Content uploaded by Makoto Inoue
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Makoto Inoue on Jul 07, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Three decades of community-based forest management
in the Philippines: emerging lessons for sustainable and
equitable forest management
J. M. PULHIN1, M. INOUE2 and T. ENTERS3
1 College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines Los Baños, College, Laguna 4031 Philippines
2 The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8657, Japan
3 Formerly with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand
Email: jpulhin@yahoo.com
SUMMARY
This paper presents a comprehensive review of the policy and practice of community-based forest management (CBFM) in the Philippines
over the last three decades - one of the longest experiences in Asia. As a form of structural policy reform, CBFM may be viewed as
radical and progressive. It replaced the century-old corporate mode of forest utilization where benefi ts fl owed directly to an elite minority
and attempts to institutionalize a more “people-oriented,” approach of forest management. However, progress on the ground in terms
of achieving the CBFM’s goals on sustainable and equitable forest management remains elusive. Unstable policy, overly bureaucratic
procedures, CBFM viewed as a project and not as an approach to replacing commercial large-scale forestry, and weak institutional support
system, deter effective implementation. Drawing from three decades of experience, the paper distilled emerging lessons for sustainable and
equitable forest management that may be useful to other countries promoting community forestry.
Keywords: community-based forest management, sustainable forest management, social equity, Philippines, forest policy.
Rapport sur la gestion forestière basée sur la communauté dans les Philippines: leçons
émergeantes pour la gestion équitable et durable des forêts
J.M. PULHIN, M. INOUE et T. ENTERS
Cet article présente un rapport complet de la politique et de la pratique de la gestion forestière communautaire (CBFM) dans les Philippines
au cours des deux dernières décennies- une des expériences les plus longues en Asie. En tant que réforme structurelle de la politique, la
CBFM peut être perçue comme radicale et progressive. Elle a remplacé le mode corporatif d’utilisation de la forêt vieux de plus d’un siècle,
a sein duquel les bénéfi ces s’écoulaient directement vers une élite minoritaire, et vise à instutitionaliser une approche de gestion forestières
plus orientée vers les personnes. Le progrès sur le terrain en terme d’atteindre les buts de la CBFM quant à la gestion forestière durable et
équitable demeure vague. Une politique instable, des procédés trop bureaucratiques, la perception de la CBFM comme projet, et non pas une
approche pour remplacer la foresterie commerciale à grande échelle, et un support institutionel faible, sapent toute mise en pratique effi cace.
En puisant dans deux décennies d’expérience , cet article distille les leçons émergeantes pour une gestion forestière équitable et durable qui
pourait être utile à d’autres pays désirant promouvoir une foresterie communautaire.
Perspectivas globales sobre la gestión forestal comunitaria en Filipinas: lecciones para una
gestión forestal sostenible y equitativa
J. M. PULHIN, M. INOUE y T. ENTERS
Este estudio presenta una perspectiva global sobre las políticas y la práctica del manejo forestal comunitario (MFC) en Filipinas durante las
últimas dos décadas, una de las experiencias de MFC más antiguas en Asia. Como método de reforma de política estructural, el MFC puede
ser considerado radical y progresista. Al reemplazar el modo colectivo secular de utilización forestal en que los benefi cios fl uían directamente
a una élite minoritaria, intenta establecer un enfoque de manejo forestal que se centra más en las personas. Sin embargo, el progreso sobre el
terreno sigue siendo difícil de alcanzar en lo que se refi ere al logro de los obejtivos del MFC sobre la gestión forestal sostenible y equitativa.
La inestabilidad política, los procedimientos excesivamente burocráticos, el concepto del MFC como proyecto y no como metodología de
reemplazo de la gestión forestal comercial a gran escala, y la debilidad del sistema de apoyo institucional impiden la implementación efi caz
del MFC. El estudio utiliza dos décadas de experiencias que brindan lecciones para el manejo forestal sostenible y equitativo que pueden
servir a otros países que promuevan la gestión comunitaria.
865
International Forestry Review Vol.9(4), 2007
INTRODUCTION
Over the last two decades, many countries have been
actively engaged in reforms to transfer responsibilities and
power from the centre to the periphery (e.g. state, province,
district or local level). The manifest failure of state and
market mechanisms to promote sustainable and equitable
natural resource management in the developing world has
stimulated the search for community-based alternatives (Li
2002) including community forestry and community-based
forest management. Locally-managed forests have existed
for centuries. Decentralization is viewed as an important
element of forest management. It is assumed – as well as
advocated – that people who live close to forests and may
be dependent on them for a variety of products and services
have greater interest in the proper management than distant
authorities located hundreds of kilometres away.
High expectations related to the purported sustainability,
equitability and effi ciency benefi ts of decentralization have
been raised. It is hoped that empowering people at the
periphery to choose and implement “their” form of forest
management can contribute to the advancement of sustainable
development as promoted by the 1987 World Commission
on Environment and Development and the Millennium
Development Goals of eradicating extreme poverty and
hunger and ensuring environmental sustainability (Pulhin
1996). To what extent have the expectations and hopes been
fulfi lled and to what extent is “democratic decentralization”
in forest management actually taking place?
A review of the recent history of decentralization in
forestry indicates undeniably that the land area of, although
not necessarily forests, managed under “decentralized”
and community-based forest management systems has
dramatically increased in many countries. It appears that a
number of communities and individuals involved in forestry
have grown exponentially and more pioneering forms of
bringing local people – into forestry are being devised.
Are the numbers of people involved in forest management
or aerial increases in tree cover suitable indicators of
success, effi ciency gains, improved equitability, social
justice and achievements of conservation goals? Have the
high expectations of the mid-1990s been overtaken by
disenchantment about the stalling and sometimes reversal of
rudimentary decentralization processes? A comprehensive
review of the last three decades of community-based forest
management (CBFM) in the Philippines, attempts to answer
these questions.
This paper provides a thorough examination of the
evolution of the policy and practice of CBFM in the country
over the last three decades, starting in the early 1970s, which
have shaped today’s CBFM. It complements the paper of
Dahal and Capistano (2006), also published in this journal,
that deals on weaknesses in devolution policy as it affects
CBFM in the Philippines.1 It synthesizes the results of recent
assessments, fi eld studies and scientifi c papers. Based on the
review, the paper concludes by distilling some emerging
lessons for sustainable and equitable forest management
that may be useful to other countries promoting community
forestry.
The Philippines covers a total land area of around
30 million hectares. Much of the country is hilly and
mountainous with 52% of the land area offi cially classifi ed
as “forestland” (FMB 2002). The term “forestland” refers to
all property owned by the national government that is still in
the public domain. It is a legal, not a botanical description.
In reality, much “forestlands” do not contain forests (Pulhin
et al. 2006).
The country’s forestlands and resources have vital
national and global signifi cance. Domestically,forestlands
are important sources of water for irrigation, hydroelectric
power, industrial use and household use (Lasco et al. 2001).
They are also home to millions of indigenous peoples and
migrants from the lowlands. The University of the Philippines
Population Institute estimated a total of 25 million people in
2000 living in the forestlands, with an annual growth rate of
2.8 percent (Guiang 2001). The upland residents, including
some 6.3 million indigenous peoples, are considered the
“poorest of the poor” and are mostly dependent on these
areas for survival.2
Until the late 1970s, forests have contributed signifi cantly
to the national economy. In 1959, the country’s market
share in globally-traded tropical timber logs was above 30%
(Quintos 1989). Forest products averaged 19% of the total
value of exports from 1970 to 1973. In addition, the wood
industry provided direct employment to many thousands
of individuals. With the continuous degradation of the
country’s forest resources, the contribution of the forestry
sector to the Philippine economy has continued to decline.
From around 2.17% in 1976, forestry’s contribution to the
gross national product (GNP) has plunged to a meager
0.10% in 2004 at constant prices (FMB 2000 and 2004). 3 It
should be noted however, that existing valuation techniques
1 Both papers provide the historical context of CBFM in the Philippines although they have different focus. Dahal’s and Capistrano’s paper
situates their historical analysis in the context of devolution of forest management starting from the pre-colonial period to the present while
this paper focuses in the last 35 years but covers more ground in terms of different policies, drivers and players that have shaped CBFM
today. Also, while both papers discuss CBFM policy, the emphasis of Dahal and Capistrano is on policy articulation while this paper
focuses on policy processes, content and impacts in relation to the attainment of CBFM policy objectives.
2 The inability of the Philippines economy to address the high population growth rate and its failure to develop light and medium industries
as “economic magnets” in the lowlands resulted to a situation where the only alternative of poor upland communities is to eke out a living
by converting open access forest lands into upland cultivation and farms. With almost 50% of the population in urban areas, increasing
pressure to expand agricultural production has also contributed to continuing deforestation and land conversion.
3 Constant or real prices take into account the infl ation rate in a given year hence are computed by factoring in the infl ation index (provided
by the Philippine National Statistical Coordination Board) to the current prices.
866 J. M. Pulhin et al.
for GNP contribution does not include contribution of
forests and foreslands in watersheds and/or protected areas
to the GNP contributions of agriculture – irrigation and
coastal fi sheries, ecotourism, and energy. It does not also
include measurement of “savings” such as from reduced
maintenance cost of infrastructure.
Despite its socioeconomic and environmental signifi cance,
the Philippine forests have degenerated over the years due
to massive logging and conversion to agricultural land,
including shifting cultivation. Forest cover declined from
about 21 million hectares of forest cover (70% of the total
land area) at the end of the 19th century (Garrity et al. 1993,
Liu et al. 1993), to around 7.2 million hectares or about
23.9% of the total land area (FMB 2004). Of these, less
than one million hectares can be considered primary forests
(FMB 1997). The remainder has been logged at least once
or has suffered degradation through other activities.
