The Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP) This national program commenced in 1982, as a major

initiative in upland development, designed to maximise land productivity, enhance ecological stability
and improve socioeconomic conditions of forest occupants and communities. The ISFP ‘was launched to
consolidate all previous people oriented programmes’ (Groetschel et al. 2001, p. 61), and was to be the
major support program for people-oriented forestry. For example, in the Master Plan for Forestry
Development, the DENR (1990, p. 116) projected an expenditure in year 2005 of 1371m pesos for the
ISFP. It covered communities in open and deforested upland areas, and also mangrove areas. As noted
by Gerrits (1996), ISFP offered two forms of stewardship arrangement to upland communities. These
were the Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC) for households and the Certificate of Community
Forestry Stewardship (CCFS) for community organisations, the latter being originally known as the
Community Forestry Stewardship Agreement (CFSA). These agreements were issued for a 25-year term,
renewable for another 25 years. The program required the retention or establishment of 20% of the
area awarded as permanent forest cover and planting of fruit trees and crops and installing soil and
water conservation measures. With devolution in the Philippines, responsibility for ISFP was transferred
in 1994 from the DENR to local government units (LGUs), except for one model site in each province.
The DENR subsequently encouraged ISFP sites to integrate with CBFM (Groetschel et al. 2001).

PATRICK DUGAN
JAPAN OVERSEAS FORESTRY CONSULTANTS ASSOCIATION
PHILIPPINES

JUAN M. PULHIN
COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAñOS
PHILIPPINES

Introduction
Forest harvesting by communities offers great potential to reduce poverty in the
Philippine uplands. The country has approximately 1.5 million ha of second-growth
“production forests” that can be utilized commercially on a sustainable basis by
thousands of poor upland communities. While not as economically valuable as natural
forests, timber from tree farms also offers viable livelihood opportunities to upland
communities. Aside from timber revenue, additional income may also be generated
from branches and thinnings sold as firewood or converted to charcoal.

Most rural villagers already possess the necessary skills for manual flitching 1 of
timber from natural forests. They also know how to plant and tend tree farms since
trees have always been an important component of their farming systems.
Furthermore, policies set forth in the Community Based Forest Management (CBFM)
Program of the Philippine Government envisage active involvement of the rural poor
in the management of both tree plantations and natural forests.

Despite its immense potential to reduce rural poverty, community timber harvesting
has not been effectively harnessed by the Philippine Government. While natural
timber harvesting only requires “simple tools” to benefit the poor upland
communities, “complex procedures” continue to obstruct the realization of this
potential. We view “simple tools” to be of two types: (i) simple physical tools such as
hand saws, animal skidding2, and other simple equipment; and (ii) procedural tools
such as simple management guidelines, simple approvals, simple inventory
techniques, simple management plans, and the like. On the other hand, existing
“complex procedures” relate to a blend of policy/political, institutional, and
operational factors whose combined effects hinder the achievement of the poverty
reduction objective of CBFM. This paper reviews the opportunities and constraints for
poverty reduction through timber harvesting in upland communities, and suggests that
realizing this potential will require the reduction of “complex procedures” and
adoption of “simple tools”.

Overview of community based forest management

Until recently, policies on the commercial utilization of the country’s timber resources
consistently favored the wealthy and politically more influential concessionaires
under the so-called timber license agreements (TLAs). Such policies contributed to
the socio-economic and political marginalization of the rural population, and also to
the continuous degradation of the country’s forest resources (Broad and Cavanagh
1993; Kummer 1992; Porter and Ganapin 1988; Vitug 1993).

Following Rebugio and Chiong-Javier’s classification (1995), the evolution of

community forestry over the last three decades can be loosely divided into three
categories. First is the pioneering period from 1971 to 1980. This term saw the
adoption of three major people-oriented forestry programs, namely the Forest
Occupancy Management (FOM), Family Approach to Reforestation (FAR), and
Communal Tree Farming (CTF). In general, these programs centered on the
involvement of local people in reforestation activities. People were seen more as
labor-providers rather than partners in forest conservation and development.
Considering the volatile political situation during this time, community forestry was
also seen as a counterinsurgency measure to maintain political stability and order in
the countryside (Porter and Ganapin 1988). However, it was during this period that
the forestry sector started to realize that the problem of unsustainable deforestation is
not merely technical, but also socio-political in nature.
The second category is the integration and consolidation period from 1981 to 1989.
This marked the adoption of two main people-oriented forestry programs, namely, the
Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP) and the Community Forestry Program
(CFP). ISFP consolidated the three earlier programs, while recognizing the vested
rights of the forest occupants through the provision of a 25-year tenure security
arrangement. Meanwhile, CFP extended the coverage of community forestry to
natural forests, allowing participating upland communities to commercially utilize
forest resources subject to appropriate social and technical preparation. From being
merely laborers in reforestation activities, local people were increasingly recognized
as the de facto resource managers, hence, partners in forest development and
conservation.

__________
1
 Flitching refers to the process of cutting logs into strips.
2
 Skidding refers to the dragging of logs.

The third category from 1990 to the present is the expansion and

institutionalization period. This term is characterized by the growth of community
forestry to include various land-use types not originally included in the first two
periods. In particular, community forestry coverage included degraded watershed
areas and practically all types of forests where there are indigenous cultural
communities. Increasing support from international funding agencies such as the
Asian Development Bank, World Bank, Japan’s Overseas Economic Cooperation
fund, United States Agency for International Development, and other multilateral and
bilateral donors also defines the period, especially from the late 1980s to early 2000.
Efforts to provide tenurial security during this period led to the evolution of various
types of tenure instruments. Moreover, attempts to alleviate upland poverty while
ensuring the sustainability of the forest resources induced the development of a
diverse array of income generation mechanisms and models for the uplands.

Various forms of institutional arrangements also continued to evolve during this

period. From purely government-implemented projects in the 1970s, the practice of
community forestry has increasingly involved upland communities in forest
management. This is made possible through the formation of people’s organizations
with assistance from other stakeholder organizations such as non-government
organizations (NGOs), local government units (LGUs), academia, and others.

Recently, the different programs and projects that emerged during the last two periods
were “integrated and unified” into one umbrella program, otherwise known as
the Community Based Forest Management Program (CBFMP), through Executive
Order (E.O.) No. 263 (July 1995) and the Implementing Rules and Regulations,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order
No. 96-29 (October 1996). E.O. 263 adopted CBFM as the national strategy for
sustainable forestry and social equity, thereby institutionalizing the practice of
community forestry in the country.

The formal adoption of CBFM frames the main government strategy towards the
restructuring of the once corporate-controlled timber industry. Timber Licensee
Agreements (TLAs) controlled one third of the country’s total land area of 30 million
ha from 1971 to 1977. With the shift in the government’s forest management
approach in favor of CBFM starting in the late 1980s, TLA areas have gradually
declined to the present 0.54 million ha due to the cancellation of non-compliant
licensees and non-renewal of those that have expired. At the same time, from less than
200,000 ha in 1986, the CBFMP currently covers some 5.97 million ha of forestlands
involving 5,503 individual sites and directly benefiting more than 690,000
households. Of these, around 4.9 million ha are under various forms of land tenure
arrangements, with 1.57 million ha covered by Community Based Forest Management
Agreements (CBFMA) (Figure 1).3

__________
3
 CBFMA is an agreement entered into, by and between the government and the local
community, which has a term of 25 years and is renewable for an additional 25 years.

Figure 1. Status of CBFM Implementation

Potential of forest harvesting in CBFM

Without doubt, the harvesting of forest resources by communities has tremendous
potential to reduce rural poverty in the Philippines. This potential is illustrated by the
following data:
  The Philippines has about 2.56 million ha of second-growth forests of which
approximately 1.5 million ha are production forests. 4
 Second-growth production forests contain an average timber volume of 145
cubic meters (m3) per ha (FMB-DENR, FAO and UNDP 2003), equivalent to a
gross national volume of approximately 217.5 million m 3.
 At current market values of not less than US$ 60 per m 3, the production forests
comprise a natural resource asset worth more than US$ 13 billion; 5
 Drawing on this huge asset, two-person teams using manual flitching saws
(Photo 1) can produce an average 0.25 m3 per day (Bagong Pagasa Foundation
2006), or a potential daily income of US$ 7.50 per person day (0.25 m 3 x US$
60 ÷ 2 persons = US$ 7.50 per person day).
 The current average income per family in rural upland communities of the
Philippines is less than US$ 2 per day.
 Timber harvesting by communities in these second-growth forests has the
potential to bring about a 375% increase in rural family income (US$ 7.50 ÷
US$ 2 = 375%).

On privately-owned lands that cannot be farmed profitably, and on denuded

government-owned lands, average annual growth rates in tree-farms devoted to fast-
growing timber species6 are at least five m3 per ha.7 While not as valuable as timber
from natural forests, the prevailing price for these species is not less than US$ 40 per
m3. This is equivalent to a potential annual income of around US$ 200 per ha, plus
additional revenue from branches and thinnings sold as firewood or converted to
charcoal.

_________
4
 Official statistics of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
5
 217.5 million m3 x US$ 60 per m3 = US$ 13.05 billion.
6
 For example: Gmelina arborea, Acacia mangium, Eucalyptus deglupta.

