Forest and Land-Use Practices in Philippine Uplands: National Level Analysis Based on Eight Villages by Ronald Yacat

FORESTANDLAND-USEPRACTICESIN PHIUPPINEUPLANDS:NATIONALLEVELANALYSIS BASEDON EIGHTVILLAGES MarianS. delos Angelesand LotaA. Ygrubay WORKING PAPER SERIES NO92.01

February 1992

Philippine Institute forDevelopment Studies

TABLEOFCONTENTS I.

Introduction .......................... A. Background ....................................................................... B. Rationale .......................................................................

1 3 3

iI.

Conceptual Framework

HI.

Empirical Findings ....................................................................... A. Comparison of Village-Level Conditions ........................ B. Relationships Between Forest/Land-use Practices and Specific Factors ................................................ C. Tree Use Practices ..............................................................

8 39

IV.

IHaH_

Hllli

llIHOH_i

lllllIHa

HgJOaHHa0*

_OH*He_

...........................................................

Results of Regression Analysis

........................... ..........

SunmuuT, Conclusions and Reconmlendations

Appendices Bibliography

5 5

..........................

............................................................................. ................. .................................................... :............... ..........................

52 72

USTOFTABLES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. • 6. 7. 8. 9. I0. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Summary Statistics, Selected Social Indicators I ......................... 6 Summary Statistics, Selected Social Indicators H ............... ,.......... 7 Means (Standard Deviation), Selected Time Allocation Indicators ... 9 Tests for Difference Across Communities ................................... ,. 10 Comparison of Villages by Relative Wealth Rank .......................... 11 Comparison of Villages by Forestry Station Seedling/Seed Source ... 12 Comparison of Villages by Government Nursery Seedling Seed Source .............. 13 Comparison of Villages by NGO Nursery Seedling/Seed Source ... 14 Comparison of Villages by Trees on Private Property Owned ... 16 Comparison of Villages by Woody Perennials on Private Property Owned .......................................... ....... 17 Comparison of Villages by Other Woody Perennials on Private Prope/'ty Rented ................................................. 18 Use of Livestock Extension, by Farm Tree Management Practices ....... .................. 22 On-Farm System Where Fodder Is Primarily Sourced, by Farm-sizeCategory ........................ ........................ 22 PrimaryTreeSourceofFodder, by Farm-sizeCategory .............. 23 On-Farm System Where Charcoal Is Primarily Sourced, by Farnvsize Category .................. . ............................. 23 Uses of Trees in the Philippine Study Villages .......................... 24 Location of Trees in the Philippine Study Villages ......................... 25 Regression Analysis of Fuelwood Collection on Selected Variables, Six Villages .................... . ................ 40 Regression Analysis of Total Fuelwood Collected on Selected Variables ..................... 41 Regression Analysisof Percent Fuelwood Collected from State Forests on Selected Variables. Six Villages .............. 42 Regression Analysis of Perce¢t Fuelwood Gathered from State Forests on Selected Variables ..................................... 44 Regression Analysis of Fuelwood Gathered from State Forests on Selected Labor Allocation Variables ....... 45 Regression Analysis of Total Fuelwood Collected on Selected Variables .,....•........................... ..... ....... ........ ....... 46 Regression Analysis of Percent of Fuelwood Gathered from State Forests on Selected Variables .......................... 47 Regression Analysis of Percent of Fuelwood Gathered from State Forests on Selected Variables, Six Villages .............. 48 Defmifion of Variables, Means and StandardDeviations, Philippines ..................................... 49 Summary of Regression Analysis ................................................ 50

LISTOFFIGURES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 164 17. 18.. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Location of Study Sites ............................................................... Comparison of Villages by Trees on Common Property Owned ..... Comparison of ViUages by Access to Commons ............................ Comparison of Villages by Access to Fallows ............................ Comparison of Villages by Access tOBarren Lands ............................ Comparison of Villages by Access to Village Forest ................ Comparison of Villages by Access to State Forests ........................... Use of Forestry Extension (Government) for Fodder, by Farm Tree Management Practice ........................................ Use of Forestry Extension (Government) for Fue!wood, by Farm Tree Management Practice ........................................ Use of Forestry Extension (Government) for Charcoal, by Tree Management Practice ........................................ Use of Forestry Extension (Government) for Tree-Borne Foods, by Tree Management Practice ............... ......................... Use of Forestry Extension (Government) for Handicrafts, by Farm Tree Management Practice ............ _........................... Use of Agricultural Extension for Fuelwood, by Farm Tree Management Practice ........................................ Use of Agricultural Extension for Tree-Borne Foods, by Farm Tree Management Practice ........................................ Fodder Use, by Farm Size ............................................................... Tree Product Use, by Farm Size ................................................... Fuelwood Use, by Farm Size ............................................................... Tree Product as Primary Fuel Source, by Farm Size ................. On-Farm System Where Fuel Is Primarily Sourced, by Farm Size ..... Primary Wood Source of Fuelwood, by Farm Size ............................ Charcoal Use, by Farm Size ............................................................... Primary Charcoal Source of Fuel, by Farm Size ............................ Primary Tree Source of Timber and Other ConsU'uctionMaterials, by Farm Size .......................................................................... Primary Tree Source of House Construction Materials, by Farm Size ........................................................................... Tree-Based Handicrafts Production, by Farm Size ............................ Primary Tree Source of Handicrafts Materials, by Farm Size ..... Primary Source of Tree-Borne.Fruit/Food, by Farm Size ................. On-Farm System Where Tree-Borne Food Is Primarily Sourced, by Farm Size ..........................................................................

2 15 15 19 19 20 20 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38

FOREST AND LAND-USE PRACTICES IN PHILIPPINE UPLANDS: NATIONAL LEVEL ANALYSIS BASED ON EIGHT VILLAGES* Marian

S. delos Angeles

and Lota A. Ygrubay**

INTRODUCTION

The Forest/Land-use Practices in the Philippines Study (FLUPPS) investigates forest and landuse practices of the rural poor across various sites. It focuses on the potential relationships between forest, tree-use patterns and land-use practices taking into account: a. forest-related policies and development programs in the national level; b. social, economic and tenurial characteristics of households; and c. conditions specific to the communities' studied. Four investigators gathered information on the household-level through surveys on (1) social and economic conditions of 50 respondents in each eight study sites; (2) forest and tree-use practices of 25 households in each of the same sites; and (3) case analysis of village-specific issues. Additionalinformation on fuelwood use was generated in six of the eight villages. â&#x20AC;˘ Two sets of analyses were conducted in the FLUPPS project. The first interprets pooleddata sets on the 400 households from the eight villages (Figure 1) surveyed in 1989. The second supplements in-

*Finalreport submitted to the Ford Foundation. This studyis part of a regionwide effort to develop a common data base on various sites and agro-ecological zones in several countries. The regional study is coordinated by the Forestry/Forestry Research and,Development Project (F/ FRED) of the Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development and is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This particular study includes case studies and household surveys funded through the F/FRED small grants program. The PIDS coordinated and implemented the national-level analysis while the Ford Foundation funded this study. **Research Fellow and Senior Research Specialist, respectively, Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Support from PilipinasFeltx, Research Analyst II; Creseencio Jovellanos, EDP Specialist; Erwin Tamayo, Programmer;and Susan Pizarro,Executive Assistant, are gratefully acknowledged,

formation on certain economic variables on fuclwood-vse patterns in six of the eight villages. Individual reports on the village case studies are reported in the regional studies of Forestry/Forestry Research and Development Project (F/FRED). A.

Background

The Philippines has a total land area of 300,000 square kilometers, 45 percent of which have at least 18 percent slope. As of 1988, the population was estimated at 58.7 million. About 42 percent resides in the rural areas at combined linear and cluster settlement patterns along roads and coastlines. The labor force comprises 30 percent of the country's population, or23.4 million people in 1988. Forty-two percent of the labor force were in agriculture. Dependency rate in both rural and urban areas was 69 children per 100 economically active persons including the elderly, the rate of which is 75 per 100 persons in the 15-64 age bracket. Migration patterns are oftwo types: (1) rural to urban areas, with the National Capital (Metro Manila) and Southern Tagalog Regions as major receiving areas; and (2) intra-rural migration with the uplands and coastlines as major destinations. In general, the largest positive net migration to the uplands occurred in low density regions, such as in Southern and Northern Mindanao and the Ilocos Region, where upland intra-regional migration is prevalent. The uplatrd population in 1988 was estimated at 17.8 million people, implying a density of 119 persons per square kilometer, a substantial 61 percent increase from 74 persons per square kilometer in 1970 ( M.C.J. Cruz et al. 1988 ). The country's forest lands which comprise some 50 percent of the total land area are public domain. Thus, neither private nor collective ownership of trees in forests, or of forest lands is feasible under the Philippine Constitution. Access to upland resources has been governed by a system of rights and restrictions granted by the state on specific uses such as timber harvesting and minor forest products gathering, for a maximum of 50 years. Decreasing forest cover and increasing upland population pressure are solved mostly by contract reforestation and the Integrated Soeial Forestry Program (ISFP). The government helps develop forests by providing technical assistance and planting materials, constructing physical infrastructure support and organizing community-based groups. While this is a significant departure from traditional forestry concerns of timber production that was predominantly large-scale, the complexity and magnitude of upland resources management warrant continuing focus on upland poverty and population pressure on forest resources째

