Deforestation in the Philippines This unpublished prĂŠcis seeks to identify the conflicts that underlie deforestation in the Philippines and submits that ways of reconciling conflicting interests must be found to foster the wise use of forest resources. Olivier Serrat 28/03/1994
1 Introduction 1. Apart from their role in conserving the ecosystem and protecting the environment for sustainable development, forests provide innumerable products of vital use and are a source of livelihood to a large number of people. Thus, forestry sector activities significantly influence the level and pattern of development. 2. Over the past three decades, due to improved methods of exploitation, processing, and transport, growth of external markets and rapidly expanding populations, the depletion of forest resources has intensified dramatically. Removals from forests have increased considerably and large areas have been converted to non-forestry uses. The consequences of this excessive deforestation have been soil erosion; desertification; sedimentation of water courses, lakes, and dams; alteration of local climates through disruption of the energy balance and hydrological cycle; and massive extinction of plant and animal species. It is also contended that deforestation leads to changes in the atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide balance, which alter the albedo and accelerate the greenhouse effect. 3. Over the last few years, with an increasing understanding of, and concern about, the consequences of destructive deforestation, the attention given to forests by multilateral institutions and governments has shifted from production to conservation and management. Typically, however, the issue of deforestation is approached from an environmental management perspective and prescriptions fail to take account of, when they do not ignore, the environmental conflicts at hand.1 Forest Resources 4. Forests are among the Philippines' major resources but have suffered severe depletion as a result of logging, ineffective reforestation, population pressure, and shifting cultivation. Reliable statistics on forest cover before 1950 do not exist and discussion of forest cover and its decline usually focuses on the post-1950 period.2 Philippine forest cover data suggests that up to 55 percent of the total land area (300,000 square kilometers) were under primary forest cover in the early 1950s.3 Today, only about 6 million hectares (ha), or 20 percent of the total land area, remain under forest cover. Less than 1 million ha consists of virgin forest. Forest resources are being rapidly depleted (by an average of about 120,000 ha per annum) and there is a real prospect of Philippine forests being virtually eliminated within the next 20 years. Forest Policies 5. The government agency in charge of Philippine forests has changed its name several times in the post-war period. The Bureau of Forestry became the Bureau of Forest Development in 1973, which in turn became the Forest Management Bureau in 1987. Until the late 1970s, as the names of the government agency indicates, emphasis in the forestry sector was generally 1
2
3
These perspectives and prescriptions derive from increasing concern in industrial countries for environmental and preservation considerations and the aesthetic qualities of forests. In developing countries, where people are trying to achieve economic development, forests are frequently seen as a source of food, raw material and capital. Deforestation in the Philippines is not restricted to the twentieth century. It is estimated that forest cover declined from about 90 percent of total land area at the time of the first contact with the Spanish in 1571 to about 70 percent by 1900. The major causes are believed to have been the steady increase in population and the spread of commercial crops (primarily abaca, tobacco, and sugarcane). The term primary forest denotes any original, virgin forest unmodified by deleterious human activity. Secondary forest denotes the vegetation type that usually replaces primary forest following its removal.
2
on the removal of growing stock. This resulted in excessive exploitation without regard to forest protection and logging regulations. Starting in 1961, a surge in Japanese demand triggered a dramatic increase in harvesting. Over the next 15 years, harvests averaged 8.8 million cubic meters, more than twice pre-boom levels. Forest area under logging concessions nearly doubled, from 5.5 million ha in 1960 to 10.6 million ha in 1971, and forest products became the leading export commodity, reaching 33 percent of gross export values by 1969 (see Table 1). 6. Government policy in the 1980s was to phase out exports of hardwood logs to stimulate the development of the local processing industry. Export bans were imposed in 1982 and again in 1986 (this still remained in force as of 1993) and had the effect of increasing exports of processed products. However, substantial quantities of logs are thought to be illegally exported. In the late 1980s, illegal exports were estimated at $800 million annually, approximately four times the officially recorded earnings from forest charges and export charges. Overall output has been in decline since the early 1970s, reflecting the narrowing in the resource base (see Table 2). 7. Government efforts at reforestation have been largely ineffectual. Under the Marcos regime, replacement by new plantations was limited and averaged 58,000 ha a year over the period 1978–1986. The 1987–1992 development plan launched by the Aquino administration had a reforestation target of 100,000 ha a year, with a total of 911,400 ha of logged-over land to be improved. Reforestation averaged 96,000 ha over the period 1987–1990 but 120,000 ha a year is required merely to balance deforestation. The Benefits from Deforestation 8. The negative aspects of tropical deforestation are well known. However, since deforestation continues, it is appropriate to discuss those aspects of deforestation that are viewed in a positive light by some of the participants in the process. Some groups gain from deforestation and, from the point of view of policy intervention, the perspective of these groups may be of interest. 9. Different groups derive long-term benefits from deforestation. These groups include: (i) the government, since pioneer settlement diverts attention from pressing social problems such as urban crowding and overpopulation; (ii) commercial loggers (legal and illegal) and those allied with them (politicians, the military, and government bureaucrats); (iii) people employed in the logging and wood-processing industries; (iv) the national treasury, which derives foreign exchange earnings from forest products; (v) commercial interests that use deforested lands to grow a product for the market; (vi) commercial interests that speculate on land near roads and new settlements; (vii) local commercial businesses that benefit from frontier settlement, such as banks and retailers; (viii) commercial interests that buy and sell charcoal or fuelwood; (ix) urban consumers of charcoal and fuelwood who pay a price that does not reflect the externalities of deforestation; (x) multinational corporations involved in the trade of tropical products; and (xi) consumers in developed countries, who gain because the prices of tropical products do not internalize the costs of deforestation.