According to FAO (2006), the Philippines had the highest
deforestation rate in all of South and Southeast Asia during
the 1990s. Annually, it was about 2.8 percent. In comparison,
for Indonesia and Thailand the annual rate was 1.7 percent
and 0.7 percent, respectively. In Vietnam, the forest area
expanded by 2.3 percent annually. Between, 2000 and 2005,
the deforestation rate declined only marginally. Comparisons
among countries are very diffi cult. Vietnam has certainly
benefi ted from massive investments in reforestation, which
is comparable only with China. Thailand, like the Philippines
has also very few forest left. The nationwide logging ban
imposed in 1989 has curtailed uncontrolled forest conversion
to some extent. Indonesia on the other hand, has seen an
increase in annual deforestation in recent years, mainly
because of heavy investments in the plantation and estate
sectors and widespread illegal logging.
Broader structural forces such as political patronage,
poverty, inequitable access to forest resources, and graft
and corruption in the forestry sector, have contributed to
deforestation and forest degradation in the Philippines
(Porter and Ganapin 1988, Kummer 1992, Broad and
Cavanagh 1993, Vitug 1993).
Over the last two decades, efforts to reverse the
downward trend of forest degradation and address the
mounting socioeconomic and environmental problems in
the Philippine uplands have received more attention. At the
core of these efforts is the adoption of community-based
forest management as the national strategy for promoting
sustainable forestry and social justice in 1995.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND SOURCES OF DATA
AND INFORMATION
The review was conducted at two levels of analysis: policy
and fi eld levels (Figure 1). Different emphasis of analysis
was adopted at each level (Table 1). The policy level
centred on the historical context of CBFM by examining
the evolution of different policies, programs and initiatives
under three periods, i.e. pioneering, experimentation, and
institutionalization and expansion The fi eld level review
concentrated on the fi ve core areas of CBFM, i.e. tenure
and resource use, livelihood and enterprise development,
forest conservation and protection, the capacity of people’s
organizations (PO) towards self-governance, and institutional
support systems.4 In comparison to the policy level, most of
the information used for the analysis at the fi eld level comes
directly from the fi eld via cases studies, is contained in the
grey literature and/or emerged during multi-stakeholder
consultations held from 2005 to 2007.. Table 1 presents
the major sources of information used at the two levels of
analysis.
Based on the analysis, the outcomes of CBFM were
assessed according to improving the communities’
socioeconomic well-being, advancing social justice and
equitable access to forestlands and resources, achieving
sustainable forest management and promoting a healthy
environment for the Filipino people. These four criteria
refl ect of CBFM’s main objectives. The overlapping
circles representing the different objectives and the arrows
indicate the interconnectedness and non-exclusivity of these
objectives. Although the objectives might be considered as
overly ambitious, the overall performance of CBFM has to
be gauged nonetheless on the basis of the attainment of these
stated objectives. Finally, emerging lessons for sustainable
and equitable forest management were distilled.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: KEY POLICIES, DRIVERS
AND PLAYERS
Several studies have analyzed the evolution of CBFM in the
Philippines including the recent decentralization approach
in forest management (Rebugio and Chiong-Javier 1995,
Pulhin 1996, Borlagdan et al. 2001, Pulhin and Pulhin
2003, Magno 2003, Dahal and Capistrano 2006). While the
previous studies focused on policies and practice of CBFM,
this review builds on the previous ones by emphasizing more
on key drivers and players that shape them. The historical
review covers initiatives and developments in the last 35
years, which have shaped today’s CBFM. The analysis
period can be divided into “pioneering”, “experimentation”
and “institutionalization and expansion”.
Pioneering period (1971-1985)
Until the end of 1960s, forest policies and programs of the
4 These core areas or themes were fi rst used during the Ten Year Review of CBFM in the Philippines: A Forum for Refl ection and Dialogue,
held on 20 - 22 April 2006 and was debated on and adopted by the multi-stakeholder participants composed of POs, NGOs, DENR,
private sector, academe, and donor agencies, during the National Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) Strategic Plan Update: A
Consultative Workshop held on September 20-22, 2006. The new National CBFM Strategic Action Plan currently being formulated jointly
by the different stakeholders also adopted these fi ve areas as the key component strategies.
867
Review of community-based forest management in the Philippines
Philippine government favoured the commercial sector over
local people. Kaingineros (or shifting cultivators) and other
forest occupants were fi ned, imprisoned and evicted from
forest areas, as a strategy to halt deforestation. The strict
enforcement of the law and the alienation of the local people
in the Philippine uplands could not slow down the massive
deforestation (Pulhin 1996).
The 1970s marked a new phase in the development of
forest policies and programs, which paved the way to the
present CBFM program and strategy. The continuing over-
exploitation of forests on one hand, and the political risk
associated with the growing countryside insurgency on the
other, triggered the formulation of new policies and programs
under the President Marcos administration, which aimed to
address and reverse the emerging environmental and political
crisis (Pulhin 1996). Between 1973 and 1979, three “people-
oriented forestry” programs were implemented, namely,
the Family Approach to Reforestation (FAR) Program,
Forest Occupancy Management (FOM) Program, and the
Communal Tree Farming (CFP) Program. In 1982, a major
program known as the Integrated Social Forestry Program
(ISFP) was established through the issuance of Presidential
Letter of Instruction 1260. ISFP consolidated the three
earlier programs, while recognizing the vested interests
of the forest occupants through the provision of a 25-year
tenure security (Table 2). The provision of tenure security
enabled the upland farmers to farm their lands and enjoy the
benefi ts of their labour without the fear of being ejected in
the government-owned forestlands.
The policies and programs developed during the
pioneering period opened some space, albeit very limited,
to accommodate forest occupancy. They also involved
individuals and upland communities in soil conservation,
forest protection, reforestation, and establishment of tree
plantations. From a political economy perspective, it is
clear that they mainly served the interest of the state in terms
of using local people as paid labourers. Minor incentives
and small concessions allowed the military regime to
perpetuate its political rule by containing the insurgency in
the countryside (Contreras 1989, Pulhin 1996). However,
the initiatives are considered as “pioneering” since they
departed from the traditional punitive approach and became
more accommodating for forest occupants and their role
in forest management (Rebugio and Chiong-Javier 1995).
Indeed, for the fi rst time foresters realized and admitted that
deforestation was not merely a problem of a technical but
rather socioeconomic nature (Pulhin 1998). Hence, the fi rst
seeds for CBFM were unknowingly, and in all likelihood
also unintentionally, planted during the 1970s.
FIGURE 1 Analytical framework for the review
868 J. M. Pulhin et al.
Policy
Ground
Realities
Levels of review
Social
justice/
equity
Sustainable
forestry
Healthful
environment
Overall outcome vis a
vis policy objectives
Emerging
Lessons
Socioeconomic
well-being
TABLE 1 Focus of analysis and major sources of information for different levels of CBFM reviewed
Levels/areas of
Review Emphasis/focus of analysis Major sources of data/information
Policy Historical context, key
players and drivers of policy
development in a given period Government laws, rules and regulations; published and grey literature
Field/Site specifi c
realities
Core areas of CBFM
namely, land tenure and
resource use, livelihood and
enterprise development, forest
conservation and protection,
PO’s capacity towards self-
governance, institutional
support
Case studies and fi eld review reports:
• Preliminary assessment of CBFM involving analysis of 29 sites
nationwide, commissioned by the Ford Foundation, Philippines
(Borlagdan et al. 2001). The sites included 5 “self-initiated”
(in which community-wide sustainable indigenous resource
management systems predated any CBFM interventions in the area),
9 locally assisted (in which the growth of CBFM efforts was brought
about largely by partnerships with external entities, sponsors, or
facilitators), and 15 national program sites (all sites in which the
DENR implemented various aspects of the CBFM program).
• Synthesis of six in-depth case studies conducted in CBFM areas
commissioned by the DENR under the FAO-managed National
Forestry Program (NFP) Facility (Pulhin 2005) with the intension
of improving the CBFM implementation strategy by crafting a new
National CBFM Strategic Action Plan.
• Field review of a total of 70 CBFM sites under the DENR- JICA
(Japan International Cooperation Agency) Project for Enhancing
CBFM Program contained in two separate reports (Miyakawa et
al. 2005, and Miyakawa et al. 2006). The review forms part of the
policy component of the project.
• Tenure assessment report of the Environmental Governance Project
Phase 2 (EcoGov 2) involving the analysis of 212 tenure holders
in forestlands located in 4 Regions and 30 LGUs using 12 criteria
(Castillo et al 2007). Of the 212 tenure holders, 155 are CBFM
sites.
Outputs of multi-stakeholder assessments as enumerated below
Overall outcomes
Impacts of CBFM policies
and program in achieving
the CBFM goals in terms
of improving communities’
socioeconomic well-being,
advancing sustainable forestry
and social justice and equity,
and promoting a healthful
environment
Outputs of multi-stakeholder assessments:
• “Ten Year Review of CBFM in the Philippines: A Forum for
Refl ection and Dialogue”, held on 20 - 22 April 2006 in Silang,
Cavite. The review was jointly organized by the an international
NGO, the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction and the
University of the Philippines Los Baños, College of Forestry and
Natural Resources’ Environmental Justice Project. It was attended
by representatives from DENR, POs/National CBFM PO Federation,
NGOs, LGUs, academe, other government agencies, private sector,
and development/donor organizations. An interesting feature
of the review is the good representation of the PO leaders who
presented 11 of the 20 papers based on their personal experiences of
implementing CBFM in their respective sites.