Rationale

The study identifies the rural poor andmeasures their needs and capabilities. It focuses on the tree products from forests and upland cultivation systems: Earlier studies by M.C.J. Cruz etal. (1988) on upland population and migration patterns show that official data on upland communities grossly underestimated population pressure on the uplands and

the Philippine forests. With virtually open access to public forest lands, shifting cultivation and indiscriminate use of lowland agricultural systems hastened the conversion of forest lands into agricultural crop production areas. Uncontrolled gathering of forest and tree products such as lumber and fuelwood further depleted the forests. On the other hand, the implementation of upland dcvclopmcnt projects under an improved system of access rights which encourages the establishmentofagroforcstrysystems, may be cxpccted to reverse the deforestation process in the medium and long term period. This study analyzes the forest and land use practices of the upland poor through the development of a common database. It also examines the influence of household-specific characteristics, development intervention mechanisms, institutional and local use conditions on specific tree and forest-use practices.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

In analyzing the determinants of tree-use and forest, land-use patterns, the following relationship may be investigated: Practice (i,j,k) = f (household socioeconomic characteristics, community level characteristics, outside intervention, etc.) where

i = a specific practice, j = the household as the observation unit; and k -- the level of aggregation in which the analysis is conducted; the smallest level of which is usually the study site

This relationship explains variation in tree-use or forest, land-use across households in terms of the three sets of independent variables : (1)household-specific characteristics; (2)community-level differences; and (3) site-specific details of interventions, policies, etc. Focusing on household-level variation gives project implementors a set of characteristics that helps identify early adoptors, average adoptors and unlikely adoptors of suggested changes in tree production and use systems. This process, in turn, would help project managers determine the success of the project at the household level. Examples of household-level variation arc age, educational attainment, and size, among others. The second set of factors that influences household behavior are community level characteristics, such as the degree of cohesiveness, prevailing institutional arrangements, poverty incidence, infrastructure,and the like. These factors influence the design of development mechanisms as well as the performance measures set by project managers. Another set of factors hypothesizes that differences across sites significantly determine variation in tree and/or forest, land-use practices. Differences accrossite arc attributed to site variations as well as the general conditions in which the household operates. These differences should be treated as

"givens" of the project. Again, the project design would vary according to such "givens," assuming the latter is not likely to change within a reasonable period of time. Examples of site-specific characteristics include rainfall, topography, softcharacteristics, and the like.

IlL

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS A.

Comparison of Village-Level Conditions

The eight villages are first compared in terms of selected social indicators as presented in Table 1. In terms of household size, Guinzadan, Mountain Province has the biggest average size of 8.4, while the two Mindoro sites have sizes lower than the national average of 5.8. These three villages are composed of cultural minority communities. Educational levels range from illiterate majority inBanilad, Mindoro (72% of household heads and 31% of spouses) to higher humanresource developmentlevelsin Guinzadan, Mountain Province (38% with primary among household heads and 14% of spouses with primary or with college education). The other six villages tend to exhibit similar patterns of educational levels. Households were grouped into low, medium and high income categories through the use of wealth indicators developed by various researchers for their respective community settings. Banilad, Mindoro and the two Laguna communities are comprised mostly of poor households (at least 80% share of households surveyed). On the other hand, at least 58 percent of households in Guinzadan, Paitan and San Isidro belong to the middle class. â&#x20AC;˘ In terms of absolute incomes, Table 2 indicates that households in the villages of Mountain Province (with average cash earnings of P9,371 and P20,835) and San Isidro, Leyte (P15,686 average cash income) arebetter offthan the averagecash income of all eight communities ofP7,673. Such earnings do not mainly come from tree products since the highest proportion of income from tree products is only four percent in these three villages. On the dependence ofpoorcommunities and the informal sector on forestproducts, communities with incomes below the national poverty level obtain significant proportions of their income from tree â&#x20AC;˘ products: Banilad, Mindoro (20%), Paitan, Mindoro (38%), Juan Santiago, Laguna (30%) and J.P. Laurel, Laguna (56%). As the case studies indicate, lumber production and fruit treeharvests areimportant activities in the Laguna areas while rattan gathering and manufacture of rattan-based products are important activities among the Mindoro households (Maligalig i990 and Mallion et al. 1990). In terms of credit, Guinzadan households receive higher amounts, on the average, from government, bank, and informal sources, while credit from cooperatives is the highest among Bila respondents. It should be noted, however, that the standarddeviations of all credit variables are much higher than the averages for all sites, implying uneven â&#x20AC;˘access to the various credit sources. On the average, households work on farms with an area of 1.64 hectares. The average area is highest in Mindoro at 3.17 hectares. The rest of the households in the six villages have very small farms

q_r

r4_P

C_I

pll

which is typical of upland areas in the country (with an average size of area cultivated registered at 1.4 hectares in 1980). Household heads devote some 40 to 60 percent of their time to agriculture in the Mountain Province, Leyte and L aguna villages, which is typical of Filipino rural household beads(Table 3). On the other hand, alower 20-25 percent of time isspent by Mindoro household heads in agriculture. Similar differences between _me allocation of spouses in the six areasvis-a-vis those in Mindoro exists with forestproducts gathering as more prominent in Mindoro. In general, spouses spend little time for agriculture or wage labor in all sites. Table 4 summarizesthe results of chi-square tests that were conducted to determine differences among the eight village in terms of wealth, forestry extension, tree rights, and access to forests. As indicated by the earlier discussion, the communities studied differ in terms of relative ranking of household economic status (variable 1, Table 4). The villages &'ffer from each other in terms of their use of tree seedling sources. Sixty percent of households in Paitan, Mindoro use the forestry station as seed source, as do 34 percent of Banilad, Mindoro and 22 percent of Guinzadan, Mountain Province households (Table 6). The rest do not get seedlings from the forestry station at all. Similar trends are observed with respect fo obtaining seeds from government nurseries, with 36 percent of Bila using such seed source (Table 7). Obtaining seeds from non-government organization (NGO) sources is done by Six percent of the Paitan households (Table 8). Tree ownership patterns do not vary across households in the eight sites, as indicated for variables 5 to 8 in Table 4. There is virtually no ownership of trees in common properties (Figure 2), nor for woody perennials in either owned or rentedprivate properties. Tables 9 to 11 show thatno one owns the trees in various property types as a result of Philippine constituiional limitations. The villages differ in their access to variouS forest types (variables 9 to 13, Table 4). Access to common forests is prevalent among the Laguna and Mindoro areas while 50 percent of Bila households regulate access (Figure 3) to various forest types. Regulated and seasonal access to fallows is prevalent among the Mountain Province communities. Fallows are used as common property in the LagUna a/ld Mindoro villages while Leyte households do not have access to fallows (Figure 4). similar patterns are also observed in terms of access to barren lands and village forests (Figures 5 and 6, respectively), in terms of access to state-owned forests, the Laguna villages have unrestricted use, the Mindoro communities, controlled use, and Leyte and Mountain Province areas, no access (Figure 7). Since the eight villages vary considerably in terms ot access to various forest types, it is expected that tree-use and forest land-use also differ among households.

Relationships Between Forest/Land-Use Practices andSpecific Factors

Tables 12 to 17 and Figures 8 to 28 arc Philippine versions of the analysis conducted for the regional study by C. Mehl (1991). Information presented in Tables 12 to 15 shows the access to forestry

Table 3 MEANS (STANDARD DEVIATION),' SELECTED TIME ALLOCATION INDICATORS

.... I-IBADOF _ _Time spearm t *1 Alpkmlmm

as,kut,_ w.8o lndmtn_ Wqp

04)

A4IdadtumtWqo indmtekdWqp

.51

02) O_ Os) ,1 _ s ('_o) O,s) t'2o) 2

(14)

(16) 6 O2)

(-)

(I_)

(1.5) _ (_ 7

08)

Os)

tlO)

Oe)

(lZ)

(3)

(.5)

OLO} 03)

(3.5) 12 O8)

(n) 1o (_

Oe.) 18 t'_

(3o) zs (26)

OS)

(5)

(.)

(14)

2,5

_30

(26)

00)

O.S')-

Sotu_: 1989 Forest/Land-use Practices in thePhilippinesStudy(FLUPPS)Survey.

