See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291056301

Deforestation in the Philippines

Article · March 1994

CITATION READS
1 42,166

1 author:

Olivier Serrat
Chicago School of Professional Psychology
611 PUBLICATIONS   1,870 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Knowledge Management Techniques View project

Corporate Creativity and Innovation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olivier Serrat on 30 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Deforestation in the
Philippines

This unpublished précis seeks to identify the conflicts

that underlie deforestation in the Philippines and
submits that ways of reconciling conflicting interests
must be found to foster the wise use of forest
resources.

Olivier Serrat
28/03/1994
 1

Introduction

Apart from their role in conserving the ecosystem and protecting the environment for
sustainable development, forests provide innumerable products of vital use and are a source of
livelihood to a large number of people. Thus, forestry sector activities significantly influence the
level and pattern of development.

Over the past three decades, due to improved methods of exploitation, processing, and
transport, growth of external markets and rapidly expanding populations, the depletion of forest
resources has intensified dramatically. Removals from forests have increased considerably and
large areas have been converted to non-forestry uses. The consequences of this excessive
deforestation have been soil erosion; desertification; sedimentation of water courses, lakes, and
dams; alteration of local climates through disruption of the energy balance and hydrological
cycle; and massive extinction of plant and animal species. It is also contended that deforestation
leads to changes in the atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide balance, which alter the albedo
and accelerate the greenhouse effect.

Over the last few years, with an increasing understanding of, and concern about, the
consequences of destructive deforestation, the attention given to forests by multilateral
institutions and governments has shifted from production to conservation and management.
Typically, however, the issue of deforestation is approached from an environmental
management perspective and prescriptions fail to take account of, when they do not ignore, the
environmental conflicts at hand.1

Forest Resources

Forests are among the Philippines' major resources but have suffered severe depletion as a
result of logging, ineffective reforestation, population pressure, and shifting cultivation. Reliable
statistics on forest cover before 1950 do not exist and discussion of forest cover and its decline
usually focuses on the post-1950 period.2 Forest cover data suggests that up to 55 percent of
the total land area of the Philippines (300,000 square kilometers) were under primary forest
cover in the early 1950s.3 Today, only about 6 million hectares (ha), or 20 percent of the total
land area, remain under forest cover. Less than 1 million ha consists of virgin forest. Forest
resources are being rapidly depleted (by an average of about 120,000 ha per annum) and there
is a real prospect of Philippine forests being virtually eliminated within the next 20 years.

Forest Policies

The government agency in charge of Philippine forests has changed its name several times in
the post-war period. The Bureau of Forestry became the Bureau of Forest Development in
1973, which in turn became the Forest Management Bureau in 1987. Until the late 1970s, as
the names of the government agency indicates, emphasis in the forestry sector was generally

1 These perspectives and prescriptions derive from increasing concern in industrial countries for environmental and
preservation considerations and the aesthetic qualities of forests. In developing countries, where people are trying
to achieve economic development, forests are frequently seen as a source of food, raw material and capital.
2 Deforestation in the Philippines is not restricted to the twentieth century. It is estimated that forest cover declined
from about 90 percent of total land area at the time of the first contact with the Spanish in 1571 to about 70 percent
by 1900. The major causes are believed to have been the steady increase in population and the spread of
commercial crops (primarily abaca, tobacco, and sugarcane).
3 The term primary forest denotes any original, virgin forest unmodified by deleterious human activity. Secondary
forest denotes the vegetation type that usually replaces primary forest following its removal.
 2

on the removal of growing stock. This resulted in excessive exploitation without regard to forest
protection and logging regulations. Starting in 1961, a surge in Japanese demand triggered a
dramatic increase in harvesting. Over the next 15 years, harvests averaged 8.8 million cubic
meters, more than twice pre-boom levels. Forest area under logging concessions nearly
doubled, from 5.5 million ha in 1960 to 10.6 million ha in 1971, and forest products became the
leading export commodity, reaching 33 percent of gross export values by 1969 (see Table 1).