• “National Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) Strategic
Plan Update: A Consultative Workshop” held on September 20-22,
2006 in Traders Hotel, Makati City. The workshop was organized
to initiate the process of drafting the new National CBFM Strategic
Action Plan. It was initiated under the NFP Facility and co-
organized by DENR, NGOs, academe, and development and donor
organizations. It was also attended by different stakeholders as
enumerated above but especially by the offi cers of National and
Regional PO Federation from different regions nationwide.
Case studies and fi eld reports as enumerated above
Published and grey literature
869
Review of community-based forest management in the Philippines
Periods/
Dates Key Policies/Programs/ Projects/
Initiatives Features
Pioneering Period (1971-1985)
1971 Kaingin Management and Land
Settlement Regulations (Forestry
Administrative Order No. 62)
Focused on the containment rather than the punishment of forest occupants.
Kaingineros or slash and burn cultivators were allowed to remain the public
forestland provided they undertake soil conservation and tree farming
activities in fi xed sites
1973
Family Approach to Reforestation
(FAR) Program (Bureau of Forest
Development Circular No. 45, Series
of 1973)
The Bureau of Forest Development entered into short-term contracts with
families to set up tree plantations in public land.
1975 Revised Forestry Code of the
Philippines (Presidential Decree No.
705)
Kaingineros, squatters and other occupants who entered forest zones before
May 1975 shall not be prosecuted provided they do not expand their clearings
and that they undertake forest protection activities.
1975 Forest Occupancy Management
Program
Allowed bona fi de forest occupants to develop the lands they were occupying
or cultivating but with specifi c provision that the subject land should not
exceed 7 ha per occupant. Renewable two-year forest occupancy permit issued
to participating kaingineros.
1979 Communal Tree Farming (CFP)
Program (Ministry Administrative
Order No. 11. Series of 1979)
Every city and municipality on the country was expected to establish tree
farms. Reforestation in open and denuded forestlands was to be undertaken
through the involvement of forest occupants, civic organizations and
municipal government units.
1982
Integrated Social Forestry (ISF)
Program (Presidential Letter of
Instruction No. 1260; Ministry
Administrative Order No. 48, Series
of 1982; Department Administrative
Order No. 97, Series of 1988).
Designed to maximize land productivity, enhance ecological stability, and
improve socioeconomic conditions of forest occupants and communities.
Participants in the Program who have been residing in forestlands on or before
December 31, 1981 were granted the right to occupy and develop their areas
for a period of 25 years, renewable for another 25 years through the issuance
of stewardship agreement.
Experimentation and Heavy Infusion of External Assistance (1988-1994)
1988 ISFP Upland Development Project
A Ford Foundation-funded project in selected areas in Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao that aimed to strengthen the implementation of the Integrated
Social Forestry Program through the the provison of land tenure security,
development of participatory methodologies in project planning, monitoring
and evaluation, community organizing activities, and farm development
through agroforestry promotion.
1988
Low Income Upland Communities
Project (LIUCP) (DENR
Administrative Order No. 35, Series
of 1992
A project undertaken by DENR to restore and sustainably manage the
upland/forest resources in the islands of Mindoro Oriental and Occidental and
alleviate poverty of rural communities, involving both the Mangyan tribes and
lowland migrants.
1989
General Rules and Regulations on
the Participation of NGOs in DENR
Programs (DENR Administrative
Order No. 120)
The DENR shall encourage and promote the participation of NGOs in natural
resources development, management and protection. A National NGO Desk
is tasked to accredit NGOs qualifi ed to participate in DENR programs.
1989
Community Forestry Program
(DENR Administrative Order
No. 123 Series of 1989; DENR
Administrative Order No. 22, Series
of 1993)
The Community Forestry Agreement (CFMA) is awarded to organized upland
communities for a period of 25 years, renewable for another 25 years. Forest
utilization privileges are given to the communities which are expected to
prepare a development plan and adhere to the principles of sustained-yield
management.
1990
Forest Land Management Program
(FLMP) (DENR Administrative
Order Nos. 71, Series of 1990; 31,
Series of 1991; and 23, Series of
1993.
Forest Land Management Agreements (FLMA) are issued which replace
the former short-term contract reforestation systems. The program grants
participants the sole and exclusive rights to occupy, develop, and manage
specifi ed areas of forestlands, subject to repayable fi nancial assistance from
DENR and to harvest, sell and utilize products grown on the lands.
TABLE 2 Historical Overview of CBFM in the Philippines (1971 to Present)
870 J. M. Pulhin et al.
1991 Local Government Code (Republic
Act No. 7160)
The implementation of social forestry and reforestation initiatives, the
management of communal forests not exceeding 5,000 ha., the protection of
small watershed areas, and the enforcement of forest laws are devolved to
local government units.
1992
Institutionalization of Master Plan
for Forestry Development within
DENR (DENR Administrative Order
No. 23, Series of 1992)
The 1990 Master Plan for Forestry Development targets to place 3.4 million
hectares under tenure under the different people-oriented forestry programs
from 1990 to 2000.
1992 Integrated Rainforest Management
Project (IRMP) A community-based forestry project supported by the government of Germany
implemented in the province of Quirino.
1992 National Integrated Protected Area
System (NIPAS) Act (Republic Act
No. 7586)
Organized communities living in selected zones within or around protected
areas may be given a 25-year tenure security provided this will not pose a
threat to the environmental integrity of the protected areas. They may also be
allowed to harvest non-timber forest products like rattan, bamboo, vines, etc.,
in non-restricted zones of these areas.
1992 Regional Resource Management
Program (RRMP)
A community-based rural development project geared towards the protection,
development and management of watershed and upland resources under the
World Bank’s Environment and Natural Resources-Sectoral Adjustment Loan
(ENR-SECAL)
1993
Delineation of Ancestral Lands
and Domain Claims (DENR
Administrative Order No. 2, Series
of 1993)
Provincial Special Task Forces on Ancestral Domains (PSTFAD) were
mandated to meet with indigenous communities for the purpose of verifying
ancestral domain claims and identifying forest boundaries. Once their claims
are approved, indigenous communities are granted Certifi cates of Ancestral
Domain Claims (CADCs)
1987 and
1995
Forestry Sector Project I and II (FSP)
DENR Administrative Order No. 16,
Series of 1993)
Established under the so called National Forestation Program that targeted to
rehabilitate 1.4 million ha of denuded areas from 1987 to 2000. FSP II was
implemented through Community-Based Forest Management.
1993 Coastal Environment Program (CEP)
(DENR Administrative Order No.
19-93)
Encompasses all DENR concerns over habitat and ecological support
systems of coastal communities and fi sheries specifi cally pertaining to their
productivity, biodiversity, integrity, sustainability and equitability of access to
use.
Institutionalization and Expansion (1995 to Present)
1995
Adoption of Community-Based
Forest Management (CBFM) as the
National Strategy for the Sustainable
Development of Forestlands
(Executive Order No. 263)
CBFM is the national strategy to achieve sustainable forestry and social
justice. Organized communities may be granted access to forest resources
under long-term tenure provided they employ environment-friendly,
ecologically sustainable, and labour-intensive harvesting methods. CBFM
integrates all people-oriented forestry programs and projects of the
government.
1996
Rules and Regulations for the
Implementation of Executive Order
263, Otherwise Known as the CBFM
Strategy (DENR Administrative
Order No. 96-29)
Local communities shall prepare their respective Community Resource
Management Frameworks with the assistance of DENR, local government
units, NGOs, and other government agencies. The CBFM program shall
apply to all areas classifi ed as forestlands including allowable zones within
protected areas. It integrates all people-oriented forestry programs of the
government.
1997 Indigenous People’s Rights Act
(Republic Act No. 8371)
Mandated the State to protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities
to their ancestral domains to ensure their economic, social and cultural well
being. Also recognizes the property relations in determining the ownership
and extent of ancestral domain. Indigenous peoples whose ancestral domains
have been offi cially delineated and determined by the National Commission
on Indigenous People shall be issued a Certifi cate of Ancestral Domain Title
(CADT) in the name of the community concerned, containing a list of all
those identifi ed in the census.
871
Review of community-based forest management in the Philippines
Experimentation and infusion of massive external
support (1986-1994)
The fall of the President Marcos regime in 1986 ushered
a new epoch with considerable implications to forest
management in the Philippines. The democratic government
under President Corazon Aquino and the appointment of
new Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) offi cials changed perspectives on forestry. A
number of radical reforms were introduced. At the core of
these reforms was the reorganization of the DENR, partly
to remove corrupt offi cials and to signifi cantly reduce the
number of timber licenses despite intense opposition from
companies in the logging business (Korten 1994). The
latter paved the way for liberalizing forest access to upland
communities and the experimentation with more “people-
oriented” forestry programs.
These changes were necessary to make the DENR
attractive to the donor community. As aptly pointed out
by Korten (1994:973), “The combination of the worldwide
demand for more attention to environmental problems,
Philippine pressing environmental needs, and a newly
invigorated forestry agency operating within a recently
restored democracy made the forestry projects in the
Philippines an ideal target for foreign assistance.” Added
to these was the presence of a vibrant civil society which
strongly lobbied for resource access democratization and
people’s participation in natural resource management (Broad
1997
Adopting the DENR Strategic Action
Plan for Community-Based Forest
Management (DENR Memorandum
Circular No. 97-13)
Mandated the adoption of the DENR Strategic Action Plan for CBFM to guide
its implementation from 1997-2020. The Memorandum Circular instructed
the all the DENR Regional Offi ces to prepare their respective Regional CBFM
Action Plan which will in turn be the basis for the preparation of the CBFM
Action Plans for the PENRO (Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Offi ce) and CENRO (Community Environment and Natural Resources Offi ce)
levels.