(.5)

(8)

OJ)

_....

or) r_

r_o

I_1

p ,_ •4 QH 0 _, _

_. _

_;_

_ ,-_

r_ ® _

0 Q) q)

000

"_0_ CDIO 0

1400'1 0

_1_'00

4_ _ O0

•

O_ 0

® I_

_ _

I_ _o

-H

0 ,n d) r_

® P f_

_111_

_._

""_

0_ _ o .,-i

_o "_ "_ ®

-PO0

_ _

¢_

-,_ _0_

I_1

_-I ®

•

_ ®

•

.,-4

_._ I_

_ _ _ _._® ®

®®® • ® ®

'_lf) 0

_ ._

® _

® ® ® ® ® ® ¢_

_ 0

¢1

• • ® " ®

¢13] " me

_ _o_ .. _ ;4_-_ _-_

_ _,-_ 0,-_ 0 _'_ _ _'_ _

• _

• _) • ® Q Q

_ _r-_-_ _,,o

_,_ __

_® o,_ 0

•,._

O-P

o _ _, ®

¢1

Q"O

Q'_I

-,-_ Q 1_ 0

;4 _,-_

oo o _

_-_ -,4 ® O-P

__°_° =_ ._o o:_ _)_-_ 0,-_

.,-4,-_

_-_

_-i

_--_,-_ ®,-¢ 0'-4 _'_ _'_ _'-_ _ _0,-__'_1_-_,-_ _'_"_-,_m _"_ m _'_ m _'_ o_.,_ _.,_ _"_ o_ _-_.,4

®,-_ '_.,_

....

COMPARISON

OF VILLAGE

Villages

Table 5 BY RELATIVE

Low

Bila, Mountain Frequency % Share

WEALTH

Wealth Medium

RANK

Rank High

Total

Prov. 25 50

21 42

4 8

50 100

19 38

29 58

2 4

50 I00

38 78

10 20

1 2

49 i00

8 16

36 72

6 12

50 100

41 82

6 12

3 6

50 I00

45 90

4 8

1 2

50 i00

Paitan, Mindoro Frequency % Share

34 88

18 32

0 0

50 i00

Banilad, Mindoro Frequency % Share

41 82

9 18

0 0

50 i00

251 -63

131 -33

17 -4

399 -i00

Guinzadan, Frequency Share

Mountain

San Miguel, Frequency % Share

Baybay

San Isidro, Frequency % Share

Baybay

J.P. Laurel, Frequency % Share

Prov.

Leyte

Laguna

Juan Santiago, Frequency Share

Laguna

TOTAL (%) Source:

1989 Forest/Land-use (FLUPPS) Survey.

Practices

in the

Philippines

Study

12.

Table 6 COMPARISON

OF VILLAGES I

BY FORESTRY MI

•Villages

STATION

SEEDLING/SEED

Forestry Station Seed Source .don't use. use service service

Total

Bila, Ho,utain Prov. Frequency i share

50 100.

0 0

50 100

_uinzadan,BountainPrey. Frequency Z share

39 78

11 22

50 100

SanBiluel, BaybayI_yte •Frequency I share

50. 100

0 0

50 100

SanIsidro, Baybay Leyte Frequency X share

50 lO0

J.P. Laurel, Laguna _requencY I share 3uanSantiago, Latuna Yrequency Xshare

•

, 0

, 50 100

50 I00

0 0

50 100

0 0

50 100

Pallas, Bindoro Frequency X share

20 40

30 60....

50 100

Basilad, lindoro ?requency

17 34

50 100

242 -81

58 -19

400 -100

x share

TOTAL, v/o Leyte (X)

Source: 1989¥orest/Land-usePractices in the Philippines Study(lq_PPS)Survey.

SOURCE

Table 7 COMPARISON

OFVILLAGES

BY GOVERNMENTNURSERYSEEDLING

SEED SOURCE

GovernzentNurserySeedSource Villages

don't use sea,ice

use service.

Total

32 64

18 36

50 100

_inzadan, _oun_sin Prov. Frequency share

47 94

3 6

50 100

_an_iguel, Ba_bay,_eyte Frequency Z share

50 100.

0 0

50 100

San Isidro, _ybay, l_yte Frequency• share

50 100

0 0

50 .100

45 90

5 I0

50 lO0

JuanSantiago, baguna • Frequency Xshare

50 I00

0 0

50 I00

Paitan, Hindorc Frequency share

50 100

0 0

50 100

Baniiad, _indoro Frequency share

46 92

4 8

50 100

370 -33

30 -7

400 -100

270 _90

30 -10

300 -100

Bila, _ountain Prov. Frequency Z share

J.P. Laurel, Lacuna Frequency. " I share " •

TOTAL {_)

TOTAL, w/o Leyte IZl ii

5ource:i989 Forest/Land-usePractices in the Philippines Study (FLUPPSI Survey.

Table 8 COMPARISON OF VILLAGES BY NGO NURSERY SEEDLING/SEED SOURCE

N_ Nureery,SeedGource don't ue we service eervlr.e

Villajen

Total

iiiim

Bila, HoantainProv. I share

lO0

100

Fnqueney I share

50 lO0

0 0

50 100

SanIliiue], Baybey,Leyte lroquene,y Xshah

49 98

J l

50 100

SanIsideo, hybay, Leyte Fre4aeney i share

50 100

0 0

50 100

J.P. La_eel,Laiua Fnqueney Z share

50 100

0 0

50 100

JuanSutiap, LsSuna ,Yrequenoy Xshare

50 100

0 0

50 100

Pait_, Iflndo_ _equency Xshare

47 94

9 6

50 100

Bailed, Mindoro h_lueney Z shah

49 98'

1 2

50 100

.s • (Z) in

-_ i p

i |lmm

-1

-I00 ............

Soa_.,e: 1989Forest/Land-urn ?raotJ©esin the PhilippinesStudy(FLI_S)Survey.

COMPARISON

Figure 2 BY TREES ON COMMON

OF VILLAGES

PROPERTY

OWNED

601 50-

40-

_-_ O

30-

6 Z 20"

10-

"''

MPI

MP2

"-r_

LE1

---

LE2

t,Gl

1- "

Lf32

-r_-

MNI

........

MN2

Village

[gz0

mouTa6o I

Source: See Appendix 1.

COMPARISON

Figure 3 OF VILLAGES BY ACCESS

TO COMMONS

40.

// //

/7 /f

// //

// //-

p-p-

/./

//,

/./ /../

/-/ /./

/'f

-//

•

/.,/ //

_I I . .

•

I"/"

/-/

10-

// //

// ...

P'J" // /f

/j /j /./

...- _

, MPI

_ MP2

--'r'-LEI

rLE2

// "-_:_ x LGI

/j _"_ _ LG2

// _ MN1

MN2

Village

Seasonal use I _,_] N° acee" Source: See Appendix 2.

_-_ [_

Common property Unr_trieted use _--'_ Controlled use

Table 9 COMPARISON

OF VILLAGES

BY TREES

ON PRIVATE

PROPERTY ,,

Villages

iiii

1-10

11-50

Bila, HouotaiaProv. Frequency Z share

40 80

_ 10

2 4

1 2

50 100

Guinzadan,HountainProv. Frequency Z share

47 94

O 0

2 2

0 0

50 100

SanHiguel, BaybayLeyte Frequency I share

50 100

0 0

0 100

SanIsidro, BaybayLeyte Frequency I share

50 lO0

0 0

50 100

J.P. Laurel, Laluna Frequency Z share

50 100

0 0

50 100

JuanSantiago, Laluna Frequency Z share

50 100

0 0

50 100

Paital, Biadoro Frequency g share

50 100

0 0

50 100

Banilad, Bindoro Frequency Z share

50 100

0 0

50 100

38?

ii iin,ks

TOTAL

morethan 50

OWNED

Total

(z) -sT -1 -1 -1 So,r.:_.9Fo..t_-,. Praot_o. _,the .,.i'is- Sted, (._ S,r.,.

400

-loo

COMPARISON

OF VILLAGES

Table 10 BY WOODY PERENNIALS

ON PRIVATE

PROPERTY

Numberof Trees 9illaBes

1-10

Bile, HountainFrov. Frequency I share

47 94

# 0

1 2

48 100

Guinzadan,HountainFrov. Frequency I share

49 98

0 0

50 100

San Higuel, Baybaybyte Frequency Z share

50 100

0 0

50 100

SanIsidro, Baybay Leyte Frequency share

50 100

0 0

50 lO0

LP. Laurel, Laguna Frequency Z share

45 90

2 4

1 2

50 100

_uan Santiago, Laguna Frequency Z share

45 90

2 4

1 2

50 100

PaiLan,Hindoro Frequency I shore

50 100

0 0

50 100

Banilad, Bindoro Frequency X share

50 100

0 0

50 lO0

386 1971

4 (1)

3 (1)

398 (100)

TOTAL IX) t

morethan lO

Total

Source:1989Forest/Land-use PracLicesin thePhilippinesStudy(FLUFFS) Survey.

