserve old-growth forests. A study on the carbon sequestration of agroforestry systems in the
Philippines shows that agroforestry measures’ capacity to sequester carbon is second only to short rotation
16
timber plantations. Another study pointed out that the establishment of agroforestry in smallholders’
production systems in the Philippine uplands can result in the storage of 350 Mg/ha in 60 years.17

The ecological functions, including carbon sequestration potential, of agroforestry systems in Leyte have
18
been assessed. Amounts of sequestered CO2 during 10 and 20 year periods were estimated under the
land use systems such as grassland, rainforestation, and fast-growing timber plantation. The results show
that rainforestation* has the highest potential for carbon sequestration. Another study found that carbon
storage in the Philippines through agroforestry is less costly than it is via a pure tree-based system.19 In
general, the restoration of degraded tropical lands has the potential to sequester significant amounts of
carbon at moderate costs through agroforestry activities.
* Rainforestation is an agroforestry system developed in the 1990s by the GIZ and the Visayas State University. Its goal was
to rehabilitate degraded forestlands using native tree species. It was adopted as a rainforestation strategy by DENR in 2004.
16 Lasco, R. & Pulhin, J. (2006). Environmental Impacts of Community-Based Forest Management in the Philippines
International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 5(1), 46-56.
17 Roshetko J., Lasco, R. Delos Angeles, M. (2007). Smallholder Agroforestry Systems for Carbon Storage.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12.
36
GIZ conducted a study on carbon storage in agroforestry systems (Annex 4). The study compared carbon
storage in different agroforestry systems and forest plantations in Leyte Island. Based on the study, large
trees such as mahogany and native timber trees were very important contributors to all agroforestry systems.
This was true even for coconut based systems. In the coconut and fruit tree based systems, all timber trees
combined contributed nearly as much to the total carbon content as coconut trees did, despite their much
lower stocking density (55 timber trees per ha vs. 167 coconut trees per ha). Of the agroforestry systems
studied the coffee agroforestry systems hold very high carbon stocks in both large canopy trees as well as the
sub-canopy coffee trees. Coffee plants make up 40.7% of the carbon stocks of this system (See Figure 9).
The small stature of these trees is compensated for by their very high density (1,218 trees per ha).
The Philippines stands to gain from its forests. Two international environmental treaties the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity have provisions
to extend financial resources a to developing countries for global environmental benefits. The mechanism
“Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD or REDD-Plus)” was designed
under the UNFCCC to REDD integrate forest carbon into the international mechanism on greenhouse
gas emissions reductions. A global agreement on such a mechanism is yet to be reached as current efforts are
focused on preparing institutions in developing countries for REDD+ payments. In addition,an agreement
between the World Bank and individual countries to set up forest carbon funds is still pending. Prices for
carbon sequestration were in recent years rated between US$10 and US$30 per ton.
Figure 10. The carbon storage potential of different crops in several agroforestry production
systems in Leyte.
Species Contribution to C Total by System

16
14
12 Abaca
Banana
10 Cacao
Mg C ha-1
Coconut
8
Coffee
6 Gmelina
Native Timber
4 Fruit
Mahogany
2
0
Coco+Roots Timber+Roots Coco+Fruit Timber+Fruit Coffee
18 Marohn, C. (2007). Rainforestation farming on Leyte island, Philippines – aspects of soil fertility and carbon
sequestration potential. Hohenheim: University of Hohenheim.
19 Shively, G. et al. (2003). Carbon sequestration in a tropical landscape: an econo-model to measure its
incrimental cost. Agroforestry Systems, 60, 189-97.
37
© Photo by ANGOC
“Agroforestry makes for healthy soils, reducing erosion and

ensuring that the nutrients are well circulated in the slopes”
Agroforestry and soil protection
Multistorey cropping is the most common agroforestry system in the Visayas. Thus, in most parts of
the region, soil degradation is not a major problem. Multistorey systems allow deep rooted timber trees
to stabilize the soil, the canopies provide shade and the synergy between trees and crops help circulate
nutrients. However, in some parts of the Visayas monocropping in forestlands are prevalent, with sugarcane
and maize as the most common crops. Monocropping on sloping lands have caused soil erosion and soil
nutrient leaching.
Several studies have compared soil loss and its impacts between adopters and non-adopters of hedgerow
intercropping on steep slopes in Philippine uplands. Results show that soil loss and water run-off was lower
in most cases when crops were cultivated in the hedgerow intercropping systems.
20 Lasco, R. & Pulhin, J. (2006). Environmental Impacts of Community-Based Forest Management in the
Philippines. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 5(1), 46-56.
38
SALT technology was shown to have positive environmental effects on soil conservation relative to the
baseline (a farm without SALT).20 Other studies have revealed that agroforestry systems have lower water
surface runoff compared to monoculture cash crop farming. In Leyte Island (Philippines), it was found that
the use of hedgerows reduced surface runoff by 15% in the first year and 31% in the second year compared
to the control plot with no contour hedgerows.21
The World Agroforestry Center’s research station in Claveria, Misamis Oriental has analyzed the effect of
natural vegetative strips (NVS) in an agroforestry system on soil loss. The research shows that establishment
of NVS ssubstantially reduces soil loss. Results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Soil loss on steep slopes caused by missing erosion prevention

measures22
Relationship between Natural Vegetative Strips (NVS) and soil loss in the
uplands of Claveria (Misamis Oriental)
Treatments Distance Soil loss (kg/ ha)

between NVS
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(m)
T1- no NVS 23,277 53,832 38,555
T2- one NVS at 8 7,825 21,924 14,875

the middle of
the slope
T3- three NVS 4 6,035 17,810 11,922
T4- seven NVS 2 5,282 8,298 6,790
T7- fifteen NVS 1 3,180 2,254 2,717
In areas with no NVS, soil loss was triple compared to production systems with NVS every four meters (T3).
In terms of agronomic yield higher productivity per plant almost compensate the reduced cropping area
caused by NVS. On a longer run (beyond the three year) it is believed that soil loss will reduce agronomic
yield much more.
21 Dano, A. & Siapno, F. (1992). The effective of soil conservation structures in steep cultivate
mountain regions of the Philippines. IAHS Publication.
22 Mercado. A. et al.(1997). Enhancing sloping land management technology adoption
and dissemination. Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry Center.
39
Economic Benefits from
Agroforestry
41
“The uplands can be a source of income for poor

communities, if only it is used for farming crops
and trees in a sustainable and professional way”
Economic Benefits from