1998
Manual of Procedures on Devolved
and other Forest Management
Functions (DENR-DILG Joint
Memorandum Circular No. 98-01)
This manual operationalizes and makes effective the devolution of forest
management functions from the DENR to the LGU. It also seeks to strengthen
and institutionalize DENR-DILG-LGU partnership and cooperation on
devolved and other forest management functions.
2003
Strengthening and Institutionalizing
the DENR-DILG-LGU Partnership
on Devolved and other Forest
Management Functions (DENR-
DILG Joint Memorandum Circular
No. 2003-01)
Guidelines and instructions for DENR, DILG and LGUs in accelerating
collaboration, partnership, coordination and institutionalization of its working
relations on forest management and related environmental concerns.
2004 Promoting Sustainable Forest
Management in the Philippines
(Executive Order No. 318)
Prescribed for the pursuit of sustainable management of forests and
forestlands in watersheds based on six key principles including community-
based forest conservation and development. CBFM shall remain the primary
strategy in all forest conservation and development and related activities.
2004
Revised Rules and Regulations for
the Implementation of the CBFM
Strategy (DENR Administrative
Order No. 29)
Improve on the 1996 CBFM Implementing Rules and Regulations by allowing
more fl exibility to participating communities such as the requirement of a
Five-Year Work Plan instead of Annual Work Plan, etc.
2004 DENR Secretary’s Memorandum
dated December 8, 2004
Cancellation/suspension of logging and transportation of logs imposed by the
DENR Secretary Michael Defensor to show government action after major
landslide disaster in the provinces of Aurora and Quezon adversely affecting
the CBFMA areas with operational Resource Use Permit.
2005 DENR’s Secretary’s Memorandum
dated November 30, 2005
Cancellation of 233 existing CBFMA in 11 Regions (Cordillera Autonomous
Region, Regions 1, 3. 4-A, 4-B, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11) accordingly due to
CBFM PO’s unsatisfactory performance ratings.
2006 DENR’s Secretary’s Memorandum
dated January 5, 2006 Cancellation of all existing CBFMAs in 8 Regions (Regions 1, 4-B, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9 and 13) due to CBFM POs’ alleged non-compliance/violations.
2006-
2007 Formulation of 2nd Decade Strategic
Action Plan
Puts primacy on the ownership of the different CBFM stakeholders on the
process of the Strategic Plan formulation but also commitment and support to
its implementation.
Sources: Pulhin 1987, DENR, 1990, Rebugio and Chiong-Javier 1995, DENR 1996, Magno 2003, Miyakawa et al. 2006, http://www.denr.
gov.ph/section-policies/index.php
872 J. M. Pulhin et al.
and Cavanagh 1993) offering great potential for policy and
institutional reform. As a result, external assistance for
forestry projects fl owed into the country. Between 1988 and
1992, the country had obtained fi ve forestry-related loans
with a total amount of US$731 million. This represented
a more than 10-fold increase in comparison to prior loans
for forestry (Korten 1994). In addition, an undetermined
amount of other external assistance, e.g. grants and technical
support, were provided by the Ford Foundation, the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID),
German and Swedish governments, and other agencies.
With the government’s new thrust to advance social
justice and equity in the natural resources sector and
the DENR’s need to maintain political legitimacy in the
governance of the country’s forest resources (Pulhin 2004),
external assistance was directed at “people-oriented”
forestry programs, since these programs incorporate the core
concerns of sustainable development such as advancement
of social equity, poverty alleviation, and environmental
sustainability (Pulhin 1996). From 1988 to 1993 alone,
a total of at least nine major “people-oriented” forestry
programs and projects were initiated (Table 2). Except for the
Delineation of Ancestral Lands and Domain Claims project,
all of these were funded through external support. These
programs and projects provided fertile ground for piloting
“people-oriented” forestry through applying several types of
land tenure instruments, and experimenting with different
project components and strategies, and various institutional
and collaborative arrangements. They also stimulated the
entrance of new players in the forestry sector, especially the
NGOs, POs, LGUs, academe and research agencies.
The fi rst Philippine Master Plan for Forestry Development
in 1990 adopted “people-oriented” forestry5 as a major
forestry strategy. The plan stipulated that 1.5 million hectares
of residual forests (54% of the then remaining 2.8 million
hectares of residual forest on slopes less than 50% steep)
plus an additional 5.9 million hectares of “open access”
areas would be placed under community forest management
over a ten-year period (DENR 1990). Corporate or large-
scale operations (e.g. timber license agreements, TLAs and
timber production sharing agreements, TPSAs) were to be
confi ned to 682 000 hectares or barely 24% of the total
forests allocated for commercial timber harvesting.
Institutionalization and expansion (1995 to present)
By mid 1990s, advocates of CBFM from the government and
development agencies recognized the need to institutionalize
the different people-oriented forestry programs and projects
under one umbrella to ensure their continuity and enhance
effectiveness and impacts. To effect the institutionalization,
President Fidel Ramos issued on 29 July 1995 Executive Order
No. 263 “Adopting Community-Based Forest Management
as the National Strategy to Ensure the Sustainable
Development of the Country’s Forestlands Resources and
Providing Mechanisms for Its Implementation”. Section
3 of the order stipulates that local communities can obtain
long-term tenurial rights to forestland “provided they employ
environmentally-friendly, ecologically-sustainable, and
labour-intensive harvesting methods. Indigenous peoples
(IPs), also known as Indigenous Cultural Communities
(ICCs), may also participate in the implementation of CBFM
activities in recognition of their rights to their ancestral
domains and land rights and claims (Section 4).
On 10 October 1996, DENR Secretary Victor Ramos issued
Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 96-29 (Rules and
Regulations for the Implementation of Executive Order 263)
for the implementation of the CBFM strategy. Section 1 of
the DAO describes the title of the order as “Community-Based
Forest Management Program”. The Program “integrates and
unifi es” ten people-oriented forestry programs and projects
(Table 2). To guide the implementation of the Program, a
DENR Strategic Action Plan for CBFM was adopted on 18
July 1997 through Memorandum Circular No. 97-13 issued
by the DENR Secretary Victor Ramos. In anticipation of the
cancellation and expiration of some TLAs and considering the
need to place “open access” areas under proper management,
the plan envisioned to place about 9 million hectares of
forestlands under community management by the year 2008,
which included 2.9 million hectares that were already covered
by people-oriented forestry projects and a further 6.59 million
hectares considered as open and potential open access land.
Also in 1997, the Indigenous People’s Rights Act
(otherwise known as the IPRA Law) was passed into law
by the Philippine Congress through Republic Act No. 8371.
The law recognized the vested rights of the IPs/ICCs over
their ancestral lands and thus entitled them to be issued
with the Certifi cate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT)6 in
the name of the community subject to offi cial delineation
and determination by the appointed agency, the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). IPs/ICCs that
were part of the CBFM Program and have been issued with
CBFM Agreements or Certifi cate of Ancestral Domain Claim
(CADC)7 prior to the passage of the IPRA Law were enabled
5 “People-oriented forestry” was the general term used for earlier government-initiated forestry programs that involved the participation of
local communities in forestry activities such as reforestation, agroforestry, timber stand improvement, and forest protection. It also involved
the issuance of various land tenure instruments which entitled the holders (individuals or communities) their continuous occupancy in
forestlands as well as cultivate their farms lands. After 1995, with the issuance of Executive Order 263, the “Community-Based Forest
Management” (CBFM) replaced the term “People-oriented forestry”.
6 Certifi cate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) as defi ned by the IPRA Law “refers to a title formally recognizing the rights of possession
and ownership of ICCs/IPs over their ancestral domains identifi ed and delineated according to this law”.
7 Certifi cate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) as defi ned by DENR Administrative Order No. 96-29 refers to “a certifi cate issued by the DENR
to an indigenous cultural community/indigenous people declaring, identifying and recognizing their claim to a particular traditional territory
which they have possessed and occupied, communally or individually in accordance with their customs and traditions since time immemorial.”
873
Review of community-based forest management in the Philippines
to opt to retain these tenure instruments and remain under the
CBFM Program instead of availing of CADT.
In 2004, President Gloria Arroyo issued Executive Order
No. 318 entitled “Promoting Sustainable Forest Management
in the Philippines” reiterating the government’s confi dence
in CBFM as a means of achieving sustainable forest
management. In the same year, DENR Secretary Elisea
Guzon issued DENR Administrative Order No. 29. The order
replaced the 1996 rules and regulations implementing the
CBFM Strategy and provides more fl exibility to participating
communities by reducing some bureaucratic requirements.
The developments of the strategy and program were
unfortunately accompanied by the decrease in foreign-
assisted projects, especially since early 2000.8 The drying
up of funds has particularly affected the participation
of NGOs in CBFM activities. Only a limited number
of local government units (LGU) have started playing a
more active role in CBFM since the full implementation
of the Local Government Code and the strengthening and
institutionalization of the DENR-DILG (Department of
Interior and Local Government)-LGU partnership for
devolved and other forest management functions. This may
be partly due to the marginalization of LGUs in the DENR-
driven CBFM policy framework during the early years of
CBFM resulting to their inability to provide support to
community organizations – both IPs and upland migrants
– after the decline in the donor assistance. Also, most LGUs
have limited capabilities and are ineffective in providing
assistance to local communities in the form of extension
and capacity building support as well as social infrastructure
(farm to market road, local water supply, nurseries, etc.) to
promote successful CBFM implementation.
The institutionalization and expansion period saw a
massive increase in CBFM areas primarily in response to
the 1997 DENR Strategic Action Plan for CBFM and the
Philippine Master Plan for Forestry Development. From a
total area of less than 1 million hectares in 1995, CBFM
coverage increased by more than six times to its present total
coverage of around 5.97 million hectares (http://forestry.denr.
gov.ph/statbook.htm).9 Of the total CBFM area, 4 904 million
hectares are under various forms of land tenure instruments.
