yonariza paper_post logging ban timber tree planting

8/2/2019 Yonariza Paper_Post Logging Ban Timber Tree Planting

1/22

i

POST LOGGING BAN TIMBER TREE PLANTING IN

SOUTHEAST ASIACases of Philippines and Thailand

Paper prepared for International ConferenceTaking stock of smallholder and community forestry: Where do we go from here?

24 - 26 March 2010, Montpellier, France, organized byCIFOR, the French research institutefor development (IRD) and the French international research center for agricultural

development (CIRAD).

Prepared byYonariza

Research associateCenter for Irrigation, Land and Water Resources and Development Studies of Andalas

University (PSI-SDALP Unand).

Address:PSI-SDALP Unand, Kampus Unand Limau Manis, Padang 25161 Indonesia, Phone/Fax:(62-751) 74389. Email: [email protected], [email protected]


2/22

ii

Table of Contents

POST LOGGING BAN TIMBER TREE PLANTING IN SOUTHEAST ASIA ............... iCases of Philippines and Thailand ............................................................................. i

Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1Background ............................................................................................................... 1

Objectives .................................................................................................................. 3

THE STUDY .................................................................................................................. 3RESULT AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 3

Post Logging Ban Tree Planting Policies and Practices ........................................... 3

Tree planting support policies .................................................................................. 4Legal support...................................................................................................... 4Material and Technical support ............................................................................ 5Marketing support ............................................................................................... 6

Tree planting practices ............................................................................................. 7Species selection: demand and supply driven ....................................................... 7

Planted timber tree administration ....................................................................... 8Small Holder Response ........................................................................................... 9

The Future of Small Holder Tree Planting ............................................................ 12CONCLUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................... 13

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 13

Recommendation ..................................................................................................... 14Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................ 14References .................................................................................................................... 14


3/22

1

Abstract

Two decades ago, Thailand adopted total logging ban policy in natural forest and the Philippines

applied logging moratorium in most provinces. These restrictions of logging in natural forest

caused a serious domestic timber supply in both countries, but at the same time opening new

market opportunities for planted timber. Nevertheless, the process of timber tree domestication in

both countries take different paths where Thailand promote local tree species, the Philippines

adopted exotic species. Yet the bureaucracy of planted timber, i.e; planting registration,harvesting and transporting permit follow the same path. This finding has far reaching

implication on the future of small holder forestry in the tropic.

This paper aims at 1) discussing post logging ban tree planting policies and practices in Thailand

and Philippines, 2) examining the small holders response, 3) discussing the future of tree planting

from the point of economic and environmental values of the planted trees.

Based on recent field work in Thailand and Philippines, this paper argues that the future of small

holder forestry would depend on incentive availability. These include market incentive,

government subsidy, environmental service payment, and other locally available incentive.

Key words: post logging ban, policy, timber tree, domestication, Southeast Asia, Philippines,

Thailand

INTRODUCTION

Background

Logging ban and other similar policy tools utilized to restrict timber cutting in natural forestare seen as a panacea to halt continued forest degradation in the tropic . In Asia, this policyhas been adopted by Thailand, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka (Waggener2001), and to lesser extent by Indonesia (Wardojo et al 2001 and Fathoni 2004). A reasonbehind was an alarming rate of deforestation that devastated the environment. In SoutheastAsia, Thailand is the first country to adopt a total logging ban when she revoked 258 logging

concessions in the kingdom in 1989. In Philippines, there are over 20 policy issuances onlogging ban and moratorium imposed in selected municipalities, provinces, regions, ornationwide over the last three decades (1970-2000). As of 2000, more than 70 percent of thePhilippines 77 provinces have logging bans or moratoria (FMB/DENR 1999; DENR 1999 inBugayong 2006). The logging bans disallow the extraction of timber from the naturalforests. Operating strategies vary from cancellation, suspension and non-renewal of timberlicense or logging concession or revoke the logging concession (Bugayong 2006).