Agroforestry
Methodology and results for calculation of economic profitability
of different crops and production systems in the Uplands
Farming is the main income source in rural areas and strengthening the agricultural
sector in rural areas remains the best mean for eradicating poverty in rural areas.
Farmers’ cultivation practices are based on indigenous knowledge; detailed

analysis on costs and revenues of their preferred crops and practices are usually
not done since they only farm for household consumption. It is thus necessary to
analyze farm productivity using farm economics before the start of any project to
understand where the interventions can be implemented in order to achieve an
impact of improved livelihood opportunities.
The economic benefits of different crops or agricultural production systems can

be examined by using Gross Margin (GM) Calculation, Return on Labor and
Net Present Value (NPV) Calculation. GIZ conducted various studies (Annex 2
and 5) using these indicators for calculating profitability of different crops and
production systems. Normally the economic viability and profitability of any
food/forest crops is assessed using the indicator Internal Rate of Return (IRR),
where over the entire lifespan of the production system the NPV is computed as
the underlying indicator for the IRR.
Gross Margin
Gross margin as an indicator shows how much of the revenue is left to pay fixed
costs when all variable costs are subtracted:
(1) GM=R-VC
where R is the revenue (yield times price); VC are variable costs (material input
costs plus labor costs).
Variable costs are generally estimated for a fixed period of time, as a year or a season,
and depend on the kind of activity performed by farmers. For example, seed and
fertilizer costs depend on the crop type to be planted; amount of labor required
also changes from crop to crop. Other variable costs might include seedlings,
agrochemicals, hired labor, etc. Gross margin is, therefore, a useful decision-
making instrument. Fixed costs are not included in this calculation because they
have to be paid anyway (e.g. insurance, maintenance for building), independently
from farmers’ decision whether and what to plant. For annual crops, the gross
margin shows which crops should be planted in order to have the highest income
or to keep an agricultural business running.
42
Chapter 5 Economic Benefits from Agroforestry
43
For perennial crops, which are often planted in the agroforestry system, this indicator is of limited use since
it only applies to one year. It is therefore not suitable for comparing crops with different lifespan.
Net Present Value is the difference between the present value of cash inflows and the present value of cash
outflows. NPV is used in capital budgeting to analyse the profitability of an investment or project and
calculated as follows:
Where t is the current year and r is the discount rate. When comparing agricultural production systems one
must consider several aspects such as the combination of crops (annual or perennial), the age of the crops
and the material and labor input used to establish the system. In order to make these features comparable,
they are expressed in monetary terms and the costs are subtracted from the benefits. Then all values are
dated to the same year (discounted). The resulting value is the gross margin of the agroforestry system from
several years expressed in the value of one year. For crops that require several years until first harvest (e.g.
perennials like fruit trees and timber trees, but also coconut) it is necessary to compare not only one year of
their lifespan but assess the whole length of their rotation age
The NPV in GIZ studies was calculated using a 25-year time frame and a discount factor of 10%. When
calculating gross margins for years before and after the current year, a multiplier has been used to adjust for
changes in harvest for perennial crops.
It is assumed that after the first year, amount of harvest for a perennial crop would on average increase by
multiplier until it reaches the year of full harvest and stays constant since then. Median values of multipliers
for perennial crops were calculated based on data from individual farms and then applied for calculation of
gross margins for all farmers.
Return to Labour as an indicator depicts the income earned for each day of labour invested in the production
of a specific crop. Labour is a limiting factor in many agricultural enterprises. It is important to understand
how effective labour is for obtaining a given amount of gross margin and for comparing which crop achieves
highest returns for the amount of labour invested. Return on Labor is calculated as follows:
where OC_fm is the opportunity cost of family labour input in crop production. It is added to GM,
because previously, when calculating gross margins, costs of family labour were also accounted for and were
evaluated at the minimum wage rate in order to depict opportunity costs. FL indicates amount of family
labour spent for producing specific crops (man days). RoL is measured in Philippine Pesos (PhP) per man
day.

44
“ The most common upland agricultural systems in the Visayas -

sugarcane and coconut monocropping - are the most profitable
for farmers, yet the most unsustainable for the environment.”
By using GM, NPV and RoL calculation GIZ analyzed crop production from 163 farms in Leyte and Panay
Island. Economic indicators for more than 400 different production systems and crops were calculated.
Results show that food crops such as sweet potatoes (camote), cassava and taro root (gabi) have negative
gross margins, since these products are not cultivated for market sale, but mainly for self-consumption.
Cash crops such as abaca, cocoa, coconut, coffee, rubber and fruit trees have high potential for realizing a
net income (expressed in gross margin in the 25th year) ranging from Php 20,000 to Php100,000 per ha.
However, having a closer look on the data shows high variation. The variation coefficient for the different
crops was calculated to be up to 180%. Also statistical test such as Chi-SquaredTest indicates a non-normal
distribution of the data set. Even the data set is composed of more than 400 cropping activities variation
coefficient and statistical tests indicate a sample size which is too small for getting representative results.
Furthermore, the wide array of results of the economic indicators for the same crop indicates that the type of
crop is not the main contributing factor for profitability of the farmers’ cropping activity. It becomes clear
that management practice have much more influence on profitability than crop choice.
Table 5. Results of economic indicators for crop profitability analysis
Crop N* Gross Margin NPV Price per kg

25th year
Php/ha Php/man day Php/ha Php/kg
Abaca 18 23913,39 327.72 26,651.50 28.02
Sweet potato 30 7824,87 151.40 99,300.90 10.01
Cassava 31 3625,45 169.97 23,139.90 20.36
Cacao 5 54718,00 788.40 234,597.60 53.60
Coconut 78 55284,59 997.59 1624,04.84 27.29
Coffee 12 20270,42 880.50 200,068.22 27.75
Corn 15 9619,60 562.27 267,095.11 15.73
Jackfruit 27 48086,89 302.85 -96,634.52 30.49
Lanzones 16 12319,50 762.06 20,104.38 20.88
Mango 14 59709,57 990.86 147,912.21 29.50
Pineapple 15 -12961,80 113.13 -90,789.93 22.40
Rambutan 11 -15668,00 99.55 -251,900.77 9.27
Rice 28 11940,93 775.54 173,814.04 16.87