Rural villagers already have the skills required for manual flitching of timber from
natural forests. They also know how to plant and tend tree farms. Furthermore,
policies set forth in the Government’s CBFM program envision active involvement of
the rural poor in the management of both man-made and natural forests. Given this
policy framework and the prospects for significantly increasing rural income, one
would assume that forestry is already contributing to reduction of rural poverty.

The CBFM program, which in principle supports sustainable timber harvesting by

local communities for commercial purposes, was launched in 1995. Its predecessor,
the CFP, began as early as 1989. Both of these development interventions were
preceded in the mid-1970s onward by similar programs and projects focusing on
tenure security, agro-forestry, tree-farm development, community organization,
training, and related initiatives. Most of these programs and projects have been
supported by international donors, NGOs, and other concerned stakeholders. After all
this time and support, have the poverty alleviation and other objectives been realized?

Constraining factors
Unfortunately, the poverty alleviation, community empowerment, and environmental
management objectives of the CBFM program have not been realized except in a few
rare cases (see for instance Borlagdan et al. 2001; and Pulhin 2005). Why not? What
are the factors that stand in the way of reducing poverty in rural communities through
active participation in forest management?

There are no simple answers to these questions. One could cite the widely-held, but
mistaken perception that forest management cannot be implemented effectively
without a large-scale investment in machinery and sophisticated technical expertise.
Due to this false perception, many government planners, decision makers, and
financial managers doubt that community participation in forestry is a viable strategy.
Consequently, they withhold support for such initiatives. Additionally, distorted
media reports, coupled with strident advocacy work by some NGOs, tend to create the
erroneous conclusion that forest harvesting is synonymous with total deforestation.
Riding on “sound bytes” that generate negative attitudes towards forestry in general,
opportunistic politicians espouse short-sighted policies that seek to ban any and all
forms of timber harvesting, whether by communities or corporate entities. Another
factor is the generally recognized resistance to change among many professional
foresters and forest agencies. While often agreeing with the concept that communities
can and should have a major role in forest management, this amounts to little more
than “lip service” with very few tangible inputs toward achieving either community-
based forestry or poverty alleviation.

All of these factors pose challenges that need to be addressed in the Philippines and in
other countries where the opportunities for forestry to reduce rural poverty are
beginning to be recognized. However, this paper primarily focuses on another set of
constraints: namely, rules and regulations that are unrealistic in a community context,
and which serve no useful purpose with respect to sustainable forest management.

__________
7
 Jurgen Schade (1988), the then Executive Adviser and German Team Leader of the
RP-German Forest Resource Inventory Project cited an annual growth of 5 to
10m3 per ha for albizzia, eucalyptus and pine plantations.
In the Philippines, and in other countries as well, practitioners of community-based
forest management are required to produce sophisticated forest management plans
wherein the annual allowable cut (AAC) is computed on the basis of prescribed
inventory procedures and formulas. By contrast, villagers in Imazu, Gifu Prefecture in
Japan, limit the AAC to one tree per hectare per year, and have followed this practice
for more than 100 years (Forestry Agency of Japan 1995). Their forests remain intact
and productive while using a very simple procedure for calculating the AAC. Both of
these approaches have the same objective – sustainable forest management. But
between these two procedures, it does not take much analysis to conclude which is
more appropriate and more feasible for communities to implement. In the Philippines,
communities are forced to seek assistance from professional foresters who know how
to conform with government standards for the preparation of complicated forest
management plans. Is it realistic to assume that the residents of impoverished rural
villages have the financial resources to pay for the services of professional foresters?

Rules that govern scaling are another impediment in some Asia-Pacific countries.
Logs must be scaled after felling and bucking, then scaled once again in log form
when loaded on hauling trucks. Scaling of flitches is not allowed. How can a
community with no heavy equipment be expected to comply with scaling rules that
require movement of a round log from the forest on to a truck? If timber can be
accurately scaled in lumber yards, is it not reasonable to conclude that flitches can be
scaled accurately in the woods.

Regulations to control the transport of harvested timber create additional problems.

Communities are required to obtain permits for moving timber from the woods to
roadside, and another permit to transport the timber to buyers. At first glance,
compliance with these rules would seem to be a simple matter. However, offices of
the agencies authorized to issue permits are many kilometers away from the forest.
Each time a community requests issuance of a permit, someone from the village must
travel to the office of whoever has authority to sign a permit, hope the individuals he
or she needs to see are available, and facilitate their travel to the production site.
These individuals will inspect the timber, return to their offices, and submit their
inspection report to their head of office for signature. It is only then that the timber
can be moved. Bureaucratic delays are inevitable and are compounded by the need to
travel back and forth several times. Granting that inspections are necessary to
determine compliance with cutting limits, is there any valid reason for multiple
permits, which require multiple inspections?

Tree farmers who develop plantations on their own private lands have complained
bitterly about the need for transport permits. Regulations originally formulated to
monitor and control the removal of timber from natural forests are being enforced on
planted timber. This has led to a proliferation of checkpoints along transport routes,
ostensibly to prevent the movement of illegally cut logs. In theory, the tree farmer is
required to present a transport permit at each checkpoint. In practice, the persons
manning the checkpoint waive this requirement after demanding and receiving an
unofficial payment. The requirement to obtain and produce transport permits has
created an environment conducive to corruption. Indeed, there is a standing joke that
checkpoints are actually “cash points” because the people manning these facilities do
not accept checks.

Legislation was introduced in the Philippine Congress more than 10 years ago to
streamline and update forest policies, rules and regulations. But this important piece
of legislation has lain dormant. More recently, the Society of Filipino Foresters (SFF)
drafted legislation doing away with transport permits for timber grown on private
land. This proposal is also languishing in Congress.

An unfortunate result of the above problems is the fact that being issued with a tenure
instrument in the Philippines, particularly a CBFMA, does not provide the
participating communities any assurance that they can engage in timber harvesting or
benefit economically from the forest. In principle, a CBFMA entitles the community
the right to occupy, possess, utilize, and develop the forest lands and resources, and
claim ownership of introduced improvements in the area. In reality, the permit for
timber utilization may be withheld or cancelled by the government on its own volition
at any time. Over the last three years, for instance, three DENR Secretaries issued
nationwide cancellations of all CBFM resource utilization permits (RUP) due to
alleged violations of some participating People’s Organizations (POs). Investigations
of these cases revealed that violations were indeed committed by a few POs. The
investigations further revealed that the violations were carried out in connivance with
DENR field personnel. Unfortunately, all POs nationwide were punished for the
transgressions of a few POs and some DENR personnel.

The series of cancellations had adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts,

including the reduction in income or loss of livelihoods by the concerned POs, loss of
communities’ interest to participate in CBFM activities, erosion of people’s
confidence in the government, and acceleration of forest destruction due to reduction
of forest protection activities by the local communities (Pulhin and Arboleda in
progress).

The greatest blow to CBFM, however, happened less than a year ago when the former
DENR Secretary cancelled about 1,200 of the more than 1,500 CBFMAs nationwide
without due process. This was a major violation of the CBFMP provisions.
Fortunately, implementation of the cancellation order was stopped by the new
Secretary due to pressure from civil society and from legislators during the DENR
budget hearing. However, the propensity to order wholesale cancellations remains a
big threat to the sustainability of CBFM and its potential to help reduce poverty in the
Philippine uplands. Existing policies state that CBFMAs have a duration of 25 years
and are renewable for the same period. Unfortunately, recent experience demonstrates
that the CBFMP policies can be set aside through a single stroke of a pen by people in
power, with complete disregard for due process of law.

Conclusion and recommendations

Community Based Forest Management has been alluded to as representing a major
paradigm shift in Philippines’ forest management from a centrally controlled approach
benefiting the privileged few towards a more participatory “people-oriented” strategy.
The latter envisions improvement of the socio-economic welfare of poor upland
communities through the promotion of social equity and justice while advancing
sustainable forest management. While much of the original old growth forest of the
country which served as the traditional sources of commercial timber have been
degraded over the last century, the remaining second-growth forests still represent a
rich natural resource that can be utilized commercially on a sustainable basis by
thousands of poor upland communities. Forest harvesting by communities in these
areas offers a great potential to reduce poverty and improve current forest
management.

However, despite the immense potential of community timber harvesting to reduce

rural poverty, “complex procedures” continue to obstruct the realization of this
potential. For CBFM to be able to contribute to poverty reduction, the following
strategies should be pursued with the aim of reducing “complex procedures” and
adopting “simple tools.”