3
10. On the other hand, migrant farmers and traditional shifting cultivators benefit from the removal of forest cover because it enables them to farm for several years. It must be noted, however, that in most cases these benefits are short-lived because the clearance process must be repeated elsewhere within two or three years as a result of insect plagues, weeds, and soil impoverishment.4 11. In short, it must be recognized that a significant characteristic of deforestation is that it provides a stream of benefits to certain groups in society who therefore have a stake in its continuation. To devise instruments for directing or controlling the process of deforestation, it is therefore necessary to identify the beneficiaries of deforestation to ensure that the instruments adopted are relevant. In addition, market and policy instruments need to consider whether the motive of the agents of deforestation is monetary gain or subsistence and allocate the share of deforestation attributable to each agent. Much of the expansion of agriculture into previously forested areas and fuelwood gathering is performed by poor members of society whose primary concern is subsistence. On the other hand, logging, some agriculture and some charcoal making are carried out essentially for commercial reasons. A Framework for Conflict Resolution 12. The process of deforestation outlined above is not readily amenable to technical solutions. The major questions do not concern the relative merits of different silvicultural practices or the choice of the discount rate. Rather, the fundamental issue concerns conflicting interests over the use of forest resources. In the Philippines, the answer has always been that the forests belong to loggers and their allies, while the interests of communities and the many sectors that use or influence forests have never been paid much attention. However, many of the conflicts among forest users could be avoided if a cross-sectoral policy approach were adopted. 13. It is, first, necessary to: (i) identify all the sectors and groups that benefit from forests; (ii) define the benefits and establish objectives for sustaining and balancing them; and (iii) state how the objectives are to be achieved. The intention underlying the type of policy intervention advocated here is resolution of conflicts by integrating compatible uses of forest resources and zoning where uses are incompatible. 14. In the context of a medium-term framework for forest conservation and development (the two need not be seen as irreconcilable), decision-makers should be encouraged to: (i) take into account all forest values, including environmental services and biological diversity, and not just the production of timber and other commodities; and (ii) establish mechanisms to ensure that the policies of all sectors that affect forests are consistent with national objectives for forests. Conclusion 15. In conclusion, deforestation will most suitably be addressed by a multidisciplinary approach that emphasizes, against a pragmatic realization that societies are dynamic, the socioeconomic and political environment in which the process of deforestation occurs. The role 4
It is important to realize that, in the Philippines, deforestation in secondary forests usually follows the felling of primary forests. By 1987, about 18 million people (30 percent of the country's population) were living in upland areas. This movement into the uplands was inadvertently encouraged by the government's logging policies, which reduced the cost of migration and settlement. Logging roads made forest lands accessible and logging cleared the land, thus saving upland farmers as much as 60 percent of the total labor associated with upland production.
4
of social ingenuity as a precursor to technical ingenuity should not be overlooked. A sophisticated and stable system of markets, legal regimes, financial agencies, and educational and research institutions is a prerequisite for the development and distribution of many technologies. At present, however, not only are the Philippines ill-endowed with these social resources but their ability to create and maintain them is being eroded by the very environmental problems the country is hoping to address. The views expressed in this précis are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank, or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. References Asian Development Bank. 1989. Sector Paper on Forestry. Manila. Boado, E.L. 1988. Incentive Policies and Forest Use in the Philippines. In Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources. Ed. Repetto, R. et al. Washington, D.C. World Resources Institute. Cernea, M.M. 1993. The Sociologist's Approach to Sustainable Development. Finance & Development. Vol. 30(4):11–13. IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1991. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland. Kummer, D.M. 1992. Deforestation in the Postwar Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University Press. Repetto, R. 1988. The Forest for the Trees? Government Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources. Washington, D.C. World Resources Institute. Sharma, N., and Rowe, R. 1992. Managing the World's Forests. Finance & Development. Vol. 29(2):31–33.
Appendix Forest Area Under License and Timber Production Table 1: Forest Area under License, 1959–1984 ('000 ha) Year
FY 1959–60 FY 1961–62 FY 1963–64 FY 1965–66 FY 1967–68 FY 1969–70 FY 1971–72
Licensed Area
4,485 6,554 7,928 6,745 8,302 8,979 10,598
Year
FY 1973–74 FY 1975–76 CY 1978 CY 1980 CY 1982 CY 1984 –
Licensed Area
8,452 10,137 8,768 7,938 7,539 6,346 –
Source: Boado, E.L. 1988. Incentive Policies and Forest Use in the Philippines. In Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources. Ed. Repetto, R. et al. Washington, D.C. World Resources Institute.
Table 2: Actual Production of Timber, 1958–1984 ('000 cubic meters) Year
FY 1958–59 FY 1959–60 FY 1960–61 FY 1961–62 FY 1962–63 FY 1963–64 FY 1964–65 FY 1965–66 FY 1966–67 FY 1967–68 FY 1968–69 FY 1969–70 FY 1970–71
Production
5,452 6,315 6,596 6,772 7,668 6,536 6,175 8,047 7,843 11,114 11,584 11,005 10,680
Year
FY 1971–72 FY 1972–73 FY 1973–74 FY 1974–75 FY 1975–76 CY 1977 CY 1978 CY 1979 CY 1980 CY 1981 CY 1982 CY 1983 CY 1984
Production
8,416 10,446 10,190 7,332 8,546 7,874 7,169 6,578 6,352 4,514 5,400 4,468 3,849
Source: Boado, E.L. 1988. Incentive Policies and Forest Use in the Philippines. In Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources. Ed. Repetto, R. et al. Washington, D.C. World Resources Institute.