Banana 37 5402,84 275.24 7,300.32 11.62
Durian 7 68243,71 1,154.86 268,526.86 43.00
Taro 9 -123860,00 49.44 -1,124,282.67 12.22
Rubber 5 93748,80 1,139.60 320,011.80 47.80
Sugarcane 12 28656,50 2,766.92 260,972.42 13.17
45
Upland Agriculture in the Philippines - Potential and Challenges Chapter 5 Economic Benefits from Agroforestry
Even results for gross margins are relatively low, results from return to labor calculation is surprisingly
high. Since return to labor is calculated by dividing gross margin by total labor input, high return to labor
indicates a low total labor input in farming activities. Economic indicators calculated show that the most
profitable crops are also the most prevalent in the area. It is no wonder why people plant them.
Table 5 reflects the situation in the Visayas, where sugarcane and coconut monocropping systems are widely
adopted. These crops are more profitable than fruit trees because there are ready markets for these and they
require less inputs and investments.
Rubber, cocoa, coffee are emerging cash crops in the region. They were only introduced to farmers recently
as a viable sources of income. But since the market for these products are not yet mature, farmers have yet
to cultivate these crops en masse to realize their full potential.
Other crops such as taro, sweet potatoes and bananas are not widely grown in the Visayas. For most part,
farmers only grow them for household consumption and the local markets.
For fruit trees (mango, jackfruit, rambutan, lanzones, durian) only those which are fruit-bearing are reflected
in the economic analysis. However, only 13.5% of farmers cultivating fruit trees have fruit-bearing trees in
a considerable quantity due to the following reasons:
Most fruit trees are too young (68% of the fruit trees are younger than 5 years) to bear fruits.
About 57% of the fruit trees over 8 years are not bearing fruits due to reported poor climatic
conditions and/or soil quality.
Nevertheless, when having a closer look at the data, it can be observed that there is a correlation
between labor input (especially for weeding), material input (fertilizer) and harvest. Also of
interest is that those farmers who report fruit bearing trees have more than 20 fruit trees and
spend a considerable share of their time in managing fruit trees.
46
A major problem that can be observed in the field is that farmers do not consider fruit trees
as cash crop. They plant them because of environmental issues or if they get seedlings for
free (e.g. in the frame of CBFM projects). It can be observed that areas where fruit trees are
planted, are not maintained (e.g. cogon grass is sometimes higher than the seedlings). It is
obvious that fruit trees can only contribute to farmer’s income when trees are professionally
managed (regular weeding, pruning, fertilization and pest control).
Farmers do not have an incentive to maintain trees because they often do not know where to
market the fruits.
For cash crops like coffee and cocoa, similar problems in the uplands of Leyte and Panay have been observed.
Coffee is one of the most promoted agroforestry crop in government programs. GIZ collected data on coffee
production for 22 upland farms and the data set of yield level varies significantly between farmers, ranging
from 33kg/ha to 370kg/ha. According to DA data, the potential yield could be more than 1000 kg/ha.
However, coffee production in the uplands has not been professionalized. The plants are not maintained and
left to weeds and pests.
In the frame of the GIZ-Nestlé collaboration, and discussed in the MOREFORESTS knowledge product,
farmers receive high quality planting material and training. The involvement of the private sector improves
farmers’ knowledge through training delivery and it ensures market access. Access to market and improved
knowledge will consequently lead to a professionalized coffee production, better quality and higher yields.
Reality Check: Wasted potentials and missed opportunities
When it comes to the economic performance (gross margins) of various crops, there is a wide discrepancy
between the data from Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (DA-BAS) and GIZ.
The variation is explained by the fact that DA-BAS data mainly stem from A&D land, whereas GIZ data
was only collected from public land (forestland). Table 6 shows that commodity prices are similar, but yield
estimates for analyzed crops in the uplands differ enormously.
Table 6. Comparison of Gross Margin (PhP/ha), yield (kg/ha) and price (PhP/kg) between
GIZ and DA-BAS data
GM, PhP/ ha Yield, kg/ ha Price, PhP/ kg
crop type Studies BAS Studies BAS Studies BAS

camote 7825 49608 3907 4946 10.01 10.03
cassava 3625 55239 6122 9656 5.36 5.73
coffee 20270 43739 669 779 27.75 56.15
corn 9620 26316 3462 2204 15.73 11.94
mango 59709 107972 2187 4359 29.5 24.77
pineapple -12962 185996 2939 37051 22.4 5.02
rice 11941 47621 3342 3350 16.87 14.2
durian 68244 111982 1371 4117 43 27.2
47
The reasons why upland agriculture cannot meet the DA-BAS estimated yield potential are manifold. Apart
from lower soil quality in the uplands there are also institutional factors to contend with:
Absence of or insufficient land use rights, which discourages farmers to invest resources (labor and
capital) in upland agriculture. Data shows very minimal labor input (especially for soil preparation
and crop management). Material inputs (seedlings, fertilizer, pest control, machinery) in most of the
cases are not existent.
Lack of proof of land ownership closes off access to financing for investment in material inputs.
Lack of knowledge in modern and professional farming techniques due to non-existence of agricultural
extension service in the uplands (e.g. alley cropping vs. multi-storey cropping).
Limited access to markets because of missing infrastructure (e.g. farm to market roads, storage
facilities) and cooperatives which might be useful for reducing transaction costs in marketing.
Lack of incentives for farming through availability of external income sources, e.g. remittances of
family members, high migration of younger generation from uplands to lowlands and aging farming
population.
48
Challenges to overcome
49
“Government programs most often focus on

distribution of seedlings to farmers and intervention
stops there. However, successful approaches have
to consider support for the entire value chain.”
Challenges to overcome
Why do we have a low adoption rate of recommended agroforestry
systems?
The slow rate of farmer adoption of improved agroforestry practices (e.g. alley
cropping) on sloping lands in the Philippines has been disappointing to many
advocates of these systems. And even if land cultivation technologies are well known
in some places, the extent of their use has been limited. The overwhelming rate of
population growth in the uplands has made it difficult for most farmers to adapt
their practices rapidly enough to forestall serious land degradation.23 Experience
from other countries also shows that the adoption of agroforestry systems is
influenced by several economic and policy factors such as profitability, household
benefits, equity, sustainability, soil conservation, environmental services, markets
for inputs and outputs, gender, and institutions (e.g. property rights).
The success of the Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT) in Mindanao