1. Include subjects on the financial feasibility and use of animal-powered skidding

technologies in the curricula of forestry education institutions. This can help
legitimize timber extraction procedures that are feasible for communities to
implement in their struggle to overcome rural poverty. Many graduates of these
institutions will eventually be employed by forest agencies and be in a position
to influence the crafting of simplified rules and regulations.
2. Adopt rules that combine scaling at the stump, followed by flitching in the
woods, such that animal-powered skidding can be applied while concurrently
ensuring accurate methods for determining the volume of timber subject to
payment of government royalties.
3. Deregulate the harvesting, extraction, and utilization of plantation species
grown on private land. At present, most of these species are exotics. Thus,
drawing up a list of deregulated species would not be difficult.
 4. Develop simple area-based criteria for determining the annual allowable cut.
For example, one tree per ha per year on marginal forests, two or three trees per
ha on medium density forests, and four or five trees per ha on rich forests. Set
standards for “marginal,” “medium density,” and “rich” forests that can be
determined by simple random sampling of strips.
5. Provide forest extension agents with the skills needed to disseminate methods
for accurate determination of road and skid trail gradients using simple
calibrated “A-frames” fabricated on site.
6. Devolve responsibility for issuance of permits to field offices located within
easy travel distance from forests managed by communities. Use only one form
for scaling and for extraction, hauling, transporting, and selling. This can be
done by simply adding lines to be signed first by the scaler, and next by the
officer authorized to issue the permits.
7. Develop “filling in the blank” forms for preparation of management plans,
indicating who will do what, when, and how. Provide “check the appropriate
box (es)” on these forms. Specify that approved management plans are valid for
at least five years, subject to updating by the community as and when needed,
by re-submission of “filling in the blank” forms.
8. Include the organization of information field trips for media representatives,
NGOs, and government decision makers in the work plans or terms of
reference (TORs) of forest officers to help demonstrate that forest harvesting is
not synonymous with deforestation.
9. Provide satellite imagery that clearly illustrates forest conditions to the media,
NGOs, and government decision makers so they have accurate information on
forest cover. This may help dispel the negative perception that “all is lost.”
10.Conduct studies that provide accurate data on the employment opportunities
generated by medium- and small-scale enterprises that are dependent on
reliable supplies of timber. Previous studies deal principally with the formal
forestry sector but do not include the large number of people working in small
furniture shops, carpentry, production of boxes to transport agricultural
products, charcoaling, and supplying firewood to bakeries, restaurants, and
households, and other wood-based jobs.
11.Institutionalize a multi-stakeholder participatory policy and decision-making
process to ensure that the interests of the communities and other important
sectors will be adequately represented.

References
Bagong Pagasa Foundation, 2006. Study on labor-based timber production using
manual flitching saws, Philippines.
Borlagdan, S. B., Guiang and J. Phulhin, 2001. Preliminary Assessment of
Community-Based Forest Management in the Philippines. A final project report
submitted to the Ford Foundation Inc., Philippines which was a joint undertaking of
the Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University and the Department
of Social Forestry and Forest Governance, University of the Philippines Los Banos.

Broad, R. and Cavanagh J., 1993. Plundering Paradise: The Struggle for the
Environment in the Philippines. Anvil Publishing, Manila.

Forest Management Bureau, 2004. Community-Based Forest Management: A

National Strategy to Promote Sustainable Forest Management. Briefing material
presented during the meeting of the National Forest Program (NFP) Facility
Coordinator based at FAO Bangkok and the DENR Undersecretary for Field
Operations on November 17, 2004 at FMB Conference Room, DENR, Quezon City.

FMB-DENR, FAO and UNDP, 2003. Revised Master Plan for Forestry Development.
A report prepared and reproduced by the Forest Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources with financial support from the
United Nations Development Programme-Country Program Action Plan and the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Forest Agency of Japan, 1995. Imazu Forestry. Tokyo, Japan.

Kummer, D., 1992. Deforestation in the post-war Philippines. Ateneo de Manila

University Press, Quezon City, Philippines.

Porter, G. and D.J. Ganapin, 1988. Resources, Population and the Philippines'

Future: A Case Study. World Resource Paper No. 4. World Resources Institute,
Washington, D.C., USA.

Pulhin, J. M., 2005. Enhancing the Philippine’s Community-

Based Forest Management Implementation Strategy: Synthesis of Six Case Studies.
Final Report submitted to the Forest Management Bureau of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources under the National Forestry Programme Facility
managed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Pulhin, J. M. and L. Arboleda, in progress. Advancing Environmental Justice through

CBFM: Possibility or Illusion? A proposed book based on the outputs of six case
studies on the impacts of the cancellation of Resource Utilization Permits in selected
CBFM areas under the UPLB College of Forestry and Natural Resources
Environmental Justice Project.
Rebugio, L. and M. Chiong-Javier, 1995. Community Participation in Sustainable
Forestry. In Review of Policies and Programs Affecting Sustainable Forest
Management and Development (SFMD). A policy report submitted to the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources.

Vitug, M., 1993. The Politics of Logging: Power from the Forest. Philippine Center

for Investigative Journalism, Philippines
Community based natural resources management (CBNRM) involves the management of land and natural resources
such as pastures, forests, fish, wildlife and water by groups of rural people through their local institutions. It has been
popularised as a mechanism for the management of natural resources to safeguard livelihoods of local communities.
The importance of natural resources (NR) can be illustrated by communities in Luweero District, Uganda (who) have
over 48 different traditional uses of forests, let alone wildlife, fish and other natural resources in their area.
Community based natural resources management (CBNRM) has evolved over a number of years within different
contexts including "people and parks", "buffer zone management", "participatory natural resources management" and
"community natural resources management". By and large a community-based approach recognizes and reinforces
the role of local communities who live in and depend for their livelihoods on the natural resources around them. The
importance of traditional knowledge in community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) illustrated by the
Sukuma people living in Shinyanga region, Tanzania. The community in Shinyanga have used traditional forms of
conservation ('ngiliti' system of land management) to regenerate the natural resources as well as improved the
livelihoods of the rural community (see case study 1).
Community-based natural resources management- Experiences
from Africa.

Community based natural resources management (CBNRM) involves the management

of land and natural resources such as pastures, forests, fish, wildlife and water by
groups of rural people through their local institutions. It has been popularised as a
mechanism for the management of natural resources to safeguard livelihoods of local
communities. The importance of natural resources (NR) can be illustrated by
communities in Luweero District, Uganda (who) have over 48 different traditional uses of
forests, let alone wildlife, fish and other natural resources in their area.

Community based natural resources management (CBNRM) has evolved over a number
of years within different contexts including “people and parks”, “buffer zone
management”, “participatory natural resources management” and “community natural
resources management”. By and large a community-based approach recognizes and
reinforces the role of local communities who live in and depend for their livelihoods on
the natural resources around them. The importance of traditional knowledge in
community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) illustrated by the Sukuma
people living in Shinyanga region, Tanzania. The community in Shinyanga have used
traditional forms of conservation (
‘ngiliti’
system of land management) to regenerate the
natural resources as well as improved the livelihoods of the rural community (see case
study 1).
Case study 1. Case Study from Tanzania
Since 1986 the Sukuma people in the Shinyanga region, Tanzania have been working on a
project, to make
sure they are in control and prevent overuse of their natural resources. Using their indigenous
knowledge,
they are practicing a natural resource management system called ngiliti – a Sukuma word
meaning
enclosure. Involving the conservation of grazing land and fodder lands by encouraging
vegetation
regeneration and tree planting ngiliti has helped to protect and restore the environment as well as
improve
livelihoods of communities in the region. Working together with 170 villages the Hifadhi Ardhi
Shinyanga
(HASHI) project has helped to restore an estimated 350 000 to 500 000 hectares of woodland
since the
project began. The Shinyanga landscape is now changing thanks to farmers enthusiasm for agro-
forestry,
local people now grow trees that provide much needed wood for fuel and construction, soil
erosion has been
curbed and precious watersheds preserved. For further information contact Mr.W.C. Mlenge,
Project
manager, e mail: Hashi@africaonline.co.tz or www.tve.org

Why community-based natural resources management

Why are we concerned with management of natural resources by local communities

anyway? Rural communities in Africa depend for their livelihoods on natural resources
including land, water, forests, wildlife, fish or other natural resources. And for time
immemorial local communities have “managed” their natural resources. The value
however accorded to natural resources differs between different economic groups.
Whereas a local person might perceive a ‘bushbuck’ as meat for a family, it is seen as a
valuable foreign currency earner to a wildlife economist. Higher authorities seeking to
protect a perceived higher value have put in place institutions and policies to protect
“valuable” natural resources. This often leads to conflict over the use of resources, as
there is no shared perception of a community value of the resource.

Thus the interest in community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) has

arisen from a combination of frustration and optimism. Frustration resulted out of anti-
poaching approaches to enforce protection of valuable natural resources such as wildlife
have proved unending and expensive. Optimism exists because there are positive
experiences in sharing benefits with local communities. For example reducing the
incidence of poaching. This has been explored with valuable lessons being learnt from
Namibia (see case study 2).
Box 2. A case study from Namibia
Namibia is an arid country, with average rainfall varying from above 600 mm in the northeast to
less than 25
mm in the Namib Desert to the west. Namibia's economy is heavily dependent on natural
resources. Two-
thirds of the 1,6 million population live in rural areas and are directly dependent upon the soil and
living
natural resources for their livelihoods. Namibia took advantage of the earlier policies that
recognized
freehold farm owners as proprietors of wildlife on their lands. The policy reforms in 1968 in
Namibia that
gave the ”community” of private farmers” proprietorship over wildlife on their farms was a
powerful paradigm
shift that saw the reversal of wildlife's decline on commercial (freehold) farms. With farmers
enabled to take
management decisions over the wildlife on their land and to realise more benefits than costs from
wildlife, a
multi-million dollar wildlife industry has developed and species which disappeared from freehold
land, such
as lion, elephant and rhinoceros, have in some cases been returned. Namibia since independence
has
introduced a common property resource (CPR) management approach. The former black
homelands are
now recognised as “owners” of the land and its natural resources, and have organised themselves
to form
conservancies. In order to form a conservancy, a community needs to define its membership,
define its
physical boundaries, elect a representative committee, agree on a plan for the equitable distribution
of
benefits and adopt a legally recognised constitution. This is taken as a constituted CPR
institution. An NGO
has engaged communities in development of ideas, obtaining traditional technical knowledge,
experiences,
values and how CBNRM fitted in their livelihoods. As rights have been extended to local
communities living
with wildlife many local communities have become more organised, “their” communally owned
wildlife are
increasing together with their benefits from the wildlife.