There is similarity in term of reasons for adopting logging ban both in Thailand and in thePhilippines, this policy instrument used by government responding to environmental, socio-economic, political and other concerns and issues that threaten the forest and the resourceswithin. For Philippines, Bugayong (2006) claims that these policies have been issued mainly

as a reaction to various environmental crises such as calamitous typhoons, landslides,destruction and loss of lives and property, and unchecked deforestation, many sectors havebeen affected. In Thailand this policy was adopted after Southern Thailand experiencedfloods and mudslides (PER 1992). The calamity killed more than 370 people and causedUS$ 240 million worth of property damage (Saddof 1992). This triggered more anger amongenvironmental activists who claimed that the mudslides from the rain buried villages undertons of uprooted and illegally cut logs swept down the hillside by the storm (Saddof 1992).The enormity of the disaster, coupled by persistent public pressures from NGOs and the


4/22

2

media, finally convinced the government to impose a logging ban on 17 January 1989through Cabinet Resolution (Order number 32/2532).

An immediate effect of logging ban policy was, of course, the radical reduction of domestictimber supply. In Thailand, timber shortage prompted government to import timber fromMyanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Malaysia. As of 1991, 77 percent of logs used in Thailand

were imported (Sadoff 1992). In Philippines, Guiang (2001) reported that volume of woodimport is more than 1 million m3 per year in last twenty years (Guiang 2001). As temporarysolution to timber shortage, Thailands Royal Forestry Department (RFD) pushes small-treeuse and RFD would promote the efficient use of small trees in private forest plantations tohelp reduce log imports costing Bt10 billion a year with the price more likely to go up further(Bangkok Post 20 October 1996 and 8 March 1989). The Bangkok Post of 28 June 1996 alsoreported that the value of wood product imports had risen from 804.6 million baht in 1990 to1,481.1 million baht in 1994. In the Philippines, as of 1997, approximately US$1 billion wasspent on importing forest products (FMB/DENR 2000 cit Guiang 2001). At the end, it is theforestry industry and the forest-dependent communities as well as the buying public that tookthe brunt of the decreased supply and increased prices of forest products from the localnatural forests (Bugayong 2006).Timber industry and wood processing company suffered a

lot from logging ban policy. Number of wood processing companies decline.

Domestic timber shortage and incline import have put government under pressure to focus ontimber tree planting. In Thailand, many researchers, Royal Forestry Department (RFD), andForest Industry Organization (FIO) officials have suggested that Thailand must produce moreof its own timber and wood products for domestic consumption, but also protect its naturalforests and environment (Lakanavichian 2001). Hence log import was to be seen as atemporary remedy, and in the long term these researchers agree that Thailand must becomeindependent in wood production for local consumption (Bangkok Post 4 Mai 1989). The RFDhas been urged to focus on this issue and to engage in commercial reforestation on 23 millionrai of land for the next 25 years to cope with domestic demand for wood (Bangkok Post 8

August 1994). In Philippines, dependenceon imported wood will remain until the countryhas enough forest plantations to meet its domestic demand. At an average yield of 200 m3 perha of fast-growing forest plantations, a total of 25 000 ha per year will be needed to meet theaverage annual demand of 5 million m3 (Guiang 2001).

A major criticism of the logging ban policy in the region that it lacked consideration fordomestic wood supply. As Bugayong (2006) claimed, logging ban policy in the Philippineslack of objective pertains to the rehabilitation of denuded areas or the establishment anddevelopment of production forests and plantations to address the loss of wood supplyresulting from the ban on harvesting. Meanwhile these tropical countries, Thailand andPhilippines have local timber tree species that can be promoted for timber production. InThailand, there are also more than 600 species of merchantable timber that could be tapped to

be domesticated. Hence, what many people believe that when one door closes, another opensand new opportunities present themselves. Logging ban should be seen as an opening doorfor tree planting.

This paper raised questions; 1) how government respond to public voice regarding timberplanting post logging ban policy, 2) How small holder response to the logging ban policy aswell as tree planting policies?, and 3) how is the future of small holder timber tree planting inthis region?


5/22

3

Objectives

By way of comparison, this paper aims at; 1) discussing post logging tree planting policiesand practices in Thailand and Philippines, 2) examining how small holders responding tothose policies and practice, and 3) discussing the future of tree planting from the point ofeconomic and environmental values of the planted trees. This paper first briefly describes

about the study to which the data presented here relied on.

THE STUDY

To examine post logging ban tree planting policy and practices, the studies relied onsecondary and documentary data; insights from interviews with key informants; wood lotsurvey; and tree grower survey. Data collection in Thailand was carried out from August2008 to May 2009 and in the Philippines from October 2009 until present,1 so data forPhilippines must be treated as preliminary.