was due to the efforts of non-government organizations that persevered in working
with farmers. Even if the technology has been around for quite some time, SALT
is not well known in the Philippines and consequently not adopted. A number of
factors are believed to cause this slow adoption: the high amount of labor needed
to establish and manage the hedgerows; the lack of ready sources of planting
materials; and the fact that hedgerows may reduce crop yields through their strong
above and below ground competition with the crop.
Filipino farmers are also often not convinced of the financial viability of tree farming
in the slopes. In upland areas outside CBFM sites the adoption of commercial tree
planting is very low. Those who have adopted it struggle financially because of poor
germplasm and silvicultural management. Farmers also have little confidence in
commercial tree planting as the promise of profits made by government extension
workers in the 1980s was not realized. This promise was based on overoptimistic
timber yields of fast-growing trees and the high timber price prevalent in the past.
Communities and farmers who have tried tree farming also found the current
market for timber disheartening due to numerous institutional constraints.
Executive Order 23, which bans logging in primary forests, slowed down the
issuance of permits to harvest trees and made the market more restrictive. POs and
farmers complain of stringent DENR requirements: the issuance of resource use
permit usually takes more than a year and requires a lot of technical support. These
protective regulations, while helping to check illegal removals from the forest, have
undoubtedly inhibited smaller tree planters from planting forest trees. In order to
benefit from tree planting they must go through the laborious and often expensive
process of acquiring cutting permits.
Furthemore, based on the experience of GIZ while dealing with POs, it is costly
to harvest and transport their timber products, which are seen as low quality by
buyers. DENR also extracts costly fees from the revenues of the harvested tree
products that render the scheme less profitable to tree farmers.
50
Chapter 6 Challenges to overcome
23 Cramb, R. (2001). Agricultural Land Degradation in the Philippine Uplands: An Overview Canberra.
51
Administrative Order No. 98 – 42, which mandates the equitable sharing of forest
resources under CBFM plans, does not differentiate between unprocessed and
processed timber products, which disincentivize farmers from adding value to their
products. Communities and farmers also do not have market linkages and are often
taken advantage of by buyers.
“The more secure farmers are in their land use

rights, the more they invest in their land. One such
investment are trees. According to a GIZ study, plots
that have tenure security have 180% more trees than
plots without security”
The problem of tenure insecurity
Tenure security is crucial in achieving increased farm productivity and a sustainable

management of uplands. Only when farmers have secure land use rights are they
willing to invest in their farms and have the incentive to keep it productive as long as
possible (e.g. by integrating trees or hedgerows to prevent soil loss and soil nutrient
leaching).
In 2012, GIZ commissioned a study (Annex 6) assessing the influence of land tenure
on the sustainability of agricultural practices in the uplands of Leyte province. The
research focused on two main aspects. It evaluated of the determinants and constraints
to the extent of tree keeping, which was assessed by running a regression analysis.
Problems in land administration processes were also examined based on interviews
with government officials and discussions with farmers.
52
Results from the regression model are presented in Table 7. The results of the model
show that plot level characteristics are important in explaining the extent of tree
farming on a plot. Distance from the homestead, plot size, years since the household
got first access to the plot, and possession of a tenure instrument are all significantly
different from zero at a level of significance of at least 10 percent. The outcomes of
the regression confirm the main hypothesis that having a tenure instrument increases
the extent of tree keeping on the respective plot. The number of trees on a plot with
tenure agreement is more than 180 percent higher than on plots without tenure
security, everything else being equal. Thus, only looking at the number of trees,
the assumption that having a tenure agreement influences sustainable land use is
confirmed.
53
Table 7. Results of regression model showing significant factors for tree farming

Number of trees Share of trees
Coefficient S.d. a (exp(b_i)-1) Coefficient S.d. a (exp(b_i)-1)
Plot characteristics
Distance 0.3707* 0.1973 0.4487 0.3436 0.2095 0.4100
Steepness (dummy) 0.2280 0.2398 0.2561 0.2472 0.2507 0.2804
Plot size 0.3166** 0.1424 0.3725 -0.1743 0.1466 -0.1600
Years plot 0.0386*** 0.0107 0.0394 0.0387*** 0.0103 0.0395
Agreement (dummy) 1.0519*** 0.2906 1.8630 1.1253*** 0.3009 2.0811
Household characteristics
Extension 0.2266** 0.0947 0.2543 0.1817* 0.0976 0.1993
Support (dummy) 0.8504*** 0.2602 1.3406 0.7897*** 0.2683 1.2027
Land owned 0.0447 0.0733 0.0457 0.0571 0.0759 0.0588
Actives per ha -0.0587 0.0542 -0.0570 0.0572 0.0588 0.0589
Age -0.0437*** 0.0134 -0.0428 -0.0409*** 0.0133 -0.0401
Education -0.0451 0.0406 -0.0441 -0.0464 0.0414 -0.0453
Wealth -0.0990 0.1456 -0.0943 -0.0703 0.1533 -0.0679
Constant 3.9146*** 0.8840 49.1290 4.3191*** 0.9474 74.1210
Number of plot observations 135 135
Number of HH 96 96
F(12,122) 10.31*** 4.86***
R² 0.4388 0.3051
general R² 0.4200 0.1648
Robust standard deviations

* significant at 10 percent level of error probability
** significant at 5 percent level of error probability
*** significant at 1 percent level of error probability
These observations point towards the importance of continuing the issuance of tenure instruments to the
upland population in order to encourage environmentally sustainable land management practices.
A poverty index composing the dimensions housing quality, asset ownership, food consumption and human
resources was calculated for households with and without tenure right. Comparing the poverty index scores
of households who have a tenure agreement to those of households who do not have any tenure agreement
shows that there is a significant difference between these two groups. Figure 11 shows that households with
at least one plot under a tenure agreement are always less poor than those without tenure.
54
Figure 11. Sample cumulative frequency of the poverty index by

tenure status
- No Tenure Tenure
“In many upland places, farmers have never seen an

agricultural extension worker”
The devolved extension service system
Agricultural extension services help spread new technology and knowledge to farmers, enabling them to
innovate and be more productive. Before 1991, the provision of technical assistance to farmers was a
responsibility of the Department of Agriculture (DA). With the enactment of the Local Government Code
in 1991, agricultural extension services, along with health services and other functions, fell under the auspices
of the local government which operates at the provincial, municipal, and village levels. The devolution of
services aimed to democratize and customize the provision of basic services to better fit citizens’ needs. By
granting autonomy to LGUs, it was expected that the delivery of services would be faster and more efficient.
However, conflicts eventually arose at the operational level.
Since 50% of the nation’s lands are considered public and under the control of the national government,
specifically the DENR, the management of the upland areas has become fraught with ambiguity. LGUs do
not have the mandate to manage forests on their own and provide agriculture extension services there since
these lands are owned by the national government.
In the Visayas, upland farmers generally do not garner as much attention from extension workers as lowland
farmers, as they live on lands that are managed by the DENR. This preferential treatment has resulted in a
lack of information regarding who has access to extension services in the uplands and what the impacts of
such services are. More importantly, this situation left upland farmers with little knowledge on best farming
practices.
55
LGUs often do not have the funds or the technical capacity to see an upland agriculture
project through. Many agricultural extension workers have been demoralized by the
devolution, which brought about early resignations. In places like Leyte, Agricultural
Technologists meant to be devolved to Provincial or Municipal Agriculturist positions,
were sometimes placed in posts unrelated to their job descriptions, working in other
departments or even as traffic officers.
“A joint DENR-LGU management scheme is crucial