Government policy in the 1980s was to phase out exports of hardwood logs to stimulate the
development of the local processing industry. Export bans were imposed in 1982 and again in
1986 (this still remained in force as of 1993) and had the effect of increasing exports of
processed products. However, substantial quantities of logs are thought to be illegally exported.
In the late 1980s, illegal exports were estimated at $800 million annually, approximately four
times the officially recorded earnings from forest charges and export charges. Overall output
has been in decline since the early 1970s, reflecting the narrowing in the resource base (see
Table 2).

Government efforts at reforestation have been largely ineffectual. Under the Marcos regime,
replacement by new plantations was limited and averaged 58,000 ha a year over the period
1978–1986. The 1987–1992 development plan launched by the Aquino administration had a
reforestation target of 100,000 ha a year, with a total of 911,400 ha of logged-over land to be
improved. Reforestation averaged 96,000 ha over the period 1987–1990 but 120,000 ha a year
is required merely to balance deforestation.

The Benefits from Deforestation

The negative aspects of tropical deforestation are well known. However, since deforestation
continues, it is appropriate to discuss those aspects of deforestation that are viewed in a
positive light by some of the participants in the process. Some groups gain from deforestation
and, from the point of view of policy intervention, the perspective of these groups may be of
interest.

Different groups derive long-term benefits from deforestation. These groups include: (i) the
government, since pioneer settlement diverts attention from pressing social problems such as
urban crowding and overpopulation; (ii) commercial loggers (legal and illegal) and those allied
with them (politicians, the military, and government bureaucrats); (iii) people employed in the
logging and wood-processing industries; (iv) the national treasury, which derives foreign
exchange earnings from forest products; (v) commercial interests that use deforested lands to
grow a product for the market; (vi) commercial interests that speculate on land near roads and
new settlements; (vii) local commercial businesses that benefit from frontier settlement, such as
banks and retailers; (viii) commercial interests that buy and sell charcoal or fuelwood; (ix) urban
consumers of charcoal and fuelwood who pay a price that does not reflect the externalities of
deforestation; (x) multinational corporations involved in the trade of tropical products; and (xi)
consumers in developed countries, who gain because the prices of tropical products do not
internalize the costs of deforestation.
 3

On the other hand, migrant farmers and traditional shifting cultivators benefit from the removal
of forest cover because it enables them to farm for several years. It must be noted, however,
that in most cases these benefits are short-lived because the clearance process must be
repeated elsewhere within two or three years as a result of insect plagues, weeds, and soil
impoverishment.4

In short, it must be recognized that a significant characteristic of deforestation is that it provides

a stream of benefits to certain groups in society who therefore have a stake in its continuation.
To devise instruments for directing or controlling the process of deforestation, it is therefore
necessary to identify the beneficiaries of deforestation to ensure that the instruments adopted
are relevant. In addition, market and policy instruments need to consider whether the motive of
the agents of deforestation is monetary gain or subsistence and allocate the share of
deforestation attributable to each agent. Much of the expansion of agriculture into previously
forested areas and fuelwood gathering is performed by poor members of society whose primary
concern is subsistence. On the other hand, logging, some agriculture and some charcoal
making are carried out essentially for commercial reasons.

A Framework for Conflict Resolution

The process of deforestation outlined above is not readily amenable to technical solutions. The
major questions do not concern the relative merits of different silvicultural practices or the
choice of the discount rate. Rather, the fundamental issue concerns conflicting interests over
the use of forest resources. In the Philippines, the answer has always been that the forests
belong to loggers and their allies, while the interests of communities and the many sectors that
use or influence forests have never been paid much attention. However, many of the conflicts
among forest users could be avoided if a cross-sectoral policy approach were adopted.

It is, first, necessary to: (i) identify all the sectors and groups that benefit from forests; (ii) define
the benefits and establish objectives for sustaining and balancing them; and (iii) state how the
objectives are to be achieved. The intention underlying the type of policy intervention advocated
here is resolution of conflicts by integrating compatible uses of forest resources and zoning
where uses are incompatible.