Site selection was guided by data on the distribution of logging operation in both countries. InThailand, field work was carried out in Northern Thailand, focusing on Chiang Mai Province

as the former center of logging area. In this province, Chiang Dao and Mae Chaem districtswere selected for primary data collection since these were the main logging areas with 9logging concessions operated in each district prior to logging ban (see Figure 1). In thePhilippines field data were collected in Region 8, covering Samar and Leyte island, andRegion 10 covering two provinces; Misamis Oriental and Bukidnon. Logging ban inSouthern Leyte imposed in 1982 (MNR Administrative Order No. 31, 1982) and in Eastern,Northern & Western Samar it was imposed in 1989 (DENR Moratorium Order, 1989). Asidefrom Region 8 and 10, secondary data for tree plantation in Caraga Region that coversprovince Agusan Del Norte, Agusan Del Sur, Surigao Del Norte, and Surigao Del Sur werealso collected. Caraga Region is known for tree planting belt in Mindanao Island. In bothcases, among the data surveyed were; size of wood lot and its land tenure status, timber treespecies planted and reasons behind species selection, sources of planting material, reason forplanting timber tree, previous land use, tree planting technique, plan to expand the plantation,and compliance with government regulation such plantation registration.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This part is organized into three subheadings; post logging ban policy and practice, smallholder response and their socioeconomic characteristics, and the future of small holderforestry.

Post Logging Ban Tree Planting Policies and Practices

Unsustainable commercial logging led to severe forest degradation. As a case in Thailand,forest area declines tremendously from 23,096,354.17 ha or 45% of the total land area (RFDStatistics) in the beginning of 1970 to only 147,620.000 ha or 28.9 % of total land areas as of2002 (German-Thai Chamber of Commerce 2007). The Philippines has lost some 15 millionha of tropical forest since the 1950s, leaving less than 1 million ha of primary forest and therate of tropical deforestation in the Philippines is among the fastest in the world (Espaldon

1Study on Thailand case was supported by Nippon Foundation Asian Public Intellectuals Program and in thePhilippines was supported by Government of Indonesia Minister of National Education.


6/22

4

and Smith, 1998). Post logging ban forest development in the region has been focused onreforestation of degraded forest along with promoting timber tree planting. Thailand wants torestore 40% of land area to be forested where 25% of these to be protected areas and only15% allocated for production forest. Smaller portion of forest to be allocated for productionforest means timber production should be carried out also outside forest area. Hence timbertree planting by private land owners must be promoted. What are characteristic of policy

adopted by government to promote timber tree planting in the Philippines and Thailand? Howconducive these policies for small holders? What form of timber tree planting practiced?

Van Noordwijket al (2008) examine six issues that hinder a regreening revolution based onfarmer tree planting. First, issues of terminology for forests, plantations, and reforestation arelinked to land tenure and land-use restrictions. Second, access to high-quality plantingmaterial remains a challenge, especially at the farmer level. Third, management skill andinformation often constrain production for lucrative markets. Fourth, overregulation oftenrestricts market access for farmer grown tree products, partly due to rules intended to curbillegal logging from natural forests or government plantations. Fifth, there is a lack of rewardmechanisms for environmental services provided by agroforestry. Sixth, there is a lack ofsupportive legal and institutional frameworks for smallholder tree growing and agroforestry

in general.

However, this paper has different opinion with regards to point 2, 4 and 6, but agrees with therest of the point. The following section elaborates further tree planting policies and practicesfocusing on legal support, material and technical support, as well as marketing support.

Tree planting support policies

Tree planting is an economic activity carried out either by state, private sector, community, orindividual land owners. However, this activity is not and should not only be driven by marketforce, government policy to large extent affect tree planting practices. In addition, treeplanting involved biological resources which in many countries is under state control forvarious reasons. What type of policies support government in Thailand and the Philippineshave provided to accelerate timber tree planting post logging ban in natural forest?

Legal support

In both countries, trees naturally grown in the forest are regarded as state property; not onlythat timber tree species that belong to reserve species in Thailand or premium species in thePhilippines where ever they grow are regarded as state property. The 1941 Thailand ForestryLaw stipulated that there are 158 trees species belong reserves tree species. The same is alsohold true for the Philippines, DENR Administrative Order No. 78 series 1987 which later on

amended by DENR Administrative Order No. 92-46 specifies premium species as stateproperty. There are 19 species belong to Premium species. As state properties; cutting,transporting, and marketing of those trees are subject to government regulation. Their harvestis also subject to various tax and fee, i.e. forest charge, environmental fee, etc. This forestrylaw is not conducive for tree planting and it may discourage people from planting reservespecies or premium tree species in their land.