OWNED

Table 11 COMPARISON OF VILLAGES BY OTHER WOODY PERENNIALS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RENTED lu_berof Trees Villages

Total

Btla, Mountain Prov. Frequency i share

50 100

0 0

50 100

Guinzadan, _ountaiaProv. Frequency I share

50 100

0 0

50 lO0

SanMipel, hyhay Lute Frequency i share

50 I00

0 0

50 100

SanIsidro, hybay l_yte Frequency I share

50 I00

0 0

50 IO0

J.P. Laurel,l_na Frequency share

50 100

0 0

50 100

49 98

1 2

50 100

PaStas,_lndoro Frequency Z share

50 100

0 0

50 100

Basilad,Mindoro Frequency Z share

50 i00

0 0

50 100

399 -lO0

1 sil

400 -100

JuanSantiago,Laguna Frequency i share

TOTAL (l) .....

....

Source:1989Forest/Land-use Practices is the PhilippinesStudy(IrLUPP9) Survey.

COMPARISON

Figure 4 OF VILLAGES BY ACCESS

TO FALLOWS

6O-

50-

4O-

30" •

20"

--i

-i

10"

MPI

1==

MP2

I._1

t_2

I.,GI

I..O2

MNI

•

......

MN2

Village

Seasonal use No a__,yee__

_ __

Common property Unrestricted use _N_ Controlled use

Source: See Appendix 3.

COMPARISON

OF VILLAGES

Figure 5 BY ACCESS TO BARREN

LANDS

60-

5O-

30"

i._

2O-

lO-

OMPI

MP2

I.,EI

I._2

I./31

LG2

MNI

MN2

Village No access

tJnreatrieted use

Seasonal use

Common property

Source: See Appendix 4.

Controlled use

COMPARISON

OF VILLAGES

Figure 6 BY ACCESS

TO VILLAGE

FOREST

....

50--

4o-

r,. 2O-

lO-

_'0300 0,

" ,

,Village

[_'-J_ No aecess

Controlled use

Common property

Source: See Appendix 5.

Figure 7 OF VILLAGES BY ACCESS

COMPARISON

TO STATE FORESTS

40-

'_ 0

X_ XX X_

X)_

X_ X)< v_

XX XX

XX '" "

XX X.X

XX XX XX

XX XX XX XX

X>: X.X XX X_

XX XX XX XX

xx X_

30_

• •

11)-

MP1

MP2

LEI

!..132

LGI

xx vv

LG2

MNI

MN2

Village _7"_ No access

Unrestricted

Source: See Appendix 6.

use

Controlled use

Common properly

extension through the forestry station with the type of farm cropping system, where "non-traditional" refers to agroforestry and/or tree systems while "traditional" mainly implies annual agricultural crops. Majority of the households in the eight villages do not avail of forestry extension services. Of those who avail, significantly higher percentage of non-traditional farmers use them for fodder (Figure 8), fuelwood (Figure 9), tree-borne foods (Figure 11) and handicrafts (Figure 12). Among the minority who avail of such services (whether for fodder, fuelwood, charcoal of tree-based food production purposes), higher percentages practice non-traditional cropping systems. One may thus conclude that forestry extension service is important in the on-farm practice of agro-forestry. In the case of forestry extension on charcoal production, the question on the difference in tree management practice is irrelevant since charcoal could be produced from both wood and non-wood raw materials. Figure 10 shows no difference in tree management practice as far as forestry extension is concerned. On the other hand, Table 12 and Figure 14 show that agricultural extension services are not significant in the practice of non-traditional systems. This is because agricultural extension workers do not extend much assistance in the uplands for livestock and tree-borne foods. However, there is a significant variation in the agricultural systems of those who make use of agricultural extension for fuelwood and those who do not. A higher percentage of non-traditional agriculturists avail of fuelwood-related extension work done by agricultural extension agents. Tables 13 to 15 and Figures 15 to 28 relate farmsize categories with tree/forest-use practices. Figure 15 indicates that use of fodder is related to farm size. Majority of farmers, especially those cultivating small and medium-sized farms, do not use fodder. Furthermore, Table 13 shows that farm and forest practices of fodder users vary, with more of farmers with large-sized lands (31%) practicing non-traditional farm systems. All farmers appear to source their fodder from their respective farms, at an average rate of 81 percent (Table 14). There is no variation across farmers grouped according to farm sizes in their tree product use and fuelwood use (Figures 16 and 17). Figure 16 shows that all types of farm sizes use tree and non-tree products in equal proportion. Majority of the fuelwood users have tree products as primary source, with a higher proportion of farmers with large-sized farms (96%) using wood-based energy (Figure 18). Figures 19 and 20 further show that farmers with large-sized farms tend to practice non-traditional cropping, including tree farming (51% for large vis-a-vis 27% and 18% for farmers with small and medium-sized farms, respectively). They also tend to rely more on their farms as a source of fuelwood (55%). On the other hand, small farmers obtain fuelwood mostly from government and commercial forests (30% and 42%, respectively). An unexpected observation is that the landless use fuelwood from an onfarm source because farming other households' land gives access to fuelwood in these farms. Meanwhile, Figure 21 and Table 15 show that use and sourcing of charcoal vary among farmer types. Higher proportions of the landless and farmers with large-sized farms use charcoal (28% and 22%, respectively) compared to the other groups. As expected, sourcing from government forests is prevalent among the landless (50%). On the other hand, farmers with small farms tend to get charcoal from either

Table 12 USE OF LIVESTOCK EXTENSION, BY FARMTREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Use of government System Forestrystation ............................................................ Frequency(Percent) Traditional Non-Traditional TOTAL Not use service

160 (96) 6 (4) 166 (75)

Use service T OT AL

54 (98) 1 (2) 55 (25)

214 (97) 7 (3) 221 (100)

Fisher'sexact test (2-taJl),(Pr = 0.684) Souse:1989Forest Land-use Practices inthePhilippines Study (FLUPPS) Survey.

Table 13 ON-FARM SYSTEM WHERE FODDER IS PRIMARILY SOURCED, BY FARM-SIZE CATEGORY System Frequency (Percent)

Farm-sizeCategory .......................................................... Landless Small Medium Large Total

Traditional

Non-Traditional

TOTAL

11 (92)

5 (83)

1 (8)

1 (17)

12 (11)

6 (5)

5 (100)

60 81 (69) (74)

0 0

27 29 (31) (26)

5 (5)

87 110 (79)(100)

2 X = 5.068 (Pr = 0.167); 62% of cells have countslessthan 5. 2 L.R. X = 6.839 (Pr = 0.077) Source:1989Foresl/Land-use Practices inthePhilippines Study(FLUPPS) Survey.

23 Table 14 PRIMARY TREE SOURCE OF FODDER, BY FARM-SIZE CATEGORY Source Frequency (Percent)

Farm-sizeCategory Landless Small Medium Large TOTAL

GovernmentForest

1 (7)

0 0

9 (8)

10 (7)

CommercialForest

1 (7)

2 (25)

0 0

10 (9)

13 (10)

87 (80)

110 (81)

3 (3)

3 (2)

On-Farm

12 (86)

6 (75.)

5 (100)

Purchased

0 0

TO T AL

(lo)

(6)

(4)

109

136

(8o) (loo)

2 X = 4.713 (Pr = 0.859); 6% of cells havecountslessthan 5. 2 L.R. X = 6.099 (Pr = 0.73) Source:1989Forest/l_and-use Practices inthePhilippines Study(FLUPPS) Survey. Table 15 ON-FARM SYSTEM WHERE CHARCOAL IS PRIMARILY SOURCED, BY FARM-SIZE CATEGORY System Frequency (Percent)

Farm-sizeCategory .................................................................. LandlessSmallMedium Large TOTAL

Traditional

3 1 (75) (100)

1 (33)

18 (67)

23 (66)

Non-Traditional

1 (25)

0 0

2 (67)

9 (33)

12 (34)

TOTAL

4 (11)

1 (3)

3 (9)

27 (77)

35 (100)

2 X = 2,082 (Pr = 0.556); 75%of cells havecountslessthan 5, 2 L.R. X = 2.314 (Pr = 0.51) Souce: 1989ForesULand-use Practices inthePhilippines Study(FLUPPS) Survey.

USES OF TREES I

Table 16 IN THE PHILIPPINE

STUDY VILLAGES

III

goat* Speciest

ALBIFA ALIUHA ALSTNA ARTOHK BANBSP CHBYCA CII_III]Z CIT_I CITRNO CLglOP COCON0 COFFAR DIPTG6 GL[RSK LAISDO LKUCLE _IIGIK IIUSASA IIUSSPII PASPCO PKIlTCO PI_AII PIIIU_ PSII)(]IJ SAilI)KO S60RAS SHOI SHO@O SHORSP SYZYCU TIKOCA T6ISD8 VITKFA

I 64

2 14 19 17 1 3 6 3 4 20 10 66 64 13 85 2 88 2 7 15

Total

7 1

1 81

l 4 5 2

17 53 10 11 1 3 19

i 2 9 15 2 5

4 l 15

14 5 2

i 21

9 1 1 2

7 69 112

1 2

2 3

16 24

15 62 29

3 I

4 3

'/2 25

11 I 1

5 4

i4 l 105 L7 tO 6 6 28

9 l 5 2 11 2 1

7 6 3

8 8

4 16 IO

Total per

L24

634

123

l I. 671

45 •

:SeeAppendix28 for expluatJonof speciescode lSUses: l:Fodder 6:Industrial Use 2:helwood 7:ltasdicrafts 3:Charcoal 8--OtherRegularOse 4:FruitlOtber lrood 9:9ease Construction 5:ftsber/Coostructlon Itaterials lO:OtberOccasionalOse Study(lrLUPPS) Survey.