for providing agricultural extension in the uplands”
Co-management agreements between the national government agencies and the local
government can resolve the conflict on who has the authority and responsibilities in
the uplands. Under a co-management plan, LGUs and DENR share accountability
and responsibility for giving upland parcels to qualified claimants and stakeholders
based on appropriate and technically sound forest management plans. By involving
the LGUs, agricultural technicians employed by the LGU can play a role in providing
agricultural extension to upland farmers.
There is a need to strengthen links between the national government agencies and
the local governments to support the decentralized management of uplands. The
two parties should concretely define their roles and responsibilities. The national
government needs to be proactive in reaching out to the local workers and intensify
knowledge transfer, while the local side should make sure that their approaches follow
the national framework. Coordination between the two parties could plug the hole in
the delivery of agroforestry extension services to the upland areas.
“Farmers in the uplands are keen to plant cash

crops, but they have nowhere to sell it”
Poor market access for smallholders
The upland farmers’ access to markets is precarious. In many past government-

supported agroforestry projects, cash crop farmers found themselves too far from
the market and with no infrastructure and facilities that could reduce the transaction
costs and extend the shelf life of their products. Therefore, the support of market
development in the uplands is highly recommended to make these crops a viable
source of income. The support and facilitation of public private partnerships (PPP)
with companies interested in expanding their production could also help farmers. This
has been observed in a project by GIZ and Nestlé Philippines, which is documented
in GIZ’s MOREFORESTs knowledge product.
There is an increasing demand for cash crops and world prices for most agricultural
commodities are on a high level. Integrating small scale farmers into inclusive business
models will give them a chance to get out of poverty.
56

Still, this must be done carefully as experiences from other places have shown that
a high dependency of farmers on a single big company buyer makes them highly
vulnerable to price policies by them. This should be taken into account when
designing projects which supports integration of smallholders in larger supply chains.
In general, the integration of smallholder farmers into lucrative supply chains is crucial
to development and poverty alleviation. The GIZ partnership farming approach is an
example of out-grower schemes that is emerging as an alternative to contract farming.
The concept links smallholder agriculture with large-scale processing; the private
sector invests in training farmers and as a result can meet its quality and sustainability
standards with the steady product supply from partnered farmers. Partnership farming
is characterized by careful market analysis by the private sector, examining the value
chain starting with the consumer to see what opportunities exist; investments by
the public sector in infrastructure to make transport more efficient and to improve
post-harvest activities; organization of farmers into well-informed groups with better
bargaining power; and education of farmers by both the public and private sectors
so that farmers may become independent entrepreneurs who are well trained in their
respective commodities. Partnership farming could be an effective tool for sustainable
pro-poor development and be mutually beneficial to large agribusinesses.
57
However, partnership farming in the Philippines is not widespread and has often fallen
short of its promises. A GIZ study (Annex 7) of such arrangement between coconut farmers
and a coconut oil producer in Leyte showed that the anticipated higher income and yield
for farmers did not materialize due to flaws in the program, according to quantitative and
qualitative analyses of the project. It was thought that the farmers who joined the program
would have higher yields because of input supply and the extension services offered by the
private company, but it was discovered during interviews that farmer training sessions are
few and far between.
Financial assistance to farmers was also non-existent and the collectors employed by the
company did not follow pricing standards and withheld incentives paid to farmers.
Experiences from other countries however, have shown that partnership farming can help
alleviate rural poverty. Schemes such as this needs close monitoring to ensure that private
companies follow the contract and are transparent in their pricing. Farmers should also be
trained on best farming practices.
58
Modeling sustainable
agroforestry systems
59
“New tools and approaches can help policy makers

and researchers find the best interventions for
farmers.”
Modeling sustainable agroforestry

systems
Model for Assessing the Sustainability of Agroforestry Systems
(MASAS)
In order to assess multiple and diverse agroforestry parcels in terms of their
potential to generate economic, environmental and social benefits, the Seminar für
Ländliche Entwicklung (SLE) developed on behalf of GIZ a model for assessing
the sustainability of agroforestry systems, called MASAS.
MASAS is based on quantitative and qualitative indicators that are measured for
each agroforestry parcel examined. The indicators operationalize the variables
identified for the assessment of sustainability (see Section 3.1 and Table 3). The
resulting data is then put into a scoring table, the MASAS Matrix, to compare the
individual systems against each other, and to assess their sustainability. The final
result will be a numeric score, called the MASAS score. The higher its MASAS
score, the more sustainable an agroforestry system is. The MASAS score ranges
between 1 (not sustainable) and 5 (highly sustainable).
For the measurement of the three sustainability dimensions (economic, social,

ecological) various indicators were used. For the economic dimension the study team
used gross margin, labor input, required material input. For the social dimension
indicators measured were complexity to manage and ability of agroforestry system
to meet nutritional needs. The ecological dimension included the measurement of
carbon storage potential, impacts on soil fertility and water storage potential.
The different steps necessary to put the model to work (such as the selection,
scaling and weighting of indicators) are shown in Figure 12.
60
Chapter 7 Modeling sustainable agroforestry systems
61
Upland Agriculture
Upland in the
Agriculture Philippines
in the - Potential
Philippines andand
- Potential Challenges
Challenges
Figure
Figure12.13.Development
Developmentof ofMASAS
MASAS