These include around 2.5 million ha (51%) under CADC,
1.57 million hectares (32%) under CBFMA, 0.631 million
hectares (13%) under CSC, and the remaining 0.196 million
hectares under Community Forest Management Agreement,
CFSA, and other forms of land tenure arrangements (FMB
2006). In principle, these tenurial instruments provide the
holders the right to occupy, cultivate and develop their areas
as well as utilize existing forest resources including timber,
subject to the government rules and regulations.
As a form of structural policy reform in the forestry
sector, CBFM may be viewed as radical and progressive
(Pulhin 1998). It replaced the century-old TLA approach of
forest utilization where benefi ts fl owed to an elite minority
and attempts to democratize access to and benefi ts from
forest management by transferring certain management
rights and responsibilities to forest communities. From
more than 10 million hectares under the control of 422 TLA
holders in 1973, timber concession areas have gradually
declined to only 584 000 hectares at present with barely 15
license holders remaining. On the other hand, from virtually
nothing in early 1980s, total CBFM coverage nationwide
is now about ten times the size of all the existing TLAs
combined (Figure 2).
The galloping expansion, especially during the late
1990s, was facilitated by donor funds and the presence of
foreign-funded projects. While this helped to put CBFM on
the map in the short terms, it also instilled in many people the
belief that the CBFM Program was something like a project.
A project mentality developed with signifi cant negative
implications for the CBFM Program since the beginning of
the new millennium. The completion of a project and the
pullout of NGOs basically led to the discontinuation of
many activities.
The historical overview indicates that the willingness
to accept local people as forest managers and to set up the
CBFM Program was shaped by a confl uence of many actors
with diverse interests at local, national and international
levels (Table 3). After more than 35 years, the journey to
meaningful involvement in forestry, important especially
to the millions of forest-dependent people10 living in the
Philippines, continues, and as the following sections will
show, every step forward can easily be followed by one or
more steps in the opposite direction.
PROGRESS ON THE GROUND: FINDINGS FROM FIELD
STUDIES AND MULTI-SECTORAL ASSESSMENTS
While the above-mentioned accomplishments may appear
important and indeed impressive, the real effectiveness of
CBFM strategy can be measured only on the ground. The
reality in the fi ve core areas of CBFM is discussed in detail
below.
8 Some of the reasons for the decrease in foreign-funding include the permanent transfer of the Ford Foundation Offi ce from Manila to
China and hence the permanent stoppage of its long history of support to CBFM; poor performance of some reforestation projects (see for
instance, Korten 1992); and changing priorities of some donor organizations.
9 Among these tenure instruments include the following: CBFMA, CADC, Forest Land Management Agreement (FLMA) under the Forest
Land Management Program, Community Forest Management Agreement (CFMA) under the Community Forestry Program, and Certifi cate
of Stewardship Contract (CSC) and Community Forest Stewardship Agreement (CFSA) under the Integrated Social Forestry Program.
10 Forest-dependent people in this context refers to both indigenous and migrant communities who live inside or around the state-claimed
forest boundaries who depend on forestlands and their resources such as timber, water, non-timber forest products, etc., as main source of
livelihood.
874 J. M. Pulhin et al.
FIGURE 2 Coverage of TLA areas vs. CBFM areas (1973-2004) Note: Available data on CBFM only from 1990-2004
Sources: Forest Management Bureau Forestry Statistics (1990-2004)
Period/ Dates Key Players Major Drivers
Pioneering Period (1971-
1985)
President Ferdinand Marcos, Secretary of
Ministry of Natural Resources, Director of
Bureau of Forestry Development, upland
communities
Inability of punitive approach to slow down
massive deforestation, need to contain
insurgency problem in the country side
Experimentation and
heavy infusion of external
assistance (1986-1994)
President Corazon Aquino, DENR Secretaries,
Various bi-lateral and multi-lateral funding
institutions, Various civil society sectors such as
Non-Government Organizations,, Academe, and
People’s Organizations, Forestry professionals/
consultants
Global and national demands to address
environmental problems and promote sustainable
development, pressure from civil society to
democratize forest access and benefi ts, need
for political legitimacy in the part of DENR to
govern forest resources
Institutionalization and
Expansion (1995 to
present)
President Fidel Ramos and Gloria Arroyo,
DENR Secretaries, Forest Management Bureau,
Non-Government Organizations, People’s
Organizations, Local government units,
Academe, Various bi-lateral and multi-lateral
funding institutions
Advocacy from various sectors to ensure
continuity and enhance effectiveness of CBFM
impacts, need to put in place proper management
of open access forest areas formerly covered by
timber license agreements, recognition of IPs’
rights over their ancestral lands, government’s
continues confi dence on CBFM as a major
strategy for promoting sustainable forest
management and social justice
TABLE 3 Key players and drivers in the evolution of CBFM by period (1971 to present)
875
Review of community-based forest management in the Philippines
Land tenure and resource use
The CBFM program in the Philippines is considered
progressive because of its land tenure and resource use rights
features (Utting 2000). In theory, the issuance of various
tenure instruments under CBFM promotes a “win-win”
strategy for both the government and the local communities.
Granting of tenure to communities terminates the open
access nature of forestlands. At the same time, it devolves
the responsibilities of management and protection to the
local communities at minimal costs. The “bundle of rights”
that goes with the provision of land tenure includes the right
of exclusion of others from using designated resources,
which is a substantial benefi t to communities.
A closer analysis of the situation on the ground shows that
the potential “win-win” outcome is often not being realized.
Local communities continue to experience a strong sense of
insecurity over their CBFM areas despite the issuance of rights
as a result of frequent government policy changes regarding
timber utilization. This was a major concern when more
than 1 000 CBFM agreements were cancelled nationwide
by the former DENR Secretary because of irregularities in
some areas (Miyakawa et al. 2005, Miyakawa et al. 2006,
Pulhin 2006). Moreover, the associated bundles of rights
have never been realized in most areas as a result of unstable
policies exacerbated by excessive and tedious requirements
and procedures associated with timber utilization (Dugan
and Pulhin 2006). Instead of providing rights to local
people, the different land tenure instruments, particularly
CBFMAs, have enhanced the government control by
limiting devolution to responsibilities of forest development
and protection to local communities. Authority and rights
to benefi t from the resources that local communities manage
are often undermined, left unclear or even broken, which can
leave people worse instead of better off (Pulhin 2006).
Li (2002) notes that as a legal strategy for the majority
of upland people, ‘‘sustainable’’ community-based natural
resource management imposes some severe limitations. In
numerous cases, it makes legal entitlements to resources
conditional upon discriminatory and probably unenforceable
environmental pre-requisites. The same can be observed in
the Philippines. The combined effects of unstable policy and
overly bureaucratic requirements and procedures associated
with timber utilization is damaging to the local communities
and the environment. A ban or suspension on timber
harvesting often means the loss of an important income
source.11 In need of cash, some villagers have no option but
to resort to the sale of household assets like working animals
and motorcycles to cope with fi nancial requirements. Another
coping strategy is to engage in illegal timber harvesting,
thus damaging the environment. The adverse impacts are
very common in CBFM areas but are best illustrated in the
case of Ngan, Panansalan, Pagsabangan Forest Resources
Development Cooperative (NPPFRDC) in the Southern
Philippines (see Box 1, see also RINFAPADECO 2006 and
CBFM Coop 2006 for additional examples).
Livelihood and enterprise development
At the core of improving the socio-economic well-being of
the PO members are viable livelihood alternatives to timber
harvesting and enhanced capacities in business and fi nancial
management. Yet, these important aspects of CBFM leave
much to be desired. Miyakawa et al. (2005) show that 20
out of 47 POs lack income generating activities. Also, of
the 11 POs that organized themselves into cooperatives,
fi ve went bankrupt due to poor management as refl ected in
the absence of accounting records, lack of transparency in
decision-making, and very low or low profi ts.
Livelihood-support projects are generally ill conceived
and often not sustainable. In two of the six cases analyzed,
a total of 20 livelihood-related projects were initiated by
POs but most were eventually discontinued due to a host of
technical, managerial, and organizational problems (Pulhin
2005). An assessment of 155 CBFM sites indicated that
116 or about 75% have been rated not to meet the minimum
criteria set in terms of support for non-forest-based livelihood
activities (Castillo et al. 2007).
Adding value in upland villages is also very limited.
Agroforestry products and timber are rarely processed locally,
which means that signifi cant opportunities for generating
income are missed. Similarly, products are usually not linked
to viable and stable markets, preventing POs from obtaining
adequate returns for their products (Pulhin 2005).
While opportunities to harvest timber provide much
needed income to fi nance a variety of livelihood activities,
these have not been fully realized in CBFMA areas. Major
obstacles include unstable policies on timber utilization and
bureaucratic requirements as previously discussed. POs also
lack the necessary capital for harvesting operations, which
makes them vulnerable to the control of fi nanciers and
middlemen who dictate timber price. Also, the availability
of illegally cut timber depresses prices of legally cut timber
(Pulhin 2005).
One other aspect that has not received much attention
is the issue of project mentality. Most POs use the income
they generate for consumptive and not productive purposes.
Investing in alternative livelihood activities is viewed as a
project activity and not as a long-term productive investment.
In many people’s mind, there cannot be any investments or
efforts in alternative income generating strategies as long as
there is no project. It is this project mentality and the lack of
ownership in an activity that has led to the abandonment of
numerous efforts.
11 Among the major issues that led to logging ban in the Philippine natural forests as summarized by Guiang (2001) are: continuing loss of
biodiversity; destruction of watersheds; graft, corruption and abuses of TLA holders; destruction of coastal and marine resources; increasing
migration; and displacement of indigenous peoples.