Source: 1969Forest/Land-usePractices in the _tlippines

1 6 35 38

UBO --

186

16 20 24 92 23 72 26 25 78 28 195 180 25 IlO 18 t89 73 67 29 37 28 91 105 IlO 43 26 23 76 46 21 16 17 22 1953

25_

Table 17 OF TREES IN THE PHILIPPINE

LOCATION

STUDY VILLAGES

Locationof Trees*=

Totai'

Species= 1 q

III

ALBIFA ALHUHA ALSTHA ARTOHE BAHBSP CGRYCA CIHNHE CIT_I ClT_O CLKIOP COCOHU COFFAN DIPTGR GLIRSE LANSDO LEUCLE HAHGIN HUSASA HUSSPH PASPCO PENTCO PENSAH PINUKE PSIDGU SAHDKO SHO_ SHOR, Z SHOI_O

Ill

3 •

1 2 8 1

i_n

4 4 2 2 l

2 2 36 6 36

11 2 29 1 26 5 37 2

3 13 1 I l 3

3 4 1 4 13 2

26 ]6 40

2 1 7

37 59 11 2 23 16 18

17 64

6 14 3 3

6 2

54 3 4

116 lO0 2 76 16 69 30 17

16 2 17

1 !

23 29

5 25

1 2

i 3

42 1

46 21

18 17 22

664

182

1 1 12 1

11 2 12 17 3 3

26 2 20

63 13

1 12

THEOCA TRISDE VlTEPA

1 17 4

Total per use

316

1 56

11 10 10

8 18 27

2 1 4

sHoxsP sYzYcu

16 20 24 92 23 72 28 25 78 28 195 180 25 II0 18 189 73 67 29 37 28 91 105 110 43 26 23 76

ill

11 4

16 1 28 3 2 19 15

inn

404

200

SSeeAppendix 28 for explanation of speciescodes. st Locations: l:State/Government Forests 6:Farm;Plotwith onlytrees 2:PrivateForests ?:Fars;Agroforestry Sys. 3:Comzon Forests 8:Farn;Scattered Trees 4:OtherConchs 9:Purchased TreeProducts 5:Hnmesteads/I]omegardens lO:Hon-Tree Products Source:1989Forest/Land-use Practicesin the PhilippinesStudy(FLUPPS) Survey.

1953

Figure 8 USE OF FOREST EXTENSION (GOVERNMENT) FOR FODDER, BY FARM TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

Traditional

b. Non - traditional

Use service (34 5_)

" Not use service (65.5%)

Source: See Appendix 7.

27_

Figure 9 USE OF FOREST.EXTENSION (GOVERNMENT) FOR FUELWOOD, BY FARM TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

a. Traditional

b. Non - traditional

Use,erviGe (48.2_) Notuseservice ($1._)

Source: See Appendix 8.

Figure 10 USE OF FORESTRY EXTENSION (GOVERNMENT) FOR CHARCOAL, BY TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

a. Traditional

b. Non - traditional

Source:

See Appendix

Figure 11 USE OF FORESTRY EXTENSION (GOVERNMENT) FOR TREE-BORNE FOODS, BY TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

a. Traditional

Use service

'Not use service (91.0%)

Non-traditional

Use service (65.5%')

Source:See Appendix 10.

Not, use service (34.5%)

Figure 12 USE OF FORESTRY EXTENSION (GOVERNMENT) FOR HANDICRAFTS, BY FARM TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

a. •Traditional

_t_

Ct0a_)

b. Non - traditional

Not use servlee (45.5%)

Use sewice (54 5%)

Source:See Appendix11.

31 Figure 13 USE OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION BY FARM TREE MANAGEMENT

FOR FUELWOOD, PRACTICE

140-" I r, .2

120-

_.w_,I(.X)

t.9 40o ID

200"

" , Traditional

Non-Traditional

System

{ [_Not

use se,'vice _

Used service

]

Source: See Appendix 12. Figure 14 USE OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION FOR TREE-BORNE BY FARM TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE 2O0180.:-1

m jdO

140-

tO O

120-

40-

2O0-

i Traditional

N Non-Traditionat

System

[_]

Not use service [_

Source: See Appendix 13.

Used service

FOODS,

Figure 15 FODDER USE, BY FARM SIZE 250--

200-

150-

n:l o o

100-

_ Landless

Small

Medium

Large

Farm Size

Used Fodder

Did not Use Fodder

Source: See Appendix 14.

Figure 16 TREE PRODUCT USE, BY FARM SIZE :L_O"

ZOO-

I-d

150-

g o

11_-,

50-

Landless

Small

Medium

Farm Size _

Use Tree Product

Source: See Appendix 15.

Use Non-Tree Prod.

Large

â&#x20AC;˘

FUELWOOD

Figure 17 USE, BY FARM SIZE

250vvv_

2OO-

O ._

150-

o N, LAndlcts

®,,

Small

Medium

Large

Farm Size

[ [_;7-_Used Fuelwood

Not Use Fuelwood 1

Source: See Appengix 16.

TREE PRODUCT

Figure 18 AS PRIMARY FUEL SOURCE,

BY FARM SIZE

300-

25O"

1500.}

loo-

_ 0-

-Landless

___/______ _

Small

Medium

Farm Size

__,¢_ Used Tree Product Source: See Appendix 17.

Use Non-Tree Prod.

Large

• 34

ON-FARM

SYSTEM

WHERE

Figure 19 FUEL IS PRIMARILY

SOURCED,

BY FARM SIZE

16¢ 140120leO-

40-

Landleas

Small

Medium

Large

FarmSize

I_;_[ Traditional

Non-traditional i

Source: See Appendix 18, L'

•PRIMARY

Figure 20 WOOD SOURCE OF FUELWOOD,

BY FARM SIZE

300

25O-

200-

150100-

Laadless

Small

Medium

Large

Farm Size

On-FarmG°vernment Forest [_ Source: See Appendix 19.

PurchasedPrivate Forest

Commercial Forest ]

CHARCOAL

Figure 21 USE, BY FARM SIZE

180 160 ¸ 140"

.....

120-

:×××_

20_

_ " Landless

_ Medium

Small

Large

Farm Size

_irf--_UsedCharcoal.

[;_

Not UseCharcoal

Source: See Appendix 20.

PRIMARY

CHARCOAL

Figure 22 SOURCE OF FUEL, BY FARM SIZE

5o 45_

[

4035-

-o 2s201510-

30-

" Landless

Small

Medium

Large

FarmSize

I__ Ooeernment Fore,_1 Commer, lal_orest_N On-_arm Source: See Appendix 21,

[ti:t:]Purcha,¢d

Figure 23 PRIMARY TREE SOURCE OF TIMBER AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, BY FARM

SIZE

181614-

12-

4-_

M_ FarmS_ Government Forest _

Pint, based

Source: See Appendix 22.

Figure 24 PRIMARY TREE SOURCE OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, BY FARM SIZE 120-

100-

8O-

4O-

2O-

0-__

i Landlc'n

Small

T Mc'dium

Large

Farm Size

[ I_ _

O°vemmeat On-Farm

F°rest

Source: See Appendix 23.

I_] _

Private F°reat Purchased

C°mmercial

F°rest

TREE-BASED

Figure 25 HANDICRAFTS PRODUCTION,

Lmdl_

Small

BY FARM

SIZE

Medium Farm Size

V_'_ Make Handicrafts

Not Make I-L_dicraft

Source: See Appendix 24.

Figure PRIMARY

TREE

SOURCE

OF HANDICRAFTS

MATERIALS,

BY FARM

SIZE

$ff

441-

2ff

_¢bv_ll

Medium

Llu'lge

Farm Size

_7_ C_rovcrnmcttt Forest_

CommercialForest_

Source: See Appendix 25.

On-F_rm

Purc_

I I

PRIMARY

Figure 27 SOURCE OF TREE-BORNE FRUIT/FOOD,

BY FARM SIZE

zoo. 18o16o14@

N FromSize

Oovemm--t Forat [_

P_vate Fmmt

Commm_d Fmmt

Source:SeeAppendix26.