For more information contact J Farrington, at JOHNF@odi.org.uk

Examples of community-based natural resources management

Some examples of CBNRM include:

§
Management (or co-management) of common property resources such as artisanal
fisheries by fisher folk (for example contact Fiona Nunan, Integrated Lake
Management Project Uganda, fionanunan@infocom.ug.)
§
Collaborative forest management (CFM) where communities living adjacent to forest
reserves enter into agreements to exploit and conserve the forests. (for example
contact Fiona Driciru, Forestry Department, Uganda, fionafd@ecforest.org.ug)
§
Catchments management (such as Landcare) where land users in a river
catchments collaborate to manage land use in a sustainable way (for example
contact N. Nduli at nduli@narc.agric.za).
§
Agreements by communities adjacent to parks to benefit from sales from the park
(either through employment or revenue sharing) and the intention is that they
therefore have an incentive to conserve the resource (whether wildlife, trees, fish etc)
( for example contact Themba Mangcaqa, Addo Elephant Park, at tembam@parks -
sa.co.za ).
§
Collective management of the harvesting of a natural resource such as mopane
worms

Community-based natural resources management and sustainable livelihoods

approaches
Some of the ways that the CBNRM approach addresses the SL principles are:

§ People-focused
, and so puts the poor people (whose livelihoods depend on the
natural resources) at the centre of the management;
§ Participatory
ie creating space for poor people to be part of the assessment,
decision making, and implementation of their own action;
§ Holistic
, recognising the holistic nature of rural people’s lives, their use of multiple
livelihood strategies that are risk averse, and so the need for holistic responses;
§ Build on strengths
– builds on the indigenous technical knowledge and skills that
people have and what they can do as local organisations or as individuals thus
building on their strengths and opportunities and not just needs;
§
use of a
partnership approach
that values local communities as key partners with
all tiers of government (local, district, provincial and national), the NGO community
as well as the private sector;
§ Sustainable
(in terms of economic, environmental, social and institutional
sustainability) as the core yardstick for any intervention;
§ Dynamic
, recognising that change is unavoidable. Change will take place in poor
people’s lives as well as the policies, institutions and processes which impact on
them, and so interventions such as CBNRM should be flexible.
The greatest contribution that CBNRM can make is strengthening and deepening
institutional frameworks that maximize the livelihood impacts of local management of
natural resources.
Case study 3. Co-management of fisheries resources in Uganda.
The Government of Uganda is implementing a new approach to the management of capture
fisheries. This
is a co-management approach involving a partnership between local governments and a national
network of
new legally empowered community-based Beach Management Units (BMUs) at all recognised
fish landing
sites. BMUs will work with local and central governments to manage lake resources, allowing
communities to
be involved in decision making and management by collecting fisheries information, using it in
planning and
safeguarding the resources upon which their livelihoods depend. For more information contact
Fiona Nunan
at fionanunan@infocom.ug.

Useful Internet resources on community-based natural resources management

1. Evaluating Eden: Institute of International Development: www.iied.org/blg/pubs/eden.html.

2. Eldis:
www.eldis.org/cf/search/index.cfm?StartRow=31&PageNum=4&keywords=cbnrm&resource=
f1agric&type=all
3. IDS: www.ids.ac.uk/ids/env/SLSA/slprofiles.html
4. Community-based natural resources management Network (for Documents):
www.cbnrm.net/library/documents/index.html
5. Community-based natural resources management Network (for Case studies):
www.cbnrm.net/library/cases/cases.html
6. CBNRM Support Programme: www.wildnetafrica.com/thechannel/index.html
7. Links CBNRM: www.melissa.org/english/links/linkstheme26.htm
8. CBNRM in Botswana: www.cbnrm.bw/pages_sub_dir/Publications.htm.
9. Overseas Development Institute (ODI): www.odi.org.uk/nrp/
10. ARDC – Analysis of CBNRM in Africa: http://www.ardinc.com/htm/projects/p_cbnrm

AST AND PRESENT FORESTRY SUPPORT

PROGRAMS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND
LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE1

Steve R. Harrison, Nick F. Emtage and Bert E. Nasayao

A variety of government programs have been implemented to support smallholder forestry

for production and conservation purposes in the Philippines. This paper briefly outlines the
arrangements of the past and current programs, notes how they have evolved over time, and
provides some comments on their performance. Over about 30 years, as weaknesses have
been identified in programs, the program designs have been modified. For most of this time,
there has been an increasing emphasis on community involvement as distinct from industrial
or individual farmer forestry. However, some of the intractable constraints on community
planting have led to recent interest in individual property rights.

INTRODUCTION

Much has been written about the severe deforestation which has taken place in the
Philippines, particularly since World War 2, and of the dire need for reforestation for welfare
and livelihood purposes (Kummer and Sham 1994, Pulhin 1998, Utting 2000, Guiang 2001,
UNFAO and FMBDENR 2003). Large areas of forest were felled under timber license
agreements in earlier years, and more recently kaingin farming (shifting cultivation) and
illegal logging have taken place on remnant and logged over areas. While the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and smallholder communities attempt to
control illegal logging, this remains a difficult challenge, and in insurgency areas the
government has limited control over forest exploitation.

In order to replace lost trees, protect watersheds, produce timber and non-wood forest
products, and gain community involvement in protection of forests, a number of forestry
assistance programs have been introduced by the Philippines government, drawing on
financial assistance from domestic and foreign governments and non-government
organisations (NGOs). The number of programs which have been instituted is surprisingly
large, and program arrangements many and varied. One of the objectives of the Australian
Centre for International Research (ACIAR) Smallholder Forestry Project has been to review
the past programs and the lessons they provide.

The objective of this paper is to examine what forestry support measures have been the
most effective, and hence what lessons can be learned for future programs. The paper first
reviews details of the various programs which have been introduced in the past. The scope
is limited to government administered and mainly national programs for smallholders, and
does not cover industrial forestry nor the many smaller programs supported primarily by
NGOs and other private agents. The Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) and
Community-Based Resource Management (CBRM) programs are then examined in more
detail. Next, a synthesis is made of the reported experiences and some personal
observations, of the strengths and weaknesses of the various programs. Concluding
comments follow.

1 This paper was published in Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 3(3): 303-317.
171
Past and Present Forestry Support Programs in the Philippines
BACKGROUND TO FORESTRY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

Concern arose in the 1960s and 1970s over rapid deforestation of the Philippine uplands. As
noted by Gerrits (1996), the government and urban population place much of the blame on
squatters or slash and burn cultivators or kaingineros. The Revised Forestry Code legislation
in 1975 strengthened state control over native forests and remains the basis of current
forestry regulations. The government claimed all lands with a slope of 18% or more,
including mountainous land over 600 m in altitude, as public domain under the control of the
Forest Management Bureau of the DENR (Gerrits 1996).

Reforestation2 in the Philippines has been promoted by a number of laws and support
programs. Notable among the laws have been (PCARR 1982, p. 4):
1. PD (Presidential Decree) 705, requiring timber licensees to undertake reforestation
on their concessions;
2. LOI (Letter of Instruction) 423, directing active cooperation and participation of
government agencies in government reforestation programs3;
3. PD 1153, requiring every citizen 10 years of age or above to plant one tree every
month for five consecutive years;
4. Memo. Circular 985, requiring local governments to establish and maintain seedling
nurseries.

These laws were relatively widely implemented but were later repealed or amended to keep
up with demands of the times and with technological advances.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has the responsibility of
managing all the forestlands in the Philippines, or about 16m ha (Bisson and Wijangco
1997). As noted by these authors (p. 1), the DENR has achieved this through a variety of
schemes, including

• awarding forestlands to the private sector in the form of leases and agreements, e.g.
timber license agreements (TLAs), pasture lease agreements (PLAs), and industrial
forest management agreements;
• declaring forestlands as civil or military reservations;
• proclaiming particular forestlands as protected area systems, watershed reservations
or special use zones;
• allocating forestlands as communal forests;
• awarding forestlands to individuals, families and local communities who are found to
be qualified to receive long-term stewardships and agreements; and
• recognising claims of indigenous people to ancestral domains.

EARLIER FORESTRY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

Reforestation programs have been introduced in the Philippines since the early 1970s. The
Kaingin Management and Land Settlement Regulation was introduced under Administrative
Order No. 62, in 1971, with an aim to integrate kaingineros into the government forest
conservation programs and prevent further encroachment of shifting cultivation into
forestlands. Introduced about 1974, the Forest Occupancy Management Program further
aimed at settling kaingineros and stabilising their farming systems as well as improving their

2 PCARR (1982, p.1) made a distinction between establishing forests on areas not previously forested
(aforestation) and on areas ‘recently cleared of forest or with insufficient vegetative or forest
cover’
(reforestation). Both will be referred to as reforestation here.
3 LOI 423 also set up one of the support programs, viz. the Program for Forest Ecosystem
Management.

172
ACIAR Smallholder Forestry Project
socioeconomic condition. There was an amnesty from prosecutions, and permits were given
to occupy up to 7 ha of land for a period of two years, renewable for another two years
(Gerrits 1996).