876 J. M. Pulhin et al.
NPPFRDC is one of the forty CBFMA sites in Region 11 managing a total area of about 58,000 hectares (DENR Region XI
2004). The NPPFRDC is the only wood producer in the country that has been certifi ed by SmartWood - an internationally
recognized standard setting body that accredits and monitors forest products coming from sustainably managed forest. The
NPPFRDC was the fi rst PO to be certifi ed in the ASEAN Region in November 2000. Its area used to form part of a TLA area of
Valderrama Lumber Manufacturers Company, Incorporated (VALMA), comprising 26,000 hectares.
Despite its “certifi ed” status, NPPFRDC was not spared by the series of national cancellations of resource use permits (RUP) by
the DENR Secretaries. As shown in the fi gure below, the cooperative has been on the losing end owing primarily to the three
national RUP suspensions, which had disrupted its operations. In 2003 alone, it incurred a net loss of around PhP2.4 million,
a huge sum that was badly needed by the cooperative (NPPFRDC 2004b). Comparing the net profi t of the Cooperative with
the forest charges that have gone to the coffers of government, it’s very evident that the government has gained more from
timber harvesting than the Cooperative itself. This implies that the government has been in a win-win situation, as it has been
able to achieve forest development and protection with only minimal costs, and has gained “profi t,” to the detriment of the
Cooperative.
The socioeconomic impact of the community-based timber enterprise is quite apparent in terms of employment generation
among the residents of the three barangays. Many are also saying that without the cooperative, forest resources within the CBFM
area may have been signifi cantly reduced due to illegal logging, swidden farming, and timber poaching.
During an RUP suspension, however, the community experiences a domino effect. Given the on-and-off operations of the CBTE,
some of the workers sell their properties in order to cope with household expenses. Worse, their children stop going to school
because of the lost of food allowance. Some were also forced to engage in illegal cutting activities to eke out a living in the
absence of alternative sources of livelihood. Moreover, forest destruction increased in the area since the Cooperative can no
longer hire permanent forest guards to man the exit points of the illegal loggers.
Source: Pulhin and Ramirez 2006
BOX 1 Impacts of unstable policy on timber harvesting: the Case of Ngan, Panansalan, Pagsabangan Forest Resources Development
Cooperative (NPPFRDC)
!"
%+
:+
877
Review of community-based forest management in the Philippines
Communities’ capacity towards self-governance
In the context of CBFM, PO is an organized group of people,
which may be an association, cooperative, federation
or other legal entity which the government issued with
tenure instrument for the development and sustainable
management of a certain CBFM area. As the de facto
forest resource managers at the local level, POs are the key
stakeholders who ultimately determine the success or failure
of the CBFM strategy. Therefore, POs need to have the
appropriate organizational capacity to effectively perform
the responsibilities as resource managers (outlined in the
CBFM Agreement signed by the PO and the DENR), benefi t
from the rights transferred to them, and help achieve the
objectives of CBFM.
At least 67% (104 POs) of 155 POs assessed in four
regions of the Philippines are either weak or inactive (Castillo
et al. 2007). Most of those reported to have functional
organizations require more capacity strengthening especially
in the preparation of resource management plans, sourcing
of fi nancial resources, and development of non-forest based
livelihood activities. Similarly, Miyakawa et al. (2005), in
their review of 47 CBFM sites, noted that membership number
in most POs increased after the issuance of CBFMA, mainly
as a result of high expectations. Most PO members became
inactive after several years due to insuffi cient technical and
fi nancial support from the government and the resignation of
fellow members.
A number of fi eld assessments have also raised concern
about the relatively small PO membership compared to the
total population in the area (Miyakawa et al. 2005, Pulhin
2005, Miyakawa et al 2006). In general, only 10%-30%
of total population in the local area participates in CBFM
activities as PO members (Miyakawa et al. 2005). A main
reason cited for not joining POs is high membership and
monthly fees in spite of low incentives expected from being
PO members. Another possible cause is remoteness of
residence from PO offi ce or the centre of CBFM activities
(Miyakawa et al. 2005).
At the aggregate level, the different PO Federations
(composed of one National Federation representing 14
Regional Federations, 71 Provincial Federations, and a
total of 1,691 POs nationwide) have not been effectively
functioning due to limited fi nancial resources and logistical
support. Financial limitations have been a major limiting
factor, especially since the nationwide ban on timber
harvesting of 08 December 2004.
Despite the above problems, experiences of “old” CBFM
sites, e.g., Labo-Capalonga (11 years), Bulolacao (16 years)
and Guba (less than 16 years), indicate that communities are
capable of learning to organize, plan, and work towards their
own development and sustainable forest management given
suffi cient time, support and incentives (Borlagdan et al.
2001). Similarly, the recent experience with the suspension
of more than 1,000 CBFMAs nationwide12 demonstrates that
PO Federations can advocate and push for policy changes at
the national level when they managed to mobilize political
support from various sectors that compelled the new DENR
Secretary to suspend the cancellation order.
Forest development and protection
CBFM appears to have attained some degree of success
in forest development and protection among the fi ve core
areas. The development of forest production areas within
forestlands is the CBFM strongest point at 70% of the 155
sites assessed by the Eco-governance project (Castillo et
al. 2007). Similarly, the JICA-DENR policy component
review team concluded, based on the fi eld review of 70 sites,
that “CBFM is very effective to control forest fi res, illegal
logging and other violations such as shifting cultivation
committed within CBFM areas” (Miyakawa et al. 2006).
Since the farms of PO members are located inside or adjacent
to the forested areas, they safeguard the forests even without
payment of allowances. The same review noted that more
than 90% of POs in the 47 sites visited conduct foot patrol
on voluntary basis.
Consistent with the above-mentioned fi eld assessments,
Pulhin (2005) noted that forest cover is maintained or extended
and environmental quality improved the assessed in six sites.
In three sites, a marked increase and improvement in forest
cover was noted as a result of plantation establishment/
reforestation and the adoption of agroforestry. Additional
plantation areas were also established in the other three sites.
Moreover, despite limited resources, all the POs continue
to conduct forest protection activities. However, as noted
above, the cancellation of resource use rights have compelled
some PO members to engage in illegal cutting activities that
contribute to forest destruction.
Institutional support system
The CBFM strategy transfers the forest management
and protection responsibilities to the local communities.
Considering that the communities lack the necessary technical
capacity and resources to perform these responsibilities,
adequate institutional support needs to be provided to realize
benefi ts. Unfortunately, all the available fi eld assessments
and in-depth case studies attest to the limited institutional
support available to CBFM. The major problems include:
• Insuffi cient numbers of qualifi ed staff both in the
DENR and the LGUs to support CBFM. Exacerbating
the problem is the shortage of resources, incentive/
12 On January 5, 2006 the then DENR Secretary Defensor pursued a mass cancellation of all existing CBFMAs in 8 Regions, except for those
with on-going foreign assistance, allegedly due to non-compliance or violations by POs. Later assessment done by the DENR Central Offi ce
itself showed that very few of these POs have really committed grave violations as far as the provisions of the CBFMA is concerned. On the
contrary, Miyakawa (2006:2)), a Japanese policy expert on CBFM, noted that “there are many observations indicating that CBFMP is very
effective to control forest fi res, illegal logging and other violations committed inside CBFM areas”.
878 J. M. Pulhin et al.
reward systems, and logistic support to provide
adequate and meaningful assistance to participating
POs (Pulhin 2005, Miyakawa et al. 2005, Miyakawa
et al. 2006).
• Unstable policy on timber harvesting is compounded
by complex procedures and too many restrictions
imposed on timber utilization in areas issued with
resource use permits (see Box 2 for example). The
results are ineffi ciency, high transaction costs, and
graft and corruption at the local level (Pulhin 2005,
Miyakawa et al. 2005, Miyakawa 2006, SAROMCO
2006).
• Progressive policies for soliciting the participation
of NGOs, LGUs and other sectors are not fully
implemented. Reliable support from different sectors
in CBFM implementation is yet to be achieved (Pulhin
2005).
• Monitoring and evaluation usually stops with the
expiration of project assistance. The existing
management information system (MIS) at DENR was
not designed to support decision making at various
levels of DENR to assist local communities and other
stakeholders (Pulhin 2005).
• Appropriate mechanisms for community-private
sector partnership to promote investments in CBFM
areas are still lacking (Pulhin 2005, Miyakawa et al.
2005
“The government speaks of so many community-oriented forestry projects but in reality, these are not community-friendly.
CBFM has a complex implementation procedure that requires large fi nancial capital and highly technical expertise that we do
not have. Forest management programs such as this would only benefi t forest businesses and technical experts. Our community
does not have enough funds to pay for all the paper requirements, including bribes, of CBFM.
Effi cient processing of documents and speedy approval is vital in the implementation of plans and programs. How could we
expect fast compliance to the requirements from a less knowledgeable community when in fact, review and approval of our
permits would take years for the DENR who are said to be experts?
We, CBFM holders, should be treated like the vegetable growers who deliver their produce to the market easily and without
hassle. We should not be burdened with the complicated processing of papers.”
BOX 2 CBFM’s complex procedures and requirements: the SAROMCO experience
Source: SAROMCO 2006
ASSESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF POLICY
OBJECTIVES
CBFM, as the national forest management strategy, has set
a comprehensive and ambitious blend of socioeconomic,
political and environmental objectives as expressed in the
DENR policies. Specifi cally, these policies aim to: 1)
improve the socio-economic condition of the participating
communities; 2) promote social justice and equitable
access to and benefi ts from the forest resources including
respecting the rights of indigenous peoples (IPs) to their
ancestral domains; 3) effect sustainable development of
forestlands and resources; and 4) protect and advance the
right of Filipino people to a healthful environment. To what
extent the objectives have been achieved is discussed in the
following section.