In the course of the study, 100 parcels belonging to 90 different farmers
In the course of the study, 100 parcels belonging to 90 different farmers were examined.
were examined. Following the method outlined above, the average MASAS score was
Following the method outlined above, the average MASAS score was generated for
generated for six strata of agroforestry systems: banana-based, coconut- based, coffee-
six strata of agroforestry systems: banana-based, coconut- based, coffee-based, fruit
based, fruit tree based, rubber-based, and timber tree based agroforestry systems. The
tree-based, rubber-based, and timber tree-based agroforestry systems. The result of
result of this computation is shown in Figure 14. It demonstrates that timber tree-
this computation is shown in Figure 13. It demonstrates that timber tree-based
based systems score highest (3.26 on a scale from 1 to 5), followed by rubber-based
systems score highest (3.26 on a scale from 1 to 5), followed by rubber-based systems
systems (3.13) and coffee-based systems (3.12). Coconut-based systems score lowest
(3.13) and coffee-based systems (3.12). Coconut-based systems score lowest (2.76).
(2.76).Looking at the scores for the three sustainability dimensions, considerable
Looking at the scores for the three sustainability dimensions, considerable differences
differences can be noted both between the six strata of agroforestry systems and
can be noted both between the six strata of agroforestry systems and between the
between the MASAS dimensions. While the timber tree based stratum scored high on
MASAS dimensions. While the timber tree-based stratum scored high on every
every dimension, other strata (e.g., banana-based and coconut-based systems) scored
dimension, other strata (e.g., banana-based and coconut-based systems) scored low
low on the environmental dimension and high on the socio-economic dimension.
on the environmental dimension and high on the socio-economic dimension. In the
In the case of the coffee-based and fruit tree based strata, the economic dimension
case of the coffee-based and fruit tree-based strata, the economic dimension received
received much lower scores than the environmental dimension. The rubber-base
much lower scores than the environmental dimension. The rubber-base strata scored
strata scored high on both the environmental and the socio-economic dimension but
high on both the environmental and the socio-economic dimension but received the
received the lowest score of all strata for the variable farmers acceptance of establishing
lowest score of all strata for the variable farmers acceptance of establishing agroforestry
agroforestry system (tolerance).
system (tolerance).
Even timber based systems show in theory good results the study highlights
Even timber-based systems show in theory good results the study highlights that
that farmers are not willing to establish timber-based agroforestry systems because the
farmers are not willing to establish timber-based agroforestry systems because the
issuances of Resource Use Permits (RUP) by the DENR which are required to harvest
issuances of Resource Use Permits (RUP) by the DENR which are required to harvest
timber trees are difficult to obtain for farmers.
timber trees are difficult to obtain for farmers.
In general, the numeric results for the agroforestry systems and for the strata
In general, the numeric results for the agroforestry systems and for the strata illustrated
illustrated that there is a high variance of results for the individual systems inside the
that there is a high variance of results for the individual systems inside the strata.
strata. Although the average score of the strata differ substantially (2.67 for coconut-
Although the average score of the strata differ substantially (2.67 for coconut-based
based to 3.21 for timber tree based), all strata contain very successful systems according
to 3.21 for timber tree-based), all strata contain very successful systems according to
to MASAS. On the other hand there are also subpar results for every stratum.
MASAS. On the other hand there are also subpar results for every stratum.
6262
This indicates that none of the six strata and their primary crops should be discounted,
while none of them seems to be inherently successful as well. Consequently, the study
concludes that main factors determining the sustainability of agroforestry systems is
not the crop choice alone, instead other factors such as tenure security, market access
and professionalized crop management are at least equally important.
MASAS is a useful tool, but it has caveats. The main one involves data gathering.
The research team found that the sample size was not representative and that there
was a heavy reliance on secondary sources due to the complexity of the agroforestry
systems studied. Furthermore, for some indicators that were supposed to be part of the
project, there were either no or incomplete information available.
Figure 13. Average MASAS score for different agroforestry systems
Linear Programming model for determining sustainable upland

agriculture
Mathematical models such as linear programming have a long tradition in agricultural

economics and have been used by many farm management specialists in farm planning.
These models can also be used to understand household behavior and assess policy
impacts and alternatives.
Linear programming (LP, or linear optimization) is a mathematical method for

determining a way to achieve the best outcome (such as maximum profit or lowest
cost) in a given mathematical model for some list of requirements represented as linear
relationships. It is important to understand that the word programming as used in
this context is synonymous with planning, and should not be confused with program
as used in the context of a computer program.
63
Linear programming is a branch of mathematics which has been developed over the
past half-century to deal with complex planning and investment problems arising
in industry, agriculture and government. It is used to determine the allocation of
resources that are restricted in some way in the most optimal way in accordance with
a pre-defined objective. Typical applications of linear programming in agriculture
include: allocating land to particular crops, deciding the amount of different
material inputs (e.g. fertilizer, pest control) to apply and planning a farm’s labour and
machinery needs.
Figure 14. Four basic steps in solving a problem by Linear Programming
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4
application of interpretation of
formulation of translation of the
mathematical the solution and Better
the problem and problem into the
rules and its explanation to
the collection of mathematical
procedures to the interested parties, information for
the necessary formulas of
information and Linear
problem in order such as scientists, decision-making
to obtain a policy makers and
data Programming
solution farmers
Steps 1, 2 and 4 are implemented by the modeler, whereas step 3 is almost invariably
done by a computer using purpose-built computer program such as GAMS.
A linear programming problem has three quantitative aspects: an objective, alternative

courses for achieving the objective, and resources or other restrictions. Those must be
expressed in mathematical terms so that a solution may be calculated. All mathematical
formulations contain the following three essential components:
Decision variables, whose values are to be determined and which describes a

particular course of action (e.g. the amount of land to allocate to each particular
crop)
Objective function of decision variables to be maximized, which describes the

objective (e.g. to maximize the profit of a farm by choosing the most profitable
crops)
Restrictions on the decision variable, also called constraints (e.g. the sum of land
allocated to different crops cannot exceed the total available land)
The constraints in a linear programming model can also be environmental constraints