In the context of a medium-term framework for forest conservation and development (the two
need not be seen as irreconcilable), decision-makers should be encouraged to: (i) take into
account all forest values, including environmental services and biological diversity, and not just
the production of timber and other commodities; and (ii) establish mechanisms to ensure that
the policies of all sectors that affect forests are consistent with national objectives for forests.

Conclusion

In conclusion, deforestation will most suitably be addressed by a multidisciplinary approach that

emphasizes, against a pragmatic realization that societies are dynamic, the socioeconomic and
political environment in which the process of deforestation occurs. The role of social ingenuity
as a precursor to technical ingenuity should not be overlooked. A sophisticated and stable

4
It is important to realize that, in the Philippines, deforestation in secondary forests usually follows the felling of
primary forests. By 1987, about 18 million people (30 percent of the country's population) were living in upland
areas. This movement into the uplands was inadvertently encouraged by the government's logging policies, which
reduced the cost of migration and settlement. Logging roads made forest lands accessible and logging cleared the
land, thus saving upland farmers as much as 60 percent of the total labor associated with upland production.
 4

system of markets, legal regimes, financial agencies, and educational and research institutions
is a prerequisite for the development and distribution of many technologies. At present,
however, not only are the Philippines ill-endowed with these social resources but their ability to
create and maintain them is being eroded by the very environmental problems the country is
hoping to address.

The views expressed in this précis are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank, or its Board of Governors or the
governments they represent.

References

Asian Development Bank. (1989). Sector paper on forestry. Manila: Philippines.

Boado, E.L. (1988). Incentive policies and forest use in the Philippines. In Public policies and
the misuse of forest resources. Ed. Repetto, R. et al. Washington, D.C. World
Resources Institute.
Cernea, M.M. (1993). The sociologist's approach to sustainable development. Finance &
Development, 30(4),11–13.
IUCN/UNEP/WWF. (1991). Caring for the earth: A strategy for sustainable living. Gland:
Switzerland.
Kummer, D.M. (1992). Deforestation in the postwar Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University
Press.
Repetto, R. 1988. The forest for the trees? Government policies and the misuse of forest
resources. Washington, D.C. World Resources Institute.
Sharma, N., & Rowe, R. (1992). Managing the world's forests. Finance & Development, 29(2),
31–33.
 Appendix

Forest Area Under License and Timber Production

Table 1: Forest Area under License, 1959–1984 ('000 ha)

Year Licensed Area Year Licensed Area

FY 1959–60 4,485 FY 1973–74 8,452
FY 1961–62 6,554 FY 1975–76 10,137
FY 1963–64 7,928 CY 1978 8,768
FY 1965–66 6,745 CY 1980 7,938
FY 1967–68 8,302 CY 1982 7,539
FY 1969–70 8,979 CY 1984 6,346
FY 1971–72 10,598 – –
Boado, E.L. (1988). Incentive policies and forest use in the Philippines. In Public policies and the misuse of forest
resources. Ed. Repetto, R. et al. Washington, D.C. World Resources Institute.

Table 2: Actual Production of Timber, 1958–1984 ('000 cubic meters)

Year Production Year Production

FY 1958–59 5,452 FY 1971–72 8,416
FY 1959–60 6,315 FY 1972–73 10,446
FY 1960–61 6,596 FY 1973–74 10,190
FY 1961–62 6,772 FY 1974–75 7,332
FY 1962–63 7,668 FY 1975–76 8,546
FY 1963–64 6,536 CY 1977 7,874
FY 1964–65 6,175 CY 1978 7,169
FY 1965–66 8,047 CY 1979 6,578
FY 1966–67 7,843 CY 1980 6,352
FY 1967–68 11,114 CY 1981 4,514
FY 1968–69 11,584 CY 1982 5,400
FY 1969–70 11,005 CY 1983 4,468
FY 1970–71 10,680 CY 1984 3,849
Boado, E.L. (1988). Incentive policies and forest use in the Philippines. In Public policies and the misuse of forest
resources. Ed. Repetto, R. et al. Washington, D.C. World Resources Institute.

View publication stats