To overcome this problem, a legal basis that back up timber tree planted is needed. InThailand, RE-AFFORESTATION ACT B.E.2535 (A.D.1992) was issued. Re-


7/22

5

Afforestation" means the surface of land which has been registered to re-grow and improvethe trees which are reserved timber species (krayaloi) under the Law on Forests. Landowners will get Certificate of the Registration of Forest Plantation Land. The forestplantation Act allows people to grow reserved species by themselves but they are requested toregister their land to Thai Royal Forestry Department (RFD). The registered land is the basisfor the government to issue harvesting and transporting permit later on. By registering their

land for timber tree planting, land owners are exempted from forest obligation.

However, in the Philippines, regulation on tree registration came much later. Minister ofEnvironment and Natural Resources issued Memorandum Circular No. 97-09 May 27, 1997regarding Documentation of Tree Plantations in Private Lands and DENR MemorandumOrder No. 99-20 July 29, 1999 regarding supplemental guidelines governing the registration,harvesting, transport and marketing of timber by-products coming from private plantationswithin private lands or tax declared alienable or disposable lands.

A main difference between Thailand and Philippines plantation registration is that inThailand it is only applied for reserved timber tree species, it is not applied for exotic treeplantation such as Eucalyptus. In Philippines, plantation registration is applied both on

premium species and non premium species including exotic species such as Mahogany andGmelina.

Material and Technical support

Planting massive timber trees required much supports. In the first place, rural people were notused with tree planting especially for timber as a plantation; but they know well plantingmultipurpose tree species (MPTS). Secondly, planted tree takes years before harvesting inwhich not many rural people can afford especially if it competes with their agricultural landuse, hence maintenance support is needed. Thirdly, rural people were not used of having

timber tree nursery, especially reserved species or premium species; hence support is neededfor seedling provision. Fourth, technique on tree planting is different from agricultural cropsin which not many land owners have experience with. Hence material as well as technicalsupport are required.

Both Thailand and Philippines cases show that material and technical supports wereprovided. However, there is slightly difference approach between these two countries. InThailand, to accelerate timber tree planting, Thailand Royal Department of Forestry launchedthe commercial tree farming promotion project beginning in 1994, five years afterimplementation of logging ban policy. The project targeted five million rai of land (BangkokPost 20 October 1996), and government provided the subsidy to land owners who grewtimber tree in their farm land. This subsidy was intended to cover costs for land preparation,

planting materials, and keeping costs down for the first five years. Participating farmersreceived five-year allowance (3,000 baht per rai, or about USD 600 per ha), up to 50 rai.,maintenance cash allowance was graduated 800, 700, 600, 500, 400 baht per year. It wasreported that at least 1,904,087 rai of private land has been reforested, with 1,381,122 millionbaht distributed to more than 100,000 farmers (Bangkok Post 20 October 1996

To supply seedling, Thai government has set up nursery units nationwide as part ofreforestation program. These nurseries collected seeds from the wild as well as bought thesefrom suppliers, and take charge of the sowing. The seedlings were then distributed for free.


8/22

6

In the Philippines, there is no such commercial timber tree planting, the general policy since1987 has been aimed at providing incentive for land owners and Filipino citizen to engage intree planting as part of National Forestation Program. A variety of government programshave been implemented to support smallholder forestry for production and conservationpurposes (Harrison, Emtage, and Nasayao 2004). For example, government provide

schemes to allow people using degraded forest land with various form of tenure, amongother are; Private Land Timber Permit (PLTP); Forest Land Management Program (FLMP);USUFRUCT Rights in Tree Farming within forestlands where occupation is not allowed; andSocialized Industrial Forest Management Agreement (SIFMA). An objective of TheSocialized Industrial Forest Management Program (SFLMP)is expected to result in increasedsupply of wood and other forest products; accelerated. Seedlings in the government nurseriesare primarily raised for free distribution to landholders (Gregorio et al 2004), similar withthose in Thailand.