The Family Approach to Reforestation (FAR) program, which was also part of the Program
for Forest Ecosystem Management I (PROFEM 1), was introduced in 1979. It was modified
in 1989 under the contract reforestation scheme. This program was designed as a cost-
effective means of accelerating reforestation on denuded areas by participation of local
families. The Forest Management Bureau entered into 2-3 year contacts with families to
establish trees on public lands, with a maximum area of 5 ha. Financial support and training
were provided but not equity in the trees, with the participants expected to move to new sites
after completing the establishment.

The Communal Tree Farming Program or Citizen Tree Planting Program, was introduced in
1979 (Gerrits 1996). This was designed to establish tree farms or plantations on open or
denuded public forestlands and idle private lands, and make upland farmers and
communities the protectors of forestlands. Maximum land areas ranged from two to 20 ha.
Families were provided with a one-year provisional title, which could be converted to a 25-
year title, renewable for another 25 years, if performance of the participant was satisfactory.

PROGRAMS OF THE 1980s AND 1990s

The early reforestation programs provided experience for improved program design. In the late
1980s, there was a major shift from reforestation strategies conducted by the administration to
contracting schemes (Groetschel et al. 2001, p. 61).

The National Forestation Program (NFP)

The NFP, which ran from 1986 to 2000, provided a broad policy framework towards
sustained and comprehensive efforts to rehabilitate and conserve the country’s forest
resources. The program was supported by loans from the Asian Development Bank (ADB),
and the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF) of Japan, and a five-year Forest
Sector Program (FSP) was undertaken over 1988-92 to accelerate reforestation, repair
environmental degradation from past logging and strengthen policies and institutions
concerned with forest resources. The NFP had three main components, namely Contract
Reforestation, Watershed Rehabilitation and Timber Stand Improvement. Sy (1998, p. 9) has
noted that this program undertook ‘reforestation of open and degraded areas and
rehabilitation of critical watersheds. Rehabilitation work includes construction of silt retention
dams, groins, spurs and retaining walls to stabilise streambanks; plugging of gullies with
brushwood and stones; and plantation establishment’.
In the first of these programs, contracts were awarded to corporations, communities and
families. Communities were paid by DENR for three years for the establishment of tree and
rattan plantations, the government providing a subsidy of 20,000 pesos/ha 4. Financial
support was obtained through by an ADB loan. The intention was to turn the forests over to
the DENR after three years, but this gave rise to concern over management costs by DENR.
Subsequently, the land was allocated under Forestland Management Agreements (FLMAs).
The FAR program was modified under the contract reforestation scheme.

Low Income Upland Communities Project (LIUCP)

This project was implemented by the DENR to restore and sustainably manage upland forest
resources and alleviate rural poverty. About 15,000 ha in eight major watersheds were

4 $US1.00 = approximately 50 Philippine pesos (PhP).

173
Past and Present Forestry Support Programs in the Philippines
treated through contract reforestation, to the benefit of about 7000 tribal and lowland migrant
families.

Coastal Environment Program (CEP)

This program commenced in 1993, with a focus on habitat and ecological support systems of
coastal communities and fisheries, and ‘specifically their productivity, biodiversity, integrity,
sustainability and equitability of access and use’ (Sy 1998, p. 9).

The Community Forestry Program (CFP)

This program operated over the period 1989 to 1999, with funds from ADB and the US
Agency for International Development (USAID). It aimed to provide upland residents with an
alternative source of livelihood to shifting cultivation. The communities formed People’s
Organisations (POs), and obtained a Community Forest Management Agreement (CFMA)
issued for a 25-year term, renewable for another 25 years. They were allowed to utilise and
sell products from within the residual forest, and establish plantations.

The Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP)

This national program commenced in 1982, as a major initiative in upland development,

designed to maximise land productivity, enhance ecological stability and improve
socioeconomic conditions of forest occupants and communities. The ISFP ‘was launched to
consolidate all previous people oriented programmes’ (Groetschel et al. 2001, p. 61), and
was to be the major support program for people-oriented forestry. For example, in the
Master Plan for Forestry Development, the DENR (1990, p. 116) projected an expenditure in
year 2005 of 1371m pesos for the ISFP. It covered communities in open and deforested
upland areas, and also mangrove areas. As noted by Gerrits (1996), ISFP offered two forms
of stewardship arrangement to upland communities. These were the Certificate of
Stewardship Contract (CSC) for households and the Certificate of Community Forestry
Stewardship (CCFS) for community organisations, the latter being originally known as the
Community Forestry Stewardship Agreement (CFSA). These agreements were issued for a
25-year term, renewable for another 25 years. The program required the retention or
establishment of 20% of the area awarded as permanent forest cover and planting of fruit
trees and crops and installing soil and water conservation measures. With devolution in the
Philippines, responsibility for ISFP was transferred in 1994 from the DENR to local
government units (LGUs), except for one model site in each province. The DENR
subsequently encouraged ISFP sites to integrate with CBFM (Groetschel et al. 2001).

Forestland Management Agreement (FLMA)

During the period 1989 to 19955, FLMAs were provided as sharing agreements between the
government and individuals, communities and corporations, for plantations that were
previously established under the short-term contract reforestation program, on a 25 plus 25
year tenure basis (Groetschel et al. 2001). This allowed family and community contractors to
continue to benefit from the areas they reforested. Lacuna-Richman (2001, p. 168) argued
that ‘[I]n essence, FLMA are 25-year plantation leases’.

Industrial Forest Management Agreement (IFMA)

Industrial Forest Management Agreements were initiated under Department Administrative

Order 60, series of 1993 (FMB 1994), to support timber production when Timber License
Agreements (TLAs) were being phased out. TLA holders could apply to have their license

5 Sy (1998) reported that this program was launched in 1993.

174
ACIAR Smallholder Forestry Project
converted to an IFMA, subject to negotiations on equity shares with the DENR. IFMAs were
‘designed to ensure adequate supply of timber and other forest products for domestic and
export markets on a sustainable basis, while also promoting the well-being of forest-dependent
communities’ (FMB 1994, p. 1). The program was designed to provide a domestic supply of
timber and other forest products from denuded and open forestland. Two variants of the
program were introduced, depending on whether the area contained residual production forest
(IFMA 2) or not (IFMA 1). IFMA were issued to private companies for relatively large areas
(500 to 20,000 ha), under a land lease for growing trees, for 25 years, renewable for another
25 years. An example is that at Babatnon near Tacloban in Leyte Province.

Socialised Industrial Forest Management Agreement (SIFMA)

Introduced in 1994, SIFMA were agreements between the DENR and individuals and single
families for areas of one to 10 ha, and for associations and cooperatives for areas of 11 to
500 ha (DENR c1998). Agreements for a 25-year tenure, renewable for a further 25 years,
covered the development, use and sustainable management of plantation forests, with a
primary objective of producing wood and non-wood forest products. SIFMA holders paid
annual rentals, the amount varying with number of hectares and duration of the instrument
(DENR 1998).

THE MAJOR CURRENT PROGRAMS

Two major national programs were introduced during the last decade, namely the CBFM
program and CBRM program. These are in fact groups of programs rather than single
arrangements.

The Community-Based Forest Management Program

CBFM was established under Executive Order No. 263 promulgated by President Ramos in
July 1995, as a national strategy to ensure the sustainable development of the Philippines’
forest resources. The strategy ‘is the organised efforts of the government to work with
communities in and near public forests aimed to protect, rehabilitate, manage, conserve and
utilise the resources. The CBFM program integrates and unifies all current people-oriented
forestry programs of the government’ (Sy 1998, p. 9). The ISFP now falls within the CBFM
umbrella (DENR c1998). Other programs coordinated within CBFM include the Forest
Occupancy Management Program, FAR, CFP, CEP, FLMA, NFP, FSP, LIUCP and
Recognition of Ancestral Domains (Sy 1998, DENR c1998). Groetschel et al. (2001) noted
20 CBFM projects in Leyte Province and 13 in Southern Leyte. Current Philippine forestry
support programs within the CBFM umbrella are listed in Table 1.

A CBFMA entitles the community legal access to occupy, possess, use and develop an area
of up to more than 1000 ha of forestland and its resources. CBFM participants are expected
to produce food, cash crops, and wood for domestic and industrial uses. Local communities
are organised by Community Organisers (COs) of contracted NGOs into People’s
Organisations to participate in the program. The Community Environment and Natural
Resource Officer (CENRO) validates the application for endorsement with the Regional
Executive Director of DENR.

There were initially three tenurial instruments under CBFM (DENR c1998):
1. CBFMA between DENR and the participating PO, with a duration of 25 years,
renewable for another 25 years, provides tenurial security to develop, use and
manage specific portions of forestlands. It is awarded in place of the various land
tenure instruments, such as FLMA and CFMA.