• ON-FARM

SYSTEM

WHERE

TREE-BORNE

Figure 28 FOOD IS PRIMARILY

14o. 12o. loft

"_ 0-

Source: See Appendix 27 •

,,F_'=.S_,e

SOURCED,.BY

FARM SIZE

the farmor the market. Farmerswith medium and large-sized farms,meanwhile,obtain charcoal from their farms(Figure 22). Figure 25 shows that tree-basedproduction of handicraftsdiffers among farmercategories, with the practice being moreprevalent among the medium and large-sized farms.This is because among the villages investigated, production of handicrafts (rattan-based)is prominent in the Mindoro areawhere farm sizes also tend to Ix)larger than in the other communities. Forfarmers with large-sized farms, government forests are a significant source of handicraftmaterials compared to otherhousehold groups (Figure 26). Sourcing of tree-borne food (fruits, nuts) differs among the farm-size categories (Figure 27). Farmers with large-sized farms get such food mostly from traditional sources compared with the others (Figure 28). While most farms practice traditional farm systems, a higher percentage (34%) among farmers with large-sized farms make use of non-traditional systems. C.

Tree Use Pracn'ces

Tables 16 and 17presentthe tree species available forvarious uses as well as theirlocation. The use of fuelwood isprevalent, with ipil andcoconut as majorspecies (Table 16). These aremostly located in homegardens orarc scattered in the farms (Table 17). While the two tables indicate the importanceof these uses and tree species, the lack of quantitative estimates on the exact used amounts of particular species from specific locations preclude hardestimates on stress on forest resources. D.

Results of Regression Analysis

Attempts were made to quantify relationships among key variables through the conduct of regression analysis. Forexample, theregression resultsin Table 18show that fuelwoodgatheredincreases as tree productsbecome more important vis-a-vis total income (including cash andnon-cash). The reverse is true when the spouse spendsmore time in agriculture. However,the aggregatepicturevariesconsiderablygiven the specific conditions of each site. Table 19 indicates that thereis no significant relationship between fuelwood gathering on the one hand, andcash income and household size, on the other. But in Bila, Mountain Province and Paitan, Mindoro,these variables have positive effects on the amount of fuelwood gathered. Table 20 showshow certainvariables influence the use of state forest lands. The use ofgovernment forestry extension services makes access to smaller areas of state forests possible. This is not surprising since information gatheredfrom extension workerson the properuse of forest land may lead to a more controlled use of the uplands. The second regression result in Table 20 shows that the larger the area owned and operatexlby households, the smallerthe state forest areaused. Conversely, this trend implies that the need for land is indeed a strong contributory factor to population pressure on state forests. Although the regressions derived do not fully account for the (other) factors that determine public forest, land-use, the results show statistically significant relationships,which, however, have low predictive capability.

,42

Tables21 and 22show unexpectedresults obtained forPaimn,Mindoro,and theaggregated analysis, respectively. Bothtables implythat moretimespent onwagelabor andbythespouseinagriculture leadtoanincreased fuelwood gathering instate forests. On theother hand,asexpected, larger farmsimply lowerincidence offuelwoodgathering fromstate forests. Table23 showstheregression estimates when theamountoffuelwoodgathered isthedependent variable. Itshows theexpected inverse relationship betweentheimportance of kerosene and fuelwood gathering forboththeagg_gatedresults and theseparated estimates ofthestudysims.On the other hand,another unexpected result isobtained withrespect tocollection time and theamountgathered, i.e., more time spent on woodgathering implies lowerfuelwoodgathering. Thissituation isduo to the diminishing marginal returns of fuelwood gathering with possiblycapturing more travel timethan collection timeitself. Thisobservation indicates the accessibility ofavailable forests whichimplies the negativeeffectofdeforestion on communities dependent on fuclwood. On theaverage, some 7.8 hoursperhousehold isspenton fuelwoodgathering perday,whichimplies much lesstimeavailable for farmaswellasforhouseholds activities (Table26,variable FUEL6). Note the insignificance of regression results in Table 23 for individual village estimates, except for 3.P. Laurel because of the lack of variation among certain variables within the same village. Thus, while most social scientists usually require case studies to include site and culture-specific conditions, there is basis for analyzing several sites based on uniformly gathered data in orderto detect variations in important variables. Table24 showstheregression of percentage of fuelwoodgathered fromstate forests onvarious farmer-specific variables. The aggregamdresults implythattheproportion of fuelwoodgathered from state forests rises withthedependency ratio anddecreases withfarmsize. Bothrelationships arcexpected becausethey show theeffects of increased householddemand andalmmative(farm-based)supply on state forest use. However,these results arequitedifferent forPaitan, Mindoro.The moreimportant determinants ofstate forest useforfuelwoodare cashincome fromtreeproducts (whichmay include fuelwood)and thepercentage oftimespentby thehousehold headon wage labor. Fuelwood gathered from state forests arc affected by different combinations of factors as shown in Table 25. Regression 1 indicates that the important variables arc total annual cash income and percent of time spent by households on wage labor. Both variables have positive relationships with sourcing from stateforests. Regression 2 does not indicate statistically significantresults while regression 3 shows that the larger the total farm size, the lower the amount of fuclwood gathered from government forests. The fourth result shows that higher time allocation by the spouse on agriculture leads to more gathering of fuelwood from state forests. Itisdifficult tocome up with definite conclusions on these hypothesized relationhips between theindependent variables and fuelwoodgathering. The listing inTable27,for instance, doesnotallow forsoundgeneralizations onsuchrelationships. Pooling theobservations across households invarious sites may haveresulmd indistributions which am unexpected. Many ofthevariables summarizedinTable26,forinstance, show thatthestandard deviation ishigher thanthemeans.Thisproblemcanbe solvedby usinga randomsampleofsites across the country in the overall research methodology.

o"v

45.

Table 22 REGRESSION

ANALYSIS OF FUELWOOD GATHERED FROM STATE FORESTS ON SELECTED LABOR ALLOCATION VARIABLES

Variable

Intercept Regression Coefficient?-value (t-valuel (t-value) (R2l

Percenttine of household headonagriculture and/or industrial wagelabor MIN])ORO

27.153 (4.825)tt

0.749 {3.161)_t

9.993tt (0.500)

PHILIPPIHKS

55.856 (8.6351**

0.305 11.836)z

3.373s {0.081)

I_GU_A

21.120 {2.460)tt

1.670 (2.176ltt

4.734*t (0.3211

70.OVO 112.954)**

-0.449 1-2.492)**

6.212** (0.140)

Percent timeofspouse spent onagriculture

Percent income fro= treeproducts coneuzed orsoldoftotalincome PHILIPPINES

Notes: *significant atOllo l,Vel

......

â&#x20AC;˘* s[Iniflcant at0.05 level Source: 1989Forest/Land-usePractices in the Philippines 5tudp (FLUPP9} Survey.

Z '< t-"

"_ "-'

" _. _ _

;.7,

.._; _ -_ -= ..gg |1 I| |1

•48

Table 25 REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF PERCENT FROM STATE FORESTS ON SELECTED i

Regression Coefficient of IMepeMentVariables (t-value)

Regression Rune 1

Intercept (t-value)

OF FUELWOOD GATHERED VARIABLES, SIX VILLAGES

27.541 (3.522)¢¢

Total aunualcash insure (t-value)

0.001 (3.639)*¢

I of tile spent by _ead on uagelabor (t-value)

0.571 (2.541)¢¢

I of tiu spent by spouse on agriculture (t-valse)

0.533 (3.867)¢s

Tim spent in collecting (t-value)

0.403 (1.548)

2 64.831 (8.628)--

73.084 (9.974)z*

0.260 (0.913)

0.231 (0.945)

4 56.643 (7.165)**

0.338 (2.134)¢¢

I of cash insole frol tree products (t-raise)

-0.232 (0.771)

Area sued ud operated by households (t-.lue)

-1.386 (-0.614)ns

Totalfare size (ha) (t-value) Fvalue (i2)

0.189 (0.643)ns

0.333 (1,,081)

0.0?4 (0.321).s

-0.311 (-1.168)

-0.267 (-0.128).s -10.876 (-2.906)¢¢

6.896s_ (0.463)

1.923¢ (0.194)

4.396** (0.355)

3.047t* (0.278)

Notes: : oiptfieaat at 0.10 level ¢_ : sipifieaet at 0.35 level as : .notsiguifieant Source: 1989Fores@Land-usePractices in the Philippines Study(_gPPS) Survey.

,__,_ _

o _

o 0 to

oo _ o0

_0 _4,_

_-_ _ _t)

03 ,_ o,1

._ o

® _

• •

_ _

I_4_

=•

-,_

rj)

--,

o _

_ ,H ,_ 0_

,-_

0o _o _o _

o _ _ _-_

® _ _®®®®

•_ 0"-_

'0o_

¢q o0 o) q9 tO t--[',,-_ _

co _,0 ,-4

r.n

O O3 _ _

_ °oo

_, m

__ =o,o

_ It) _

co 4_o

c0 ¢,0o3 D,-_ ,_ _.- '_ o

_ _

I_ 0,1

r,_ _ _-

_ _ Ot_ "_0 0 _ 0 _ 0 D_O _

-,-_ o=o ¢1 _ _

_oo=,,®.