Former Timber License Agreement area is still available for timber tree planting; henceIFMA (Industrial forest management agreement) aimed at ensuring adequate supply of timberand other forest products for domestic and export market (Administrative Order No. 60, dated

October 4, 1993). IFMA is a contractual agreement entered into DENR and qualifiedapplicant that devolves to the applicant responsibility to invest in, manage and protect adefined area of land under the DENR jurisdiction, to establish, manage and utilized industrialforest Plantation in specific locations within the area primarily to supply the raw materialrequirements of forest-based processing and energy-related industries; and improve manageand protect residual forest in the area and utilize on a sustainable basis timber and non timberforest products from the residual forest.

Technical support is probably the weakest part in the timber planting promotion program inboth countries. Looking through this aspect in government policy in last twenty years, it isobvious that there has been not enough policy devised in the Philippines. The only availablepolicy is implementation of timber production sharing agreement at pilot scale (1988), withfurther more developed into guidelines governing the evaluation of timber resources withinareas under timber sharing agreement (1989), creation of regional ad-hoc committee to planand implement tree planting (1994), and performance evaluation guidelines for IFMA.Specific to local timber tree species the only effort made was a guidelines for theestablishment of Pilot Diterocarp Plantation and it was only available in 1996. There is noattempt to improve planting technique. As will shown later, this affect tree planting practiceat farm level where tree growers did not take planting distance into account when theyplanted the timber tree. The same also true for Thailand, farmers tend to grow timber treesdensely and they did not do thinning properly. This shows lack of know how.

Marketing support

Both in Philippines and Thailand, government facilitate marketing of planted timber byvarious means. The commons strategy is to provide information on marketing. Hence,government provides guidelines on timber price and circulated these timber price list and listof potential buyer to tree grower. As such, timber market has never relied on market forcealone, government has played important role in term of tax, transportation fee, etc. But, thegovernment has also made an attempt to control the market and the price of timber for thesake of timber producer since that the state itself is also timber producer. Forestry IndustryOrganization (FIO) is a state apparatus in timber marketing and production. RFD circulates


9/22

7

update timber and wood price to cooperatives and provincial government. This list help treegrower in marketing their timber products.

Main different between the Philippines and Thailand is that in Thailand exporting of plantedtimber trees is not allowed while in the Philippines, there is a bulk of deregulation concerningrelaxation of harvesting, transportation, and exportation of log and lumber from planted trees

since 1987 to 2007 on and off2.

Tree planting practicesTree planting by private sectors can be carried out either in state land or private land. InThailand, it is being carried out in state land such as land reform object and private land withvarious forms of land tenure. In Philippines, it is also carried out in state land such asalienation and disposable land (A & D), private land or state forest in the form of communityforestry, and other forms of land management agreement.

Two important aspects regarding tree planting practices are tree species selection and treeplanting administration. Species selection refers to what type of species is being promoted intree planting; it can be local species or exotic species. Provided that most of the tree grower

relied on seedling from government; it seems that species selection is government choice orpeople choice.

Species selection: demand and supply driven

High-quality seedlings are a prerequisite for successful forestry and agroforestry expansion indeveloping countries (Baynes and Gregorio, 2008). Hence, there is a need for seedling qualitycontrol starting from seed collection, nursery, transporting, and handling. It needs stateintervention. Baynes and Gregorios (2008) report that in the central Philippines, as suppliesof timber from native forest have diminished in recent years, the expansion in planting of

timber trees has been retarded by sub-optimal production of seedlings from small-scalenurseries. However, Bernaldez and Mangaoang (2008) found that in spite of various

2 . In 1987, government issued deregulation of harvesting, transporting and sale of firewood, pulpwood ortimber planted in private land (Administrative order No. 4 dated January 19, 1987), specifically Ipil-ipil(Leucaena spp.) and Falcata (Albizzia falcataria) planted in private lands. In 1988, the restriction is lifted forother tree species planted in private lands except premium hardwood species (DENR Administrative OrderNo.86, Oct 4, 1988). In the same year, regulations governing the exportation of lumber and plantation logs alsoamended where government allow exportation of logs produced from planted tree, meanwhile the policy ofbanning the exportation of round logs produced from naturally grown trees and lumber produced from premiumhardwood was maintained (DENR Administrative Order No.33 dated May 6, 1988). However, cutting, transportand disposition of premium species inside private lands remain under close scrutiny of government wherecutting permit shall be issued to the land owners themselves and the species to be cut shall be certified bygovernment agency concerned as not rare and endangered in the locality, and there shall be collected an

environmental fee. Further more, the permittees shall plant at least five (5) trees which may be forest trees orfruit trees or combination of both, for every tree authorized to be cut.