175
Past and Present Forestry Support Programs in the Philippines
2. Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC), is awarded to individuals or families
occupying or tilling portions of forestland, for up to a maximum of 5 ha, and has 25
plus 25 years duration.
3. CADC or Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC), applies to holders of these
claims who opt to enter a CBFMA covering a forested portion of their claim.
Table 1. Types of community-based forest management programs currently operating in the
Philippines
Program name and commencement date Type of tenure instrument used
Rehabilitation, protection and adoption of
agroforestry in occupied public forestlands
(1982)
Previously Certificates of Stewardship and
Communal Forest Stewardship Agreements;
now under Community-Based Forest
Management Agreements (CBFMAs)
Rehabilitation, protection and management of
Fragmented Natural Forests by communities
(1989)
Previously CFMA, now CBFMAs.
Rehabilitation, protection and management of
reforested areas by communities (1990) Previously FLMAs, now CBFMAs
Protection and management of indigenous
peoples’ claims – alienable and disposable
areas, public lands with or without forests
(1993)
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims
(CADC)
Rehabilitation, protection, improvement and
management of natural forests by qualified
organisations with the incorporation of
communities in the overall management
(1991)
Industrial Forest Management Agreement or
Environmental Protection and Management
Agreement
Protection and management of buffer and
multiple-use zones in protected area systems
(2000)
CBFMAs

As of 2001, the number and areas of agreements under these three instruments were:
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims (181, 2.546m ha); Community-Based Forest
Management Agreements (666, 1.971m ha); and Certificate of Stewardship and Certificate
of Forest Stewardship Agreements (442,124, 0.815m ha) (Guiang 2001b, p. 10-11).

In CBFM, the property rights to a forest are normally shared by many members of a
community. An impressive example is the forestry operation at Alcoy in Cebu, visited by one
of the authors in 2000, where over 100 farmers devoted at least one day a week to the
community forest, to grow lumber and rattan. The group had further plans to develop value-
adding activities. This community program, which had a high profile and attracts various
overseas visitors, received considerable external funding.
The CADC is offered to ‘tribal’ or ‘indigenous’ communities that have a long history of living
and working in forest areas. These agreements, established following the passage of the
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act in 1997, give communities permanent resource use rights,
and cover relatively large areas.

CBFM continues to evolve. A recent change has been greater emphasis on individual
property rights (IPR) agreements whereby individual landholders can manage and market
trees, within the CBFM agreement. There appears to be some acceptance that communities
may utilise some remnant timber to support their livelihoods while their common-property
plantings are being established.

176
ACIAR Smallholder Forestry Project
The Community-Based Resource Management Program

The CBRM program is designed to reduce rural poverty and environmental degradation
through support for locally generated and implemented natural resource management
projects (Department of Finance 1999). This $US50M project was launched in 1998 for an
initial five-year period, with the Department of Finance (DOF) as overseeing agency. An
innovative financing facility was adopted, though the Municipal Development Fund concept,
with a loan from the World Bank. The program provides resources to local government units
to finance natural resource management projects. In particular, it enhances the capacity of
low-income LGUs and communities to plan, implement and sustain priority natural resource
management projects. At the same time, the program strengthens central government
systems to transfer finance (as financial intermediaries) and environmental technology, and
improves the implementation of environmental policies (Osita 2001).

Financial support is provided for upland resource development (including agroforestry,

community-based reforestation, seedling nursery development, riverbank stabilisation and
industrial tree plantations), coastal and near-shore resource development, resort
development, livelihood projects, small-scale infrastructure, bridges and drainage, and water
supply.

As a pilot project, CBRM operated initially in Regions 5, 7, 8 and 13. LGUs are placed in six
classes; class 1 representing the highest per capita incomes and class six being the weakest
financially. CBRM program offers a loan-grant-equity mix of financing to jumpstart LGU
development efforts, recognising that fourth to sixth class LGUs have limited repayment
capacity. For environmental projects, class 4-6 LGUs are provided with 70% grant and 20%
loan and required to have equity finance of 10%. In contrast, the levels for a class 1 LGU are
20%, 60% and 20%. The finance mix is less generous for infrastructure and revenue
generating projects.

The approval process is time consuming, and requires a detailed proposal document.
Groetschel et al. (2001) noted the implementation of CBRM programs by about 20 LGUs in
Region 8, most in Samar.
THE EVOLUTION OF SUPPORT PROGRAMS

The review reveals that forestry support programs have progressed through a number of
stages, with polices changing on the basis of experience and perceptions of needs. Some of
the major impressions are:

• initially, command and control forest laws were introduced, but did not succeed;
• programs were introduced in 1970s as cost-effective measures to settle shifting
cultivators, generally by means of short-term agreements (although the one-year
provisional titles under the Communal Tree Farming Program had an option for
conversion to 25 year leases);
• contract reforestation was introduced in the mid-1980s with involvement of private
sector, for timber production and watershed rehabilitation, but areas treated proved
costly to maintain;
• the current community forestry model effectively commenced with the Community
Forestry Program in 1989, including involvement of community organisation and 25 +
25 year tenure duration; and
• there were stages of consolidation of programs, including those under the Integrated
Social Forestry Program in the 1980s and CBFM in the 1990s;

177
Past and Present Forestry Support Programs in the Philippines
• in the last decade there has been continuing refinement of the flagship CBFM
program, with increased emphasis on tree growing by individual smallholders, and
introduction of the Community-Based Resource Management Program with its wider
stakeholder involvement and resource management objectives.

While problems continue to exist in forestry support programs, this progressive refinement
marks the Philippine arrangements as progressive and innovative, and provides lessons for
forestry programs in other developing countries.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF FORESTRY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

How successful have the forestry support programs been, and what lessons can be learnt
for fine tuning of current programs or planning of future programs? Some tentative
conclusions can be drawn from consideration of the program arrangements, critical reviews
in the literature, and on-site observations.

Specific Performance Indicators

A number of criteria or indicators could be devised by which to evaluate the performance of

the various forestry support programs, such as:

• area planted, number of trees planted, number of trees surviving;

• degree of satisfaction by participants;
• cost-effectiveness of tree planting or of timber production;
• quality of silviculture, including pruning, thinning and weed control ;
• amount of timber produced ;
• amount of non-wood forest products produced;
• quality of timber produced;
• extent of community value-adding to timber harvested;
• improvement in livelihood of households in community forestry areas;
• extent of on-farm independent planting stimulated by the programs;
• extent to which communities have become protectors of the forest, and illegal logging
has been reduced in community forestry areas; and
• long-term sustainability of community organisations and reforestation activity.

While an evaluation in terms of these indicators would be highly informative, and partial
information is available on some of the indicators listed here, a comprehensive evaluation
would be extremely difficult to perform. Some information about areas planted is available from
web sources, as reported in Tables 2 to 4. The total CBFM area is approximately 1.5 M ha,
while IFMAs account for over 0.9 M ha (almost all in agreements of over 200 ha) and SIFMAs
account for only 0.035 M ha. Three quarters of the SIFMA planting area is in agreements of
100 ha or more, but more than 90% of the agreements are for areas of less than 10 ha.

Qualitative Review of Program Performance

Literature review and field observation provide some insights into program performance.

Capacity to overcome constraints to tree growing

Various research projects have identified a wide range of constraints on smallholder forestry.
In this context, from a household survey in four communities Emtage (2004) noted the
following constraints in order of importance: lack of access to land for tree planting; lack of
finance to pay for tree growing needs; concern over security of tenure; unavailability of
seedlings; policies related to tree harvesting; lack of labour to tend trees and risk of

178
ACIAR Smallholder Forestry Project
additional fees. In focus group discussions reviewing the survey findings, the issue of the
lack of markets for tree products was also highlighted. Other constraints are listed by Venn
et al. (2001) and by other papers in this issue. Community forestry programs do to some
extent overcome the major constraints of access to land, tenure security and finance.

Relationships between stakeholder groups

One criterion of performance is the quality of relationships between communities and

government, NGOs and other agents involved in smallholder forestry, in terms of trust,
service quality, approval processes and consistency across programs. The various forestry
stakeholder groups and their roles and inter-relationships have recently been examined by
Emtage (2004a, and this issue). It is apparent that some tensions have arisen between
stakeholder groups. Difficulties and delays in obtaining tree registration and harvest approval
would appear to be a major issue of concern of smallholders. Lack of government support
for communities in the control of illegal logging appears to be a source of frustration for
community organisations (Emtage this issue, Tarun-Acay 2004).

Table 2. Area planted in Philippine CBFM programs, by size class, 2003 6

Size
class
(ha)

Number of
agreements Number of
households Average number
of households
per agreement
Average area
per household
(ha)
Total area
per class
(ha)
Share of
total
area by
class
(%)
≥10,000 13 23,799 1,831 8.69 206,928 13
5,000 -
9,999 42 41,483 988 6.41 266,108 17
2,000 -
4,999 154 67,598 439 7.09 479,220 30
1,000 -
1,999 192 47,650 248 5.57 265,564 17
500 -
999 264 38,763 147 4.63 179,341 11
200 -
499 405 44,890 111 2.95 132,516 8
100-
199 ha 225 18,525 82 1.69 31,396 2
50 - 99
ha 148 12,700 86 0.81 10,308 1
20 - 49
ha 87 6,115 70 0.48 2,959 0.2
< 20 ha 44 2,208 50 0.21 472 0.0
Missing
size 3 219 73 0.00 0 0.0
All
BFMAs 1,577 303,950 5.18 1,574,813 100
Source: DENR (2004).
Perspectives presented in commentaries on programs

Many reports and articles have been written about CBFM and its predecessors in the
Philippines. Gerrits noted that there had been widespread criticism of the ISFP, observing that:

6 These figures include 55 CBFMAs in Leyte and Biliran Islands with a total area of 42,296 ha which
involve 6,092 households.