Improving socioeconomic conditions
The degree to which socio-economic objectives have been
achieved varies is nor uniform (Pulhin 2005). Socio-
economic improvement is evident where CBFM received
long-term technical and fi nancial support, although the
percentage of people who actually benefi ted may be small.
In many areas, short-term external support only provided
temporary employment and additional income, which in
most cases was not sustained after project completion. In
some cases, dependency on external assistance is evident,
relating also to the earlier described project mentality and
its impacts. In general, sustaining and spreading benefi ts
to a greater number of the people, particularly the poor,
socio-economic benefi ts remains a key challenge for
CBFM. Central to this is the need to further develop viable
and resilient enterprises and other economic opportunities
particularly for forest-dependent communities (Borlagdan et
al. 2001, Pulhin 2005).
Promoting social justice and equity
Social justice and equity has been addressed by CBFM
through transfer of access and management of 5.97 million
hectares of forestland to local communities and individuals,
a privilege that used to be monopolized by well-off TLA
holders. However, the unstable policy on timber harvesting
and the recent cancellation of CBFMAs nationwide coupled
with the complex procedures and requirements of timber
utilization have jeopardized the early gains of advancing
social justice and equity. At the local level, social equity
and benefi t sharing remain important concerns (Miyakawa et
al. 2005, Pulhin 2005, Miyakawa et al. 2006, Pulhin 2006).
The small number of members in many POs appears to have
benefi ted mainly members of the villages’ elite. Benefi ts
are often captured by leaders and more educated members at
879
Review of community-based forest management in the Philippines
the expense of the poorer constituents (Dahal and Capistrano
2006). Strategic interventions are still needed to achieve the
social justice and equity objective of CBFM. The fi rst and
important step forward is to abandon the practice of general
and/or nationwide bans and punishments. After all, such
actions are unlawful and can be contested in court according
to the text of the CBFMA.
Advancing sustainable forest management
Appropriate CBFM strategies, if properly implemented, offer
great potential to achieve sustainable forest management.
Several studies have discussed the positive contribution
of CBFM towards sustainable forest management in the
Philippines (e.g. Borlagdan et al. 2001, Miyakawa et al.
2005, Pulhin 2005, Miyakawa et al. 2006), which include
increase in forest cover, adoption of improved farming
technologies, and sustained collective action in forest
protection. However, threats to sustainability also exist.
Among these are: 1) continuing pressure to engage in
illegal and destructive practices to generate income; and 2)
the pressing need to install effective local management by
strengthening POs’ capacity and institutional support.
Promoting healthful environment
Information on the impacts of CBFM on environmental
quality is sparse (Lasco and Pulhin 2006), although anecdotal
evidence is available (Pulhin 2005). While scientifi c evidence
is lacking, people point out soil and water conservation efforts
that purportedly have improved water supply, soil fertility
and microclimate. Lasco and Pulhin (2006) also concluded
that CBFM and technologies such as agroforestry and tree
farming have led to the conservation of natural forests and
biodiversity. Increasing the number of trees outside forests
has conservation and carbon sequestration effects, although
they have not been quantifi ed, yet.
In summary, the above assessment indicates that achieving
its socio-economic objective is CBFM’s key challenge. At
a national level, CBFM has achieved its political objective
of promoting social justice and equity, but much work is
needed to improve its impact at the local level. Finally, in
terms environmental objectives, it appears to be advancing
sustainable forest management and promoting healthful
environment although social and institutional threats to
sustainability remains to be addressed. Also, current
anectodal evidence on CBFM’s contribution to environmental
objective need further quantifi cation.
CONCLUSION AND EMERGING LESSONS
FOR SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE FOREST
MANAGEMENT
The review of the Philippine experience over the last three
decades indicates that the high expectations and hopes of
advancing sustainable development and the Millennium
Development Goals through CBFM has not been achieved,
as in many parts of Asia. Even if the area coverage and
numbers of people involved in forest management have
signifi cantly increased and despite aerial increases in tree
cover has been achieved, these are not suitable indicators
to enhanced livelihood, improved equitability, social
justice and achievements of conservation goals. At best,
CBFM has replaced the century-old corporate approach of
forest utilization where benefi ts fl owed directly to an elite
minority and provided more space for local communities
to manage and protect forestlands and resources, in terms
of improved lives and sustainably-managed forests, but the
benefi ts from these are yet to be fully realized. “Democratic
decentralization” in forest management has not really taken
place – every step forward towards devolving rights to
local communities is easily followed by one or more steps
in the opposite direction. Indeed, the high expectations
in the mid-1990s have been overtaken by disenchantment
brought about by a confl uence of factors. Unstable policy,
complex procedures and requirements, CBFM viewed as
a project and not as an approach to replacing commercial
large-scale forestry, and weak institutional support system
including from the DENR itself, all contribute to ineffective
implementation and limited outcomes on the ground.
On the other hand, as one of the pioneers in Asia in
implementing CBFM, the Philippines has a lot to offer to other
countries in terms of lessons in promoting sustainable and
equitable forest management through community forestry.
Some of these key emerging lessons are as follows:
1. Enabling legislated policy provides the foundation
of sustainable and equitable forest management.
As can be gleaned from the Philippine experience, the
presence of legislated policy on community forestry
should provide more stability and clear direction in
implementing as well as securing incentive system to
the participating communities. On the other hand, “soft
rights” embedded in some land tenure instruments which
are not legislated (e.g. Executive Order and Department
Administrative Order in the Philippines), hence cannot
be defended and can be withdrawn by the head of the
forest department, do not provide suffi cient incentive to
encourage communities to invest on human and fi nancial
resources into forest management (Gilmour et al. 2005).
These rights are very vulnerable to political pressures and
changes and can easily result to adverse socio-economic
and environmental impacts when immediately suspended
or withdrawn. Moreover, legislated community forestry
policy should be “enabling” rather than “enforcing”
(Gilmour et al. 2005). It should be fl exible enough to
accommodate varying local conditions, facilitative rather
than restrictive, and simple enough for community to
understand and enforce.
2. Beyond policy reform, pursuing sustainable and
equitable forest management through community
forestry requires the forestry agency reinvention. The
adoption of community forestry strategy requires a whole
880 J. M. Pulhin et al.
new set of knowledge, skills, values, and attitude within
the forestry bureaucracy. This means a major departure
from the traditional regulatory or policing function
which the forestry agency has been playing for centuries
towards a more supportive and facilitative role to assist
communities to improve their livelihood and the condition
of the forests (Nair 2006). As such, the forestry agency
has to reinvent itself to be able to cope up with this new
role and maintain relevance. In terms of governance,
this requires devolving not only responsibilities but also
authorities to local communities, changing outmoded
regulatory policies and procedures, and retooling of staff
to effectively perform negotiation, confl ict resolution,
extension services, and related developmental skills to
better serve the local communities.
3. Sustainable livelihood is central to the achievement of
sustainable forest management. In countries like the
Philippines where a signifi cant number of populations
depend on the forest as major or supplementary sources
of livelihood, it would be illusory to even think of
sustainable forest management not unless it is linked to
the promotion of livelihood. This implies that in forest-
rich areas, imposing a log ban is not a viable option in
the absence of a viable alternative livelihood sources for
the local communities. Similarly, in marginal sites and
in protected areas where forest harvesting is not possible
or allowed, community forestry efforts should have
strong livelihood component. Indeed, as the Philippine
experience implies, people can only accommodate high
objectives of biodiversity and ecological balance when
these can demonstrate direct and tangible benefi ts to
their livelihood or if the costs are minimal.
4. Capacity building – community forestry’s major
strategy towards sustainable and equitable forest
management – goes beyond the community level to
include the major supporting agencies. As previously
pointed out, communities as the de facto forest managers
need a comprehensive and continuing capacity building
encompassing the whole range of technical, managerial,
fi nancial, and organization aspects of sustainable forest
management. Necessary support system should likewise
be provided to them such as appropriate policies,
incentives and logistic support to better perfume their
forest management responsibilities. The challenge of
continuing capacity building however, goes beyond the
community level. The extent by which the capacity of
the local communities may be built can only go as far
as the capacity of the supporting agencies will allow.
This implies that the competence of support-providing
agencies like the forestry department (and LGUs in the
case of the Philippines) should likewise be continuously
enhanced. Adequate resources should therefore be
allocated towards this end in planning for community
forestry programs.
5. Sustainable and equitable forest management is a
long and costly process but availability of fi nancial
support by itself is not a guarantee for success. The
2005 “Status of Tropical Forest Management Summary
Report” produced by the International Tropical
Organization (ITTO) alludes to the fact that sustainable
forest management is a long and costly process. The
same report noted that “There is almost a universal lack
of resources needed to manage tropical forest properly”
(ITTO 2006:11). It was further stressed that the most
debilitating weakness in tropical forest management is
the “failure to develop an adequate and reliable system
on global scale for funding the additional costs involved
in putting sustainable forest management into practice
in the forest” (ITTO 2006:13). While secured funding
support is indeed necessary, the Philippine experience
demonstrates that the availability of fi nancial resources by
itself does not ensure that sustainable forest management
will be achieved. The major challenge is to effectively
use these resources to build the local capacity and to put
in place the necessary policy and institutional support
system to effectuate a more sustainable and equitable
forest management.
6. Social processes that ensure greater participation of
local communities and other legitimate stakeholders
in the management and sharing of benefi ts from
forests should be adequately developed. One of the
unique features of the forest resources is the multiple
stakeholders associated with its multiple uses representing
local to global interests. Thus, efforts towards sustainable
forest management need to consider these varying
interests, without marginalizing the concerns of the local
communities especially those whose lives depend on these
resources for survival. This calls for the development and
institutionalization of social processes that will ensure
that local communities and other legitimate stakeholders
are able to participate meaningfully in decision making
concerning forest management and benefi t sharing from
forests.