_ '_=®={ ®o _Oq-_

o o oooo _,

o _';

i,-,i4,,_

_-,_ • O_

...

®_

,-40_

.49.

T_27 SUMMAaY OF EEGLE_;ION ANAL¥_

Ikpm_t l_zelwood

v_ _ _ foelwoM a_

fizem

__f_m ¢_mmd

cr _N_ld

_tJn_ qmtSy

IMum,_mdom Bik, ML_

ToLdmll c_bm

mn_M_Pmvmz B_, IMum, Mkdom U_ d $ovemmmt

+ +

_rvi_j A_ ovum _d

Totalfrom ei_

_xm_d h_l on wqe labor

PbUippim

Mindom T_c q_t in cdlectin8

+ +

J.P.]_d. L_m % _ _clwo0dcolle¢_ fromownIMd

_ppm •J.P. Lmee..l,l._una to tarSI_lwo0d

used

_.P.Lmct.L_m l_itm.Miudmo I_u_

Thus, regression analysis shouldbe conducted on a site-basis. However, mostresults obtainedfor the individual sites may not yield meaningful estimates. This may be expected because there is not much variation in specific variables within the same site (e.g., incomes do not differ much when almost all members of the community are poor, etc.)

IV.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Supportforupland andforest3,development activities in the eight study sites, though positive, was not substantial to conduct extensive analysis on the effect of government intervention on foresttree use practices. Nevertheless, the practice of non-traditional farm systems (tree system of agro-foregt) is desirable because it spares the use of public forests. Such systems have developed despite limited government intervention mechanisms. Significant relationshipscan be observed between forest, land and tree-use practicesandfarmers categorized according tOland size/ownership. Upland project managers must grant more securedproperty rights to the small and medium landholders under the social forestry projects, particularly in their early stages. With respect to the landless, fuelwood comes mostly from farms, implying that this group is not that important as far as forest depletion from fuelwood gathering is concerned. Gathering of fuelwood contributes significantly in depleting forest resources. The extent of such activities and the factors that determine them should be monitored. Among the upland dwellers, the following variables were found to be important: (1) income from other tree products; (2) time spent for gathering; (3) farming system practiced; and (4) farm size. Another possible important source of forest destruction are the fuelwood traders who do not reside in upland areas. This group should also be investigated in future studies. Data gathering activities shouldbe conducteduniformly on forest, land-useand tree-use practices in several sitesin the country. This procedure allows for more variation in the information being collected to enable meaningful measurement of the relationships of variables investigated. Such effort as well as a random sampling of the households and the sites covered will provide a better basis for broad policy formulation. To determine the site and culture specific conditions, surveys should likewise be accompanied by case studies which provide information important to upland project implementors in the field-level.

Appendix COMPARISON

OF VILLAGES

BY TREE.S

m,,,...

1 ON COMMON

PROPERTY

OWNED

Huaberof Trees 10

47 94

I 2

1 2

50 100

Guinzadan,NountainPros. Frequency %share

50 100

0 0

50 100

San Higuel, BaybayLeyte Frequency %share

50 100

0 0

50 100

0 0

50, 100

50 100

0 0

50 lO0

Juan _ntiago, Laguna Frequency %share

50 100

0 0

50 100

Paitan, Hindoro Frequency g share

50 100

0 0

50 100

Banilad, Hindoro Frequency I share

50 100

0 0

50 100

397 -99

1 (n.s.)

l (n.s.)

400 -100

Villages Bile, HountainPros. Frequency %share

San Isidro, l_ybay Leyte Frequency %share J.P. Laurel, Laguea Freguency %â&#x20AC;˘share

TOTAL (%)

Total

Source:1989Forest/Land-use Practicesin the PhilippinesStudy(FLOPPS) Survey.

Appendix 2 OF VILLAGES BY ACCESS

COMPARISON -

[

TO COMMONS

Formsof access Villalee

Noaccess

Onrestrieted use

Controlled regulated

Seasonal use

Comon property

Total

Bila, MountainProv. Frequemcy I share

6 12

17 34

25 50

1 2

50 100

Guinzadan, _gstain Prov. Frequency S share

20 40

29 58

0 O

0 0

1 2

50 100

San_ipel, BaybayI_yte Freqaescy I share

50 100

O 0

. 0 0

.0 0

0 0

50 100

SanIsidro, Bayl_yLeyte Frequency l share

50 lOO

0 0

50 100

LP. Laurel, La_ea Yrequescy I share

0 0

50 100

JuanSantiago, Lagusa Frequency shaee

0 O

0 0

50 100

50 lO0

Paitan, Bindoro Frequency share

1 2

O 0

l 2

0 0

48 96

50 lO0

Banilad, _indoro Frequency I share

7 14

0 0

1 2

0 0

42 84

50 100

134 {84}

46 (12)

27 (7)

1 nil

192 (48)

400 (100)

TOTAL (Z) Q

Source: 1989Forest/Land-usePractices is the Pbilippises Stsdy {FLUPPS) Survey.

â&#x20AC;˘54

Appendix 3 OF VILLAGES BY ACCESS

COMPARISON

TO FALLOWS

Formsof access ----

Villages

Noaccess

Onrestrleted use

Controlled regulated

Seasonal use

Common property

Total

8ila, _ountain Prov. Frequency I share

8 12

2 4

17 34

25 50

0 O

50 10O

Guinsadas, BountaJn Prov. Frequency I share

25 50

2 4

21 42

O 0

50 100

SanHiguel, BeybayLeyte Frequency Z share.

50 100

0 0

O 0

0 0

O. 0

50 100

SanIsidro, BeybayLeyte Frequency X share

50 100

0 O

O. O

0 0

50 1OO

J.P. Laurel_ Lapse Frequency I share

0 0

O O

0 O

O 0

50 lO0

50 lOO

JuanSantiago,Lapna Frequency Z share

0 O

0 0

O 0

0 0

50 100

Paitan, Nindoro Frequency Z share

1 2

O 0

0 0

49 98

50 100

Banilad, Mindoro Frequency share

7 14

0 0

0 0-

43 86

50 10O

139 -35

4 -1

19 -5

46 -12

192 -48

400 -lOO

TOTAL (I)

Source: 19.89Yorest/Land-usePractices In the Philippines Study(FL_)PPS) Survey.

COMPARISON

Appendix 4 OFV'ILLAGES BY ACCESS

TO BARRENLANDS

Fores of access Villages

Hoaccess

Unrestricted use i

Controlled regulated

Seasonal use

Couon property

?oral

Dila, Houtain Prey, Frequency I share

5 lO

18 36

27 54

0 0

50 100 ..

Guinzadan,IfountaiuProv. Frequency %share

20 40

28 56

1 2

0 0

50 100

Su liguel, BaySay Leyte Frequency I share

50 100

0 0

50 100

San lsidro, BaybayLeyts Frequency i share

50 100

O 0

0 0

O 0

0 0

50 100

LP. Laurel, Lapua Frequency I share

0 0

50 100

50 lO0

_uu Santiago, Lapua Frequency | share

0 0

32 64

0 0

18 36

50 100

Paitan, Hinders Frequency I share

1 2

0 0

49 98

50 100

7 14

0 0

43 86

50 100

133 -33

78 -20

28 -7

160 40

400 -100

Banilad, Hindoro Frequency I share TOTAL (I) L

(s.c.)

Source: 1989Forest/Land-usePractices is the Fhilippises StudyIFLqPPq)Survey.

56.

COMPARISON

Appendix 5 OF VILLAGES BY ACCESS

TO VILLAGE

FOREST

Formsof access Villases

Noaccess

Controtled regulated

Common property

Total

Bil_, MountainProv. Frequency share

2 4

48 96

0 0

50 100

Guinzadan,HountainProv. Frequency Z share

1 2

49 98

0 0

50 100

0 0

50, 100

50 100

0 0

50 ' 100

0 0.

0 0

50 100

0 0

50 100

48 96

50 .. 100

50 100 400 100

SanHiguel,..Baybay Leyte Frequency I share

SanIsidro, _ybay I_yte Frequency Z share J.P. Laurel, Laguna Frequency Z share

3uan Santia_o, Lacuna Frequency Z share ' Paitan,.Mindoro Frequency. Z share Banilad, Mindoro Frequency Z share TOTAL (X)

. 1 2

? 14

0 0

43 86.

111 28

98 .24

191 48

Source: 1989Forest/Land-usePractices in.the Philippines Study (FLUPP9) Survey.

57.

• COMPARISON

Appendix 6 OF VILLAGES BY ACCESS

TO STATE FORESTS

Form Of access Villqes

Bila, BountainPrey. Frequency | share

Uoaccess

Controlled .lle_ulated

Colon Property

Total

49 98

.0 0

0 0

1 2

50 100

Guinsadan,IIountatsPrey. Freqsency lshare

9 18.