179
Past and Present Forestry Support Programs in the Philippines
two criticisms of the program stand out. First was the failure to utilise a bottom-up,
participatory, flexible, and responsive extension system, although the diversity of the
Philippine upland environment clearly required such an approach. Second was the inability to
recognise and respond to the failure of the program caused by the lack of a farming systems
approach and the widespread promotion of technologies with narrow recommendation
domains. (Gerrits 1996, pp. 25-26).

Gibbs et al. (1990, cited by Gerrits 1996, p. 5) characterised ISFP as ‘a premature attempt to
create a national program when the factors causing the lack of success of programs introduced
in the 1970s had not been removed and the capacity and resources for a major new program
were unavailable’.

Table 3. Areas planted under Industrial Forest Management Agreements (IFMAs)

Size class (ha)
Number of
agreements

Total area of
class (ha) Share of total
area by class
(%)
Share of class
cancelled or
suspended (%)
≥20,000 10 315,386 34 19
10,000 - 19,999 16 211,843 23 10
5,000 - 9,999 14 98,050 11 29
2,000 - 4,999 33 109,074 12 40
1,000 - 1,999 35 49,671 5 42
500 - 999 127 109,403 12 38
200 - 499 61 19,021 2 57
100- 199 27 3,415 0 56
Less than 100 1 49 0 0
All IFMAs 324 915,913 100 41
Source: DENR (2004).

In general, program evolution has been in the direction of greater community participation,
and ‘bottom-up’ program design. However, some observers remain critical of the
achievements in this respect. According to Lacuna-Richman:
Despite large infusions of monetary incentives and widespread agreement on the benefits
of such [reforestation] programs, very few could be considered worth the investment. One
of the main reasons for this lack of success is the absence of participation at the local
level. Another reason is the difficulty of ensuring that this participation, if established,
contributes perceptibly to achieving program goals. (Lacuna-Richman 2001, p. 163).

In terms of production forestry, IFMAs followed the Timber License Agreements, and appear
to have been a step towards more sustainable forest utilisation. Their introduction does not
appear to have been trouble free, however, Saastamoinen (2001) noting suspension of
agreements due to the unauthorised logging in areas intended for forest protection.

Duration of property rights in IFMAs and now in CBFM has presented some concern to
smallholders. According to Bernas (2000, as quoted by Saastamoinen 2001, p. 99), ‘the
present tenurial systems do not assure stakeholders and investors of a long-term or semi-
permanent arrangement. The present systems can accommodate one-cutting, possibly two-
cutting systems only’. This comment would appear to be particularly pertinent with regard to
the planting of slow growing high-value indigenous tree species, including molave and lauan.
There are environmental reasons why these native species should be promoted, and if the
uptake rate is high then there would be reason to review the tenure duration arrangement.

180
ACIAR Smallholder Forestry Project
Table 4. Areas planted under Socialised Industrial Forest Management Agreements (SIFMAs)

Size class
Number of
agreements Cumulative
total ha Total ha per
class Percent of total area
by class
500 - 999 ha 25 12,500 12,500 35
200 - 499 ha 31 23,675 11,175 32
100- 199 ha 20 26,345 2,669 8
50 - 99 ha 6 26,716 371 1
20 - 49 ha 2 26,797 81 0
10 - 20 ha 2 30,655 3,858 11
5 - 10 ha 637 33,929 3,273 9
2 - 5 ha 625 35,195 1,266 4
< 2 ha 208 35,368 173 0
All SIFMAs 1,556 35,368 100

Source: DENR (2004).

The sustainability of CBFM remains open to question. It is not clear whether international
agencies including the World Bank and Asian Development Bank will continue to make
substantial amounts of funding available to assist the program, and whether the program
would be more or less successful without this funding. Lacuna-Richman (2001, p. 170)
argued that it is the external agent (e.g. government and NGOs) and requirement for
‘increased funding from multilateral agencies that destroys the cohesiveness necessary for
participatory [forest] management to work’. Various other issues concerning the performance
of CBFM in the Philippines are raised in the following papers in this volume.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

A plethora of measures have been introduced by the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources and other agencies in the Philippines to promote reforestation for
increased timber resource availability, improved livelihoods of smallholders and
environmental protection. These have placed priority on smallholder (community and farm)
forestry.

Current forestry support programs in the Philippines draw on extensive experience, from
implementation of a substantial number of programs over about 30 years. As programs have
been implemented and then replaced, the DENR and other agencies have no doubt gained
substantial insights into identifying arrangements which work and those which fail. National
government administrations and the DENR executive have attempted to refine the programs
by revising the regulations covering CBFM and CBRM through issuing a series of Executive
and Administrative Orders. This has improved the operation of the programs but has
increased the complexity of interpreting the regulations. Unfortunately, national government
administrations since 1990 have been unable to pass much-needed revisions to national

forest and other natural resources management legislation that would correct the
inconsistencies and inadequacies of the existing regulations (UNFAO and FMBDENR 2003).
Community forestry programs appear to require substantial organisational and financial
support to become established. Low incomes of smallholders and shortage of funds by
government agencies have constrained the options available for smallholder forestry
programs. There has been high optimism but some unfulfilled expectations and
disappointment associated with these programs. On Leyte Island in particular, the degree of
success has been mixed and it is not yet clear to what extent smallholder reforestation
objectives will be achieved. There is a need for further research into the level of success of
forestry support program, including identification of constraints and avenues for cost-
effective targeting of the limited funds available for support programs. It is becoming
apparent that there are some advantages in adopting a policy to support individual property
181
Past and Present Forestry Support Programs in the Philippines
rights to tree planting, as distinct from common property planting, for example with respect to
tree protection (e.g. weed control and surveillance).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This review of forestry support programs forms part of the objectives of Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research Project ASEM/2000/088, and the financial assistance of
ACIAR is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Bisson, J. and Wijangco, E. (1997), Mid-Term Assessment of the Forest Resources Management
Activity, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, USAID, The Philippines and
Development Alternatives, Manila.
DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) (1990), Master Plan for Forestry
Development, Quezon City.
DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) (c1998), FAQs – Frequently Asked
Questions – about CBFM, Community Based Forest Management Office, Quezon City.
DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) (2004), Community-Based Forest
Management Projects with CBFMAs, IFMAs and SIFMAs, (as of December 2003),
http://forestry.denr.ph, accessed 1 November 2004.
Department of Finance, (1999), CBRMP Manual of Operations, Manila.
Emtage, N.F. (2004a), An Investigation of the Social and Economic Factors Affecting the
Development of Small-scale Forestry in Leyte Province, the Philippines, PhD thesis, School of
Natural and Rural Systems Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Emtage, N.F. (2004), ‘Stakeholder’s roles and responsibilities in the community-based forest
management program of the Philippines’, Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and
Policy, 3(3): 319-336.
FMB (Forest Management Bureau) (1994), ‘IFMA: An alternative toward sustainable forest
management’, Forestry Sector Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 2, DENR, Quezon City.
Gerrits, R.V. (1996), The Philippine Government’s Approach to Upland Development: The
Integrated
Social Forestry Program, SEARCA-UQ Uplands Research Project Working Paper No. 16, Los
Baños.
Groetschel, A., Aquino, R.A., Buchholz, I., Eufracio-Mazo, T.G., Ibkedanz, A., Sales, N.A.,
Seven, J.
and Vicentuan, K.C. (2001), Natural Resources Management Strategies on Leyte Island, the
Philippines, Centre of Advanced Training in Rural Development, Berlin.
Guiang, E.S. (2001), ‘Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural forests: the
Philippines’,
Chapter 4 in P.B. Durst et al. (eds), Forests Out of Bounds: Impacts and Effectiveness of
Logging Bans in Natural Forests in the Asia-Pacific, UNFAO Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific, Bangkok, pp. 103-136.
Kummer, D. and Sham, C.H. (1994), ‘The causes of tropical deforestation: a quantitative
analysis and
case study from the Philippines’, in K. Brown and D.W. Pearce (eds), The Causes of Tropical
Deforestation: the Economic and Statistical Analysis of Factors Giving Rise to the Loss of
Tropical Forests, UCL Press, London, pp. 146-158.
Lacuna-Richman, C. (2001), ‘Incorporating participatory management in reforestation
programmes for
carbon trading in the Philippines’, in C. Lacuna-Richman and H. Kaisti (eds), Tropical Forests
Facing New Modes of Governance in the Global Era, Faculty of Forestry, University of
Joensuu, pp. 163-174.
Osita, W. (2001), ‘The community-based resource management program’, a paper presented at
the
project planning workshop, ACIAR project ASEM/2000/088, Visca, Baybay.
PCARR (The Philippines Council for Agriculture and Resources Research) (1982), The
Philippines
Recommends for Reforestation, Los Baños.
Pulhin, J.M. (1998), ‘Community-based forest management: issues and challenges’, a paper
presented to the 6th UNAC Annual Consultative Conference, Metro Manila.
Saastamoinen, O. (2001), ‘A transition or a deadlock? The Philippines forest policy of the
1990s’, in
C. Lacuna-Richman and H. Kaisti (eds), Tropical Forests Facing New Modes of Governance in
the Global Era, Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, pp. 87-109.
Sy, M.U. (1998), ‘Rehabilitation of natural logged-over forests: The Philippines scenario’,
Canopy
International, November-December, pp. 3, 9-11.