In the Philippines, the development of these social
processes has recently commenced. A multi-stakeholder
core group composed of DENR, NGOs, POs, academe,
and donor agency representatives is currently facilitating
the process of preparing the new National CBFM
Strategic Action Plan ensuring wider participation of
the different sectors across the country. The multi-
stakeholder planning process has started to generate
renewed interests and energy on CBFM across the
different sectors. It has also started to mobilize human
and fi nancial resources from the core group to support the
completion of the new Strategic Plan with the long-term
goal of institutionalizing a multi-stakeholder decision-
making process in the planning, implementation and
evaluation of CBFM. While the positive effects of this
initiative remain to be seen, it offers a new glimmer of
hope towards the long and costly process of sustainable
and equitable forest management.
881
Review of community-based forest management in the Philippines
REFERENCES
BORLAGDAN, S., GUIANG, E. and PULHIN, J. 2001.
Preliminary Assessment of community-based forest
management in the Philippines. Project Report. Institute
of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University and
Department of Social Forestry and Forest Governance,
College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of
the Philippines Los Baños. Quezon City, Philippines.
BROAD, R. and CAVANAGH, J. 1993. Plundering paradise:
The struggle for the environment in the Philippines.
Manila, Anvil Publishing, Inc.
CASTILLO, G., PAZ, B., and GUIANG, E. 2007. Assessment
of forest management in tenured forest lands: Issues
and recommendations. A report of the Environmental
Governance Project. Manila, Philippines.
CONTRERAS, A. 1989. The discourse of development:
Some implications of local power/knowledge in the
Philippine uplands. Philippine Sociological Review
37(1-2): 12-25.
DAHAL, G. and CAPISTRANO, D. 2006. Forest governance
and institutional structure: An ignored dimension of
community based forest management in the Philippines.
International Forestry Review .8 (4): 333-394.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES (DENR). 1990. Philippine master plan
for forestry development: Main report. Quezon City,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES (DENR). 2006. Laws and p olicies. http://
www.denr.gov.ph/section-policies/index.php.
DUGAN, P. and PULHIN, J. 2006. Forest harvesting in
community-based forest management (CBFM) in the
Philippines – simple tools versus complex procedures.
Paper presented during the International conference on
managing forests for poverty reduction, Ho Chi Min
City, Vietnam, October 3-6, 2006.
Food and Agriculture Organization, 2006. Global Forest
Resources Assessment 2005. FAO Forestry Paper 147.
Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
FOREST MANAGEMENT BUREAU (FMB). 1990-
2004. Forestry statistics. Forest Management Bureau,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Quezon City, Philippines.
GARRITY, D.P., KUMMER, D.M., and GUIANG, E.S. 1993.
The upland ecosystem in the Philippines: Alternatives
for sustainable farming and forestry. Washington, D. C,
National Academy Press.
GILMOUR, D., O’BRIEN, N., and NURSE, M. 2005.
Overview of regulatory frameworks for community
forestry in Asia. In N. O’Brien, S. Matthews and M.
Nurse (eds.) First regional community forestry forum:
Regulatory frameworks for community forestry in Asia.
Proceedings of a Regional Forum held in Bangkok,
Thailand, August 24-25, 2005. RECOFTC, Bangkok. 3-
33 pp.
GUIANG, E. 2001. Impacts and effectiveness of logging
bans in natural forests: Phillipines. In P. Durst, T. Enters
(eds.) Forests out of bounds: Impacts and effectiveness
of logging bans in natural. Food and Agriculture
Organization-Regional Offi ce for Asia and the Pacifi c
Publication 2001/08. 103-135 pp.
INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION
(ITTO). 2006. Status of tropical forest management
summary report. A special edition of ITTO Tropical
Forest Update (2006/1). Yokohama, Japan, 35 pp.
KUMMER, D. 1992. Deforestation in the post-war
Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon
City, Philippines.
KORTEN, F. 1994. Questioning the call for environmental
loans: Critical examination of forestry lending in the
Philippines. World Development 22 (7): 971-981.
LASCO, R.D., VISCO, R.G., and. PULHIN, J.M. 2001.
Secondary forests in the Philippines: Formation and
transformation in the 20th century. Journal of Tropical
Forest Science 13 (4): 652-670.
LASCO, R.D. and PULHIN, J.M. 2006. Environmental
impacts of community-based forest management in the
Philippines. International Journal of Environment and
Sustainable Development 5 (1): 46-56.
LI, T.M. 2002. Engaging simplifi cations: Community-
based resource management, market processes and state
agendas in upland Southeast Asia. World Development
30(2): 265-283.
LIU, D.S., IVERSON, L.R., and BROWN, S. 1993.
Rates and patterns of deforestation in the Philippines:
Application of geographic information system analysis.
Forest Ecology and Management 57: 1–16.
MAGNO, F. 2003. Forest devolution and social capital: state-
civil society relations in the Philippines. In A. Contreras
(Ed.) Creating space for local forest management in
the Philippines, 17-35. Manila, De La Salle Institute of
Governance.
MIYAKAWA, H., ACOSTA, R.A, FRANCISCO, G.,
EVANGELISTA, R., and GULINAO, M.E. 2005. For the
better future of CBFM (A fi eld review on 47 CBFM sites).
DENR-JICA Project Enhancement of Community-Based
Forest Management Program, Quezon City, Philippines.
MIYAKAWA, H., EVANGELISTA, R., CIRILO, F.,
GULINAO, M.E., PATIGA, N., RACELIS, A., SIBUGA,
L., COLLADO, A., SANTOS, D.L., and SARMIENTO,
M. 2006. Towards the brighter future of CBFM (A
fi eld review on 23 CBFM sites). DENR-JICA Project
Enhancement of Community-Based Forest Management
Program, Quezon City, Philippines.
PORTER, G. and GANAPIN, D.J. 1988. Resources,
population and the Philippines’ future: A case study.
World Resource Paper No. 4. Washington, D. C., World
Resources Institute.
PULHIN, J.M. 1987. Recipient’s compliance to the
stewardship agreement: A study of selected integrated
social forestry projects in Region IV. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis. University of the Philippines Los Baños,
College, Laguna, Philippines.
PULHIN, J.M. 1996. Community forestry: Paradoxes and
882 J. M. Pulhin et al.
perspectives in development practice. Ph.D. Dissertation.
The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
PULHIN, J.M. 1998. Community forestry in the Philippines:
Trends, issues, and challenges. In Proceedings of
international seminar on community forestry at a
crossroads: Refl ections and future directions in the
development of community forestry, 17-19 July, 1997,
Maruay Garden Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand, 201-215.
PULHIN, J.M. and PULHIN, P.M. 2003. Community-
based forest management in the Philippines: Retrospect
and prospects”. In M. Inoue (ed.) People and forest in
Southeast Asia, Fareast Russia, and Japan: Forest policy
and local reality. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 139-156.
PULHIN, J. M. 2004. Devolution of forest management in
the Philippines”. Paper presented during the Workshop
on evolution of devolution: contribution to participatory
forestry in Asia Pacifi c?, 25-26 March 2004, Bangkok,
Thailand.
PULHIN, J.M. 2005. Enhancing the Philippines’ community-
based forest management implementation strategy:
Synthesis of six cases. A project report submitted to
the Forest Management Bureau and to the National
Forestry Program Facility of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
PULHIN, J. M. 2006. Where goest thou CBFM? Refl ections
on the forum theme. A paper presented during the Ten-
year review of CBFM in the Philippines: A forum for
refl ection and dialogue, 20-22 April 2006, International
Institute for Rural Reconstruction, Silang, Cavite,
Philippines.
PULHIN, J.M., CHOKKALINGAM, U., PERAS, R.J.J.,
ACOSTA, R.T., CARANDANG, A.P., NATIVIDAD,
M.Q., LASCO, R.D., and RAZAL, R.A. 2006. Historical
overview. In U. Chokkalingam, A.P. Carandang, J.M.
Pulhin, R.D. Lasco, R.J.J. Peras, and T. Toma (eds.)
One century of forest rehabilitation in the Philippines:
Approaches, outcomes and lessons. Bogor, Indonesia:
Center for International Forestry Research, 5-41.
PULHIN, J.M. and RAMIREZ, M.A. 2006. Behind the
fragile enterprise: community-based timber utilization
in Southern Philippines. A fi nal report of the case study
submitted to Regional Community Forestry Training
Center for Asia and the Pacifi c (RECOFTC) with the
fi nancial assistance of International Tropical Timber
Organization (ITTO) and the Forest Trends.
QUINTOS, M. M. 1989. The log export restriction policy and
the development of forest industries in the Philippines. M.
S. Thesis. The Australian National University, Canberra,
Australia.
REBUGIO, L.L. and CHIONG -JAVIER, M. E. 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, pp. 2-1 to 2-27.
SAN ROQUE MULTI PURPOSE COOPERATIVE
(SAROMCO). 2006. CBFM: A social program for us or
a milking cow? A paper presented during the Ten-year
review of CBFM in the Philippines: A forum for refl ection
and dialogue, 20-22 April 2006, International Institute
for Rural Reconstruction, Silang, Cavite, Philippines.
UTTING, P. 2000. An overview of the potential and pitfalls
of participatory conservation.” In Forest policy and
politics in the Philippines: The dynamics of participatory
conservation. P. Utting (ed.) Quezon City and Manila,
Ateneo de Manila University Press and United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development. pp. 171-215.
VITUG, M. 1993. The politics of logging: Power from
the forest. Manila, Philippine Center for Investigative
Journalism.
883
Review of community-based forest management in the Philippines