.0 0

41 82

0 0

50 100

SanIfipel, Bayba_Leyte. Frequency I share

50 • 100

" •0 O

0 O

50 100

SanIsidro, h_ba_ Leyte Frequency I share

50 lO0

O 0

0 0

50 lO0

J.P. Laurel, Laluaa Frequency I share

0 0

50 100

0 0

50 100

JuanSantiago, Laguna Frequency ,t share

0 O

50 lOO

0 0

50 100

Paitan, Mindoro Frequency I share

1 2

0 0

46 92

3 6

50 100

Builad, Ilindore lrrequency I share

0 0

O 0

50 i00

O 0

50 100

159 -40

lO0 -25

137' -34

4 -i

400 -100

TOTAL (l)

Unrestricted use

Source: 1989Forest/Land-usePractices is the PhilipPines Study(Iq,OPPS)Survey.

Appendix7 USE OF FORESTRY EXTENSION (GOVERNMENT) FOR FODDER, BY FARM TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Use of govemment System Forestrystation ............................................................. Frequency (Percent) Traditional Non-traditional..TOTAL Not use service

Use service

TOTAL

77 (94)

19 (66)

96 (86)

5 (6)

10 ,(34)

15 (14)

82 (74)

29 (26)

111 (100)

2 X = 14.769, Pr=O.O00 Fisher'sexact test (2-tail), Pr = 0.000 Source: 1989Forest/Land-usePracticesin the PhilippinesStudy(FLUPPS) Survey.

Appendix 8 EXTENSION (_) BY FARM TREE _,'i_.

USE OF _

UseofGovernment Forestry Station Frequency (Percent)

FOR FUELWOOD PRACTICES

Traditional

System Non-Traditional

Total

Notuseservice

104 (95)

43 (54)

.1,47 (76)

Useservice

5 (5)

40 (46)

45 (23)

Total

109 (57)

83 (43)

192 (100)

X2 = 49.930, (p]: = 0.000) Fisher's exact test (2-tail), (Pr = 0.000) Source: 1989 Forest/Land-use Practices in the Philippines Study (FLUPPS) Survey.

OZ CD_I

,--1 ,_ O

_ o

CO're" COO')

0,1_.D 0,10"_

ZCD _-_ _ _ 0 .H

O_u:_ I

,-_ ,,:_ I

_-_Z (r_r_D_ Z _ _[._ •H E-I_

•

_ I_-_ O_ _Q I_ O_

oo _ O_

"1__ _r_.

_0 •

0,_ •

LOO O50 I

B I_ --." o9

,--3 ,,_ [--q 0

"o _

• _ o

_ • _l

_ O -,-.I O -,-I

_o Of._l _H _ .,-.IF.DE-_ _CSZ _ _ ::_

>_ OZ

._10 _O . _ ,-I _D 0 0 _ II -,"1

COrD _ E)

•

"-' I_

OE-_ _

r_rJ_ _ _O o o [.7.1[.7.1 ,-1 -,P

.,o

D..,-P "_

O. _o_

•

0 r_ 0

• ._I ._

•,-.-__'J O-_ ;n • i -p "o ii eq i _ ,,,

4-)

,-1

o _

Ot..O b..-_0 ,--_"_" I

_i,_ LD _ _-_0_ ".--

-P o

,.-I _0 I..0"_ _ i

.,.-I0 0,,10 O,.IH I

_D_ _ b_ I

LD--_ _ _ _

• _

p_ '.---. "d .p co

• O "_

o II

0 _ _

¢k-,P •

,_ ..J

4a ¢

i-3 -\.

O n:l I ,o "0 _i _ c-._

60.

--. Z

,_ E--_

00_3 L'xa_.D I

0_1 ' .,-q¢0 . I

OLD I.

¢xlLO

1.00 (00 _

O) b-T.-I0') I

£ 0

ol ol P_

"_ r_

-_ 4-_ 0

_ _1

-.4

,el

i1_

0"5

,,--, .la,,

_"-"

-,_

"-,-_

P.,

_ 0

-,4 Cx103

4_ _ I

•

030 _ 0 ,-_

0 ._i ca

0 ,_ C_Z

_0[-_ •_ i--i _-I _r._ I_

_-_

:> _

•

,_ I_

.-_

O-P

I_'

I:__

OE-_

0.._.

•

O_ _ _ rj_ _..._:_ O__,_

['_ _-_

r_ U]

ty_

r._

,__

0,-_

_)_1 _ _

,._ _

D--O_ .-I

_4") 0"_ I

_0 I_

LO0"_ l

LOLL')

,--I -H

LOCX] I

,---.

_ 0,

_._

0i1) -,-I

cOLD _0 h N I

b.-,_I

_ I1) 0 -_I C0_ _Z_

o_t.u _ O_ ,-II

II II •

_ o -,-t _

_ _

O H_. CO _.

._.

® o_, _

O-,-t

• _

-,._

_..1

_ r_

_ o

._ o

_ _l

_® . ._ o

. .p

II I

0o_-LO _-_ I

o_o0 0 _1 _-.I

_ o .,--I 4-)

CO I

®_o

•_

o 0

_ • 0

c ¢

0__1

_ _

• o o

_ _

•

_ o o

•

_ 0

•

_ _

_ 0

o 0

_ _

• o _ o

65,

66 Appendix20 CHARCOAL USE, BY FARM-SIZE CATEGORY Use of Charcoal Frequency (Percent)

Farm-sizeCategory .................................................................... Landless Small Medium Large TOTAL

UsedCharcoal

7 (28)

2 (4)

3 (14)

35 (22)

47 (19)

Did Not Use Charcoal

18 (72)

43 (96)

18 (86)

121 (78)

200 (81)

TO TA L

25 (10)

45 (18)

21 (9)

156 (63)

247 (100)

2 X = 9.0 (Pr = 0.029); 25% of cellshave countsof lessthan 5. 2 L.R.x = 11.061 (Pr = 0.011) Source:1989Fore.and-use Practices inthePhilippines Study (FLUPPS) Survey. Appendix 21 PRIMARY CHARCOAL SOURCE OF FUEL, BY FARM-SIZE CATEGORY Source Frequency (Percent)

Farm-sizeCategory ........................................................ -........... Landless Small Medium Large TOTAL

GovernmentFore=

5 (50)

0 0

1 (25)

CommercialForest

1 (10)

0 0

On-Farm

4 (40)

1 (50)

3 (75)

1 (50)

0 0

2 (3)

4 (6)

Purchased

T OT AL iilll.

....

iilill_--.tilllllllllllllillm.

0 0 10 (16) ....

Iltt_

....

t ....

if.tim

........

16 (35)

22 (35)

2 (4)

3 (5)

27 (59)

35 (56)

1 (2)

2 (3)

46 (74)

62 (100)

.!i!_I

....

.....itlit

2 X = 1.7.25 (Pr = 0.045); 81% of cells have countslessthan 5. 2 L.R. x = 8.618 (Pr = 0.473) Source:1989Forest/Land-use Practices inthePhilippines Study(FLUPPS) Survey.

....

ilml

â&#x20AC;˘

67 Appendix22 PRIMARYTREESOURCEOFTIMBER/CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, BYFARM.SIZECATEGORY Source Frequency (inPercent)

Farm-SizeCategory Landless

Government forest

Small ,

Medium

.:. Large

Total 16 (89),'

3 (100)

0 0

0 • .0

13 (93)

Purchased

0 0

1 (I00).

1 (7).

2 (11)

Total

(17)

(6)

(78)

(100) .m

x¢=8.598(Pr=0.014);83 %of ceilshaveexpectedcoentsof lessthan5. L.R.zX= 5.353OPr = 0.069) Souce: 1989FoccslA_-as¢Praclicesin thePhifippinesStudy(FLUPPS)Swrvey. Appendix 23 PRIMARY TREE SOURCE OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, BY FARM-SIZE CATEGORY Source Frequency (Percent).

Landless

Government Porest

Farm-size Category .................. ,,- ........................... Small Medium Large TOTAL

Pdvate tOomst

1 (11) 1

0 0 0

3 (18) 0

46 (40) 1

50 (32) 2

Commercial Forest

(tl) 0

0 0

0 1

(1) 2

(1) 3

0 1 (11) 6 (67) 9

0 2 (14) 12 (86) 14

(6) 6 (35) 7 (41) 17

(2) 40 (34) 27 (23) 116

(2) 49 (31) 52 (33) 156

(11)

(74)

(100)

On-f'arm Purchased TOTA

(6) -----------WlW

......

............

.......

..............

(9) ...........

._..........__...

...........

2 X = 39.378 (Pr = 0.0); 70% of cells have counts of less than 5. 2 L.R. X = 37.395 (Pr = 0.0) Source: 1989_-use PracticesinthePhilippinesStudy(FLUPPS)Survey.

w_.............

69_

PRIMARY

TREE SOURCE

SOURCE Frequency (Percent)

Appendix 25 OF HANDICRAFT MATERIALS,

BY FARMSIZE