182
ACIAR Smallholder Forestry Project
Tarun-Acay, F. (2004), ‘The adoption of community-based forest management and social
sensitivity in
Region 2, the Philippines: lessons learned for research, extension and development’, in Human
Dimensions of Family, Farm and Community Forestry, International Symposium, IUFRO Group
3.08, Small-Scale Forestry, 29 March - 1 April, Washington State University, Pullman.
UNFAO and FMBDENR, (2003), Sustainable Forest Management, Poverty Alleviation and Food Security
in Upland Communities in the Philippines: Revised Master Plan for Forestry, UNFAO Project
PHI/01/010 Final Draft Report, DENR, Quezon City, http://forestry.denr.gov.ph/MPFD.htm,
accessed 26 February 2004.
Utting, P. (ed.) (2000), Forest Policy and Politics in the Philippines: the Dynamics of
Participatory
Conservation, Ateneo De Manila University Press, Quezon City.
Venn, T.J., Harrison, S.R. and Herbohn, J.L. (2001), ‘Impediments to the adoption of Australian
tree
species in the Philippines’, in S.R. Harrison and J.L. Herbohn (eds), Socio-economic Evaluation
of the Potential for Australian Tree Species in the Philippines, ACIAR Monograph 75, ACIAR,
Canberra, pp. 167-181.
 183

Citations (36)
References (26)
... Major reforestation projects in the Philippines also ignored this major land-use, with
still very limited understanding the consequences of kaingin on the local environment .
In upland areas, smallholder kaingin farmers are also vulnerable to environmental
changes due to their dependence on forests with very limited access to other natural
resources, and kaingin will continue to form an important land-use in the country until
greater access to state regulated forestry and other land-use programs, and economic
development will take place (Mukul and Herbohn, 2013;Harrison et al., 2004). ...
... Major forestry policies in the Philippines, however, have attempted to impose
restrictions on this land-use, based on the assumption that it has detrimental
environmental impacts (Saurez and Sajise, 2010). Although, the Philippines is one of
the pioneers in large-scale restoration and reforestation activities, access by
smallholder and subsistence farmers to such efforts remains very limited (Pulhin et al.,
2007, Harrison et al., 2004. It is likely that kanigin will continue to form an important
land-use in the country's rural, remote areas until greater access to such state regulated
reforestation programs will be secured to local communities under community based
forest management (CBFM) and other participatory schemes (Pulhin et al., 2007). ...
Shifting cultivation in the upland secondary forests of the Philippines: Biodiversity and
carbon stock assessment, and ecosystem services trade-offs in land-use decisions
Thesis
Full-text available

 May 2016

 Sharif A. Mukul

View
 Show abstract
... In Northern Honduras, multiple stakeholder groups and the local communities helped
to conserve and restore 7500 ha of tropical forest (Kramer and Vallarino, 2016).
Community based forestry management in the Philippines yielded good results over a
period of 30 years but tension between communities and governments, NGOs and other
key stakeholders slowed down the progress (Harrison et al., 2004). Other studies
around the world have shown the success of community management of natural
resources (Dalle et al., 2006;Gautam et al., 2004). ...
Prospective evaluation of the impact of land use change on ecosystem services in the
Ourika watershed, Morocco
Article

 Sep 2020
 LAND USE POLICY

 Kwadwo Kyenkyehene Kusi

 Abdellatif Khattabi

 Nadia Mhammdi

 Said Lahssini

View
Show abstract
... Driven by the alarming rate of deforestation in the country, the national government
and other organizations have worked on the protection, conservation and improvement
of the country's remaining forests . As a result, numerous national reforestation projects
and forest management policies have emerged over the years (Harrison et al.,
2004;Lasco et al., 2013). The National Greening Program (NGP) is the most recent
reforestation initiative by the Philippine government, with the objective to plant 1.5 billion
trees on 1.5 million hectares from 2011 to 2016 (RP, 2011). ...
Changes in the landscape pattern of the La Mesa Watershed – The last ecological frontier
of Metro Manila, Philippines
Article
Full-text available

 Dec 2018
 FOREST ECOL MANAG

 Ronald C. Estoque

 Yuji Murayama

 Rodel D. Lasco

 Yasuaki Hijioka

View
Show abstract
... Numerous reforestation projects and management policies in the Philippines have
emerged during the last century (Harrison et al., 2004;Lasco et al., 2013). The most
recent reforestation initiative of the Philippine government is the National Greening
Program (NGP). ...
Simultaneous comparison and assessment of eight remotely sensed maps of Philippine
forests
Article
Full-text available

 Feb 2018

 Ronald C. Estoque

 Robert Gilmore Pontius

 Yuji Murayama
 Merlito A Villar

View
 Show abstract
... A CADC is issued by DENR to an indigenous cultural community in recognition of a
communal claim to ancestral lands occupied since time immemorial, awarded to an
People'SIFMA is an agreement for 25 years between the DENR and individual farmers
or cooperatives to produce forest products (max. 10 ha for individuals and 500 ha for
cooperatives) Industrial Forest Management Agreement (IFMA)DENR Department
Administrative Order 4 of 1997An IFMA is a 25-year production sharing agreement
between DENR and an individual or corporation to utilize public land to grow and
harvest timber Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT)Indigenous Peoples' Rights
Act (IPRA) of 1997 (Republic Act 8371)A CADT is a land title awarded by the NCIP to
an indigenous communitySource: Guiang 2004;Harrison et al. 2004;DENR 2008
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org on Sunday, July 24,
2016, IP: 202.1.163.111] ...
Recognising land rights for conservation? tenure reforms in the Northern Sierra Madre,
The Philippines
Article
Full-text available

 Apr 2016

 Jan van der Ploeg

 Dante Medina Aquino

 Tessa Minter

 Merlijn van Weerd

View
Show abstract
... Major forestry policies, however, have aimed to restrict it, assuming detrimental
environmental impacts (Suarez & Sajise 2010). The Philippines is one of the pioneers in
large-scale restoration and reforestation activities, yet the participation in such efforts by
smallholder and subsistence farmers remains very limited (Harrison et al. 2004, Pulhin
et al. 2007). Thus, until local communities are granted greater access to state-regulated
reforestation programs, kaingin are likely to continue in the country's remote areas
(Pulhin et al. 2007). ...
 Co-benefits of biodiversity and carbon sequestration from regenerating secondary forests
in the Philippine uplands: Implications for forest landscape restoration
Article
Full-text available

 May 2016

 Sharif A. Mukul

 John Herbohn

 Jennifer Firn

View
Show abstract
... Being one of the 17 mega-diverse countries (Mittermeir, 1997), the loss of vital forest
ecosystems in the Philippines resulted in the decline of a wide array of ecosystem
services (Rebugio et al., 2007;Lasco, 2008). In response, a number of reforestation
efforts particularly on open grasslands and denuded lands were implemented across
the country (Harrison et al., 2004;Sayer et al., 2004;Chokkalingam et al., 2005). ...
Fire occurrence and fire mitigation strategies in a grassland reforestation area in the
Philippines
Article

 Mar 2016
 FOREST POLICY ECON

 Rico Ancog

View
... Existing tree farms on Leyte Island comprise almost entirely two exotic species
-gmelina (Gmelina arborea) and mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) (Herbohn et al.
2009a). These species were widely planted during the National Forestation Program
(NFP) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) during the
1990s (Harrison et al. 2004). Although these exotics dominate most tree farms and
 reforestation projects, some areas have been planted with longer rotation species
including dipterocarps (Cedamon et al. 2011), and there is interest in domesticating
indigenous tree species (Mangaoang and Pasa 2003). ...
Domesticating native tree species for development in small island nations
Book
Full-text available

 Jan 2012

 Jerome K Vanclay

 J. Doland Nichols
 A J Pottinger

View
... Support may also increase CFGs bonding social capital through technical advice and
assistance, training for record keeping, infrastructure and funding (e.g. see Johnson,
1999;Harrison et al., 2004;Mangabat et al., 2009;Hodgdon, 2010;Ruiz-Mallén et al.,
2014). ...
Key factors which influence the success of community forestry in developing countries
Article

 Nov 2015
 GLOBAL ENVIRON CHANG

 Jack Baynes

 John Herbohn
 Carl Smith

 David Bray

View
 Biomass Production, Carbon Stock, and Carbon Sequestration of Dipterocarps at Seedling
Stage in Response to Light and Nutrient Availability
Article
Full-text available

Scientific progress and the COVID-19 pandemic

 John Meadows
 Nicholas Emtage

 John Herbohn

View project
Article
Towards Organic Vegetable Farming in Mahasarakham Province, Thailand
December 2010 · Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

 Kanokporn Rattanasuteerakul

 Gopal B. Thapa

The government of Thailand has been implementing organic vegetable promotion

programs and projects since the late 1990s under the broad policy of sustainable
agricultural development. Based on primarily secondary information and some primary
information collected through a household survey conducted in four districts of the
Mahasarakham province, this study revealed little progress, despite ... [Show full
abstract]
Read more
Article
Prescriptive use of Environmental Indices: A “How To” Guide for
Conservation Programs
February 2005
 Andrea Cattaneo

A framework for analyzing conservation programs that rank applications using

environmental indices is presented. We derive the optimal bid from the farmer’s
perspective for both land retirement and working lands agri-environmental payment
programs and we analyze how these solutions depend on program design parameters.
The distinction is made between environmental objectives based on whether ... [Show
full abstract]
Read more
Article
A national-level economic analysis of Conservation Reserve Program participation: a
discrete choice...
January 1990 · Journal of Agricultural Economics Research