(e.g. a minimum storage of carbon or a minimum formation of humus by choosing
a production program).
64
Figure 15. Screenshot of developed upland agriculture LP modeling
In the Philippines, studies on upland agriculture dealing with the integration of

ecological indicators into economic analysis in the Philippines are rare. Moreover,
most of the studies are limited to technical analysis and do not provide a link to other
complex issues of forest policy in the Philippines.
Thus, GIZ has worked on a methodology that integrates forest policy dimensions
(such as incentives for increased carbon storage) into analysis of farm economics
in the uplands. The methodology aims to substantiate recommendations for land
cultivation in forestland by showing how agroforestry systems in the uplands should
be established in order to achieve higher incomes and provide ecological benefits for
a forest ecosystem at the same time.
The rentability of agroforestry systems is defined as the net present value (NPV), the
sum of the discounted gross margins for chosen time duration of 25 years generated
by agroforestry measures (see Chapter 4 Economic Benefits of Agroforestry). Gross
margins were computed based on primary data for 250 agroforestry farms. A set
of environmental (e.g. humus formulation, carbon storage) and socio-economic
restrictions (e.g. minimum annuity, calorie production) form the constraints of the
model. The LP simulations using certain parameters can provide explanations and
show the impact of the cultivation practices preferred by farmers.
65
Land allocation for crops under different scenarios analyzed by Linear Programming
By running the Linear Programming the actual situation of cultivation practices in Leyte (Eastern Visayas)
can be better reflected.
Figure 16. Optimal cropping pattern - Scenario 1: Business as usual
Rice
Rice
13%
13%
Assumptions:
2 ha available land
Coconut
Coconut 0.5 ha flat land
87%
87% 1.5 ha sloping land
10,000 PhP initial capital
200 days/ year available labor
In a scenario where an upland farmer has 2 hectares available (1.5 ha on slopes and 0.5 ha on flat land) and
where he only has family labor available and he has limited access to financing, the model shows that the
farmer utilizes 13% of the land for cultivation of rice and 87% for cultivation of coconut. This scenario
approximates actual cultivation practices in Leyte, and for that in reason it can be considered as the business
as usual (BAU) scenario.
Figure 17. Optimal cropping pattern - Scenario 2: Food self-sufficiency
Coconut
Maize 32%
41% Assumptions:
2 ha available land
0.5 ha flat land
1.5 ha sloping land
Rice 20,000 PhP initial capital
Cassava 9% hired labor can be bought at 150 PhP/ day
18% Calorie requirement for 5 persons
If a farmer only has a small piece of flat land and his first priority is food security in order to be independent
from market volatility, the model suggests that he must plant rice. If the caloric demand is satisfied, he
should use the remaining area for planting cash crops (coffee, coconut, cacao) for income generation. If
the same farmer only has sloping land for farming, the model suggests replacing rice with other high caloric
crops such as the root crop cassava or maize.
66
The impact of certain farm conditions can also be simulated to guide farmers. If the farm labor is
scarce and hired labor too expensive, the model suggests that a farmer should plant crops that are not so
labor intensive (e.g. coconuts). Also, if commodity prices changes farmers can be advised how to react on it.
Figure 18. Optimal cropping pattern - Scenario 3: Access to credits
Intercropping of Mango trees

7%
Coffee
15%
Assumptions:
Coconut 2 ha available land
Rice 53% 0.5 ha flat land
25% 1.5 ha sloping land
hired labor can be bought at 150 PhP/ day
The model also simulates a scenario where a farmer has better access to financing. In this case, a farmer
allocates more land for crops that require more labor and material (seedlings, fertilizer or pesticides) for
intensive crops such as coffee. Furthermore, it suggests the farmer to start to intercrop fruit trees.
Figure 19. Optimal cropping pattern - Scenario 4: Carbon storage
Intercropping
of Mango trees
14%
Cassava Coffee Assumptions:
22% 57% 2 ha available land
0.5 ha flat land
1.5 ha sloping land
Rice hired labor can be bought at 150 PhP
7% Calorie requirement for 5 persons
LP can also show how policy options can influence decisions on farm level. A national policy that calls
for carbon sequestration will also impact farming practices (assuming necessary incentives are provided).
According to the model, the most efficient way (the most profitable with least negative impact on ecological
indicators) to achieve this in the uplands is for farmers to plant fruit trees.
67
Conclusion
69
“Extension services, market access, and tenure

security are the keys to upland development.”
Conclusion
The flight to the uplands, together with the country’s high population growth,
has transformed forestland use to permanent agriculture on fragile slopes and
is creating a new suite of social, economic, and environmental problems. The
Philippine forests in the mountains provide food, water, and raw materials not
just to communities there, but to lowlands too. The loss of upland forests could
spell disaster as these ecosystems help regulate micro-climate and mitigate extreme
weather events. Thus it is necessary to find ways to prevent the collapse of the
country’s forest ecosystems in the uplands.
Studies have shown that agroforestry has a big potential for increasing incomes,
while conserving the forest ecosystems. Adoption of profitable agroforestry practices
among Filipino farmers is low. However , there is a need to better understand rural
households and their diverse needs to improve the design, implementation, and
monitoring of agroforestry programs in the Philippines.
Filipinos have lived in the uplands for centuries. The trend of population growth
in the uplands is likely to continue over the next decades, threatening the health of
the ecosystems there. The first step in making sure that communities in the uplands
use the resources sustainably is to give them tenure security. The government has
made major steps in creating different instruments that give rights and access to
forestlands. The next step is to ensure that these instruments, which are under
the jurisdiction of different agencies, are harmonized and enforced. GIZ studies
have shown that farmers who have secure land tenure invest more in their plots. It
also gives farmers access to financing that would enable them to make their land
productive.
Agroforestry could uplift rural households from poverty. Market access in many
rural areas, however, is sporadic and unpredictable. The lack of infrastructure,
such as farm-to-market roads, hampers the delivery of agroforestry products to
© Photo by Climate Change Commission (CCC)
the market. Farmers in the provinces also do not have accurate information on
the costs of their inputs and the price of their products, leaving them at the mercy
of unscrupulous traders. The local government should provide farmers access to
the right information so that they can get a fair price. Filipino farmers should
also be integrated in the supply chains in order to get a fighting chance against
poverty. National agencies must bridge the structural gaps that put obstacles
between farmers and markets. The private sector also can help by entering into fair
partnerships with farmers.
Educating farmers is a worthwhile investment for the government. Since the

devolution of extension services to the local government units, farmers in the
uplands have rarely been in contact with agricultural workers. They have little
knowledge on efficient and profitable cultivation practices and technologies that
could increase their production. A sustainable upland agroforestry scheme needs
continued and regular inputs from local agricultural technicians. The local and
national governments should be proactive in reaching out to upland farmers.
70
Chapter 8 Conclusion
71
72
Annexes
73
Annexes
1. Economic Evaluation of Tropical Rainforests – An Application of the Contingent

Valuation Method
The study was conducted in Silago, Leyte to calculate how much the communities
there value the forest using total economic valuation approach and the contingent
valuation method. Households in the lowlands and the uplands put high value on
the municipality’s forest area, although there are perceived differences in how they
benefit from forest. The respondents also agree that protecting the primary forests is
of utmost importance, but they complain that the regulations for forestland use are
too strict so there is a need to tailor specific land-use rules to the needs of the local
population. The study shows that local communities can be a big help in can be forest
conservation and forest management.
2. Economic Analysis of Different Agro-Forestry Production Systems in the Island of

Panay, Western Visayas Region, Philippines
This GIZ study evaluates the profitability of agroforestry systems, the socioeconomic
circumstances of farmers, the major crops, and people’s organizations in the island
of Panay. It recommends that farmers need extensive external support to accomplish
the most effective production systems and management practices. There is also dearth
of infrastructure and supply chains to farmers in the region. The study recommends
public-private partnerships for the development of Panay farmers.
3. Quantifying Biodiversity in Agroforestry Systems
Human influence on forests and land use intensity impact the biodiversity in agroforestry
systems. This study conducted in Leyte shows that among the agroforestry systems
studied, coffee plantations are the most biodiverse. This is due to its low inputs and
complex vegetation structure. Coconut monocropping systems, which entail intensive
inputs and cultivation practices, have the lowest biodiversity.
4. Carbon Stocks of Agroforestry and Plantation Systems of Leyte island, the

Philippines
A comparison of carbon stocks in various agroforestry systems in Leyte. The

establishment of mahogany plantations has the biggest carbon sequestration potential.
In agroforestry systems, multi-storey cropping with timber trees and woody fruit trees
contributes the most to carbon stocks while ensuring economic benefit. In Leyte, the
carbon storage potential and the livelihood gains from the agroforestry and plantation
sites studied are limited due to lack of farmer education and extension services.
74
5. Towards Sustainable Land-Use: A Socio-economic and Environmental Appraisal of
Agroforestry Systems in the Philippine Uplands
An exploration of how agroforestry can contribute to sustainable land use and resolve
the conflict between conservation and income generation aims. The study, which looks
at agroforestry farms in Leyte and Misamis Oriental, shows that timber tree based
agroforestry systems are the most sustainable, followed by rubber-based and coffee-
based systems. It also confirms that farmers with land tenure earn more income than
those without. The study also discusses certain factors that limit the adoption of
agroforestry practices in the Philippines like insufficient extension services, market
access, lack of quality plants and seedlings etc.
6. The Influence of Insecure Land Tenure on Upland Agriculture in the Philippines
The success of an agroforestry project depends on the existence of tenure rights in an

area, according to this study, which focused on the upland areas in the Leyte region.
Its findings shows that farmers who have tenure rights plant and maintain more
trees than those farmers who do not have land security. Farmers with tenure rights
are also less poor than those without. While community-based forestry management
programs have a lot of potential in raising livelihoods and protecting forests, the scope
of this kind of initiative in the Philippines is hampered by political and institutional
constraints, rendering them unsustainable and ineffective.
7. An Economic Analysis of Partnership Farming in the Visayas
This study explores partnership farming between SC Globaland, a private coconut

processing company, and coconut farmers in Baybay, Leyte. The scheme, which aims
to cut down middlemen, promises to provide extension services to farmers, and
increase their income, is not successful due to flaws in the implementation of the
project. Farmers lacked market information and training and the company’s collectors
took share in the earnings of the farmers, rendering the idea of partnership farming
ineffective in the study site.
Please visit www.enrdph.org to download the complete annexes used in this knowledge product.
75
Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Registered offices
Bonn and Eschborn, Germany
2B PDCP Bank Center, V.A. Rufino corner L.P. Leviste Sts.

Salcedo Village, Makati City, Philippines
Contact
Dr. Walter Salzer
Program Director and Principal Advisor
Environment and Rural Development Program
Tel. +63 2 651 5137

Fax +62 2 892 3374
Email: walter.salzer@giz.de
www.enrdph.org

Upland Agriculture in The Philippines Po

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

Upland Agriculture in The Philippines Po

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Published by

Upland Agriculture in the Philippines

2/F PDCP Building

T +63 2 892 9051

Source and Copyrights

Printed and distributed by

Place and date of publication

Figures and tables 5

Acronyms and abbreviations 6

1. Why do we need sustainable Agroforestry systems in the Philippines? 10

Socio-Economic Situation in the Philippine Uplands 10

Natural Resource Degradation and Reduced Ecosystem Services in

2. Defining Upland Agriculture and Agroforestry Systems 18

Upland agriculture does not necessarily mean agroforestry 18

Agroforestry – a menu of different production systems 20

The institutional and legal framework of natural resource

Past Government Programs and its successes 26

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) 27

Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP) 27

Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) 28

Co-Management of Public Land 31

4. Ecological Benefits from Agroforestry 34

Agroforestry and biodiversity 34

Agroforestry and carbon storage 36

Agroforestry and soil protection 38

5. Economic Benefits from Agroforestry 42

Methodology and results for calculation of economic profitability of different crops

Reality Check: Wasted potentials and missed opportunities 47

Why do we have a low adoption rate of recommended Agroforestry systems? 50

The problem of tenure security 52

The devolved extension service system 55

Poor market access for smallholders 56

7. Modelling sustainable agroforestry systems 60

Model for Assessing the Sustainability of Agroforestry Systems (MASAS) 60

Linear Programming model for determining sustainable upland agriculture 63

BAS Bureau of Agricultural Statistics ISFP Integrated Social Forestry Program

BAU Business as Usual LGUs Local Government Units

CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims LP Linear Programming

DAR Department of Agrarian Reform POs People’s Organizations

DENR Department of Environment and Natural PPP Public Private Partnerships

FLUP Forest Land Use Plan RoL Return on Labor

FMB Forest Management Bureau RUP Resource Use Permits

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

“What will happen to the Philippine uplands in 40

Why do we need sustainable

Between 17 and 22 million people in the Philippines live in state-owned uplands,

It was estimated that the upland population in the 1980s to be 14 million, of

Table 1. Amount and source of income for upland households

GIZ (2012), 36,440 PhP

“The people living in the uplands survive on subsistence

Natural Resource Degradation and Reduced Ecosystem Services in the Philippine

Figure 2. Development of forest cover in the Philippines

Figure 3. Reasons for decline in forest cover

After 2nd Marcos Era Starting in

Provisioning Services Regulating Services Cultural Services

Set formation Nutrient cycling Primary production

“Agroforestry is a collective name for land-use

Defining Upland Agriculture and

Farming systems in the uplands are primarily oriented towards subsistence

Agroforestry can be identified as a special form of upland agriculture. The term

“People stick to multi-storey systems even though more

Agroforestry - a menu of different production systems

Table 2. Average annual income from different agroforestry systems in Panay