Exportation of logs from plantation was issued in 1993 in which log from plantation was allowed to be exportedunlike logs harvested from natural forest. In the following year (1994), log/lumber supply contract was approvedand this followed by lifting the prohibition on the transportation of timber cut within PLTP. Somehow in 1997,government stopped the issuance of private land tree plantation cutting permits (PLTPCP/ and or Private landtree cutting permits. But in the following year, government issued Guidelines (interim) for the issuance ofcutting permits for private land timber permits. In 2007 ban on the cutting and transport of planted tree specieswith private land was lifted.


10/22

8

constraints and notably the lack of planting materials, farmers are interested in forestry andare adopting some naturally growing trees and producing their own seedlings. Langenbergeret al. (2009) reported ethno botanical knowledge of Philippines lowland famers where theyhave high knowledge on knowing the usage of 122 plant species for 77 purposes, but they donot know how to propagate seeds of forest tree species.

Holding, Njuguna, & Gatundu (N.d) found in Kenya that small scale farmers, whenconsidering timber as an enterprise, seek for a multipurpose tree that will complement otherenterprises on the farm, yet yield timber as a final product, e.g. Cordia africana - fodder andtimber; Grevillea robusta, fuelwood and timber. But, both in Thailand and Philippines, smallholder select timber tree species where main expected product is limited to timber such asteak, Dipterocarpaceae, or exotic species such as Mahogany and Gmelina.

Seedling provision by government seems to be a key elements, because farmers have notdeveloped local knowledge on seedling production or they may only collect wildling andtransplanted into their farm land. Seedlings need to be provided for free by governmentthrough related agencies. Hence the role of related agencies in species selection is crucial,because farmer would plant what seedling available to them or what seedling made available

to them. Both Philippines and Thailand show supply and demand driven with regards tospecies selection.

Although Philippines and Thailand went for fast growing timber tree species for tree planting,it is interesting to note that there is a significance differences with regards to tree speciesselection between Thailand and the Philippines. In Thailand, "Re-Afforestation" means thesurface of land which has been registered under Section 5, to regrow and improve the treeswhich are reserved timber species under the Law on Forests; (SECTION 3 Re-AfforestationAct). In Philippines it is exotic tree species was chosen such as Gmelina and Mahogani.

In Thailand, species promoted depended on growers choices where government agencieswould produce seedling based on this request. As such, it is more reserved species that ispropagated. In northern Thailand, for example, it is teak (Tectona Grandis) was stronglypromoted while in other part of the kingdom, farmers choose Yang tree (Dipterocarpus alatusRoxb.). All in all there were 50 timber tree species domesticated under this project, asidefrom Teak (Tectona Grandis), these are SADAO or (A. excelsa), and PRADU PA(Pterocarpus cambodiensis P.). The top 10 species were native species (Annex Table 1),these are species requested by tree grower to be provided in the next planting round, as suchnumber of species requested in last 20 years declined as tree growers learn from previousplanted tree, at the end the number of species requested goes down from 50 to 15. InPhilippines, top 5 species planted were exotic species (Annex Table 2 and Table 3). Thesewere seedling species prepared by DENR without consulting tree growers. Scientists andextension services general make decisions regarding which species are tested and promoted

(Franzel et al. 2002 cit in Van Noordwijk et al (2008).

Planted timber tree administration

One of major problem with regards to timber production both in the Philippines and Thailandis illegal logging. Timber tree planting on the other hands aims at producing timber outsideforest areas. To solve this ambiguity, both in Thailand and the Philippines, government adoptmodern tree registration to avoid overlap claim over timber either planted or naturally grown


11/22

9

in natural forest. Tree grower will get Certificate of Tree Plantation Ownership in thePhilippines and Certificate of the Registration of Forest Plantation Land in Thailand.

In Thailand, tree registration is stipulated in Reforestation Bill SECTION 4. A land to beregistered for Re-Afforestation in accordance with this Act, shall be land which has beenclassified as the following: (1) having a land deed or exploitation certificate under the Land

Code; (2) having an official certificate, may receive a land deed or exploitation certificate inaccordance with the Land Code, or possession. This regulation has been well socialized inwhich rural people are aware about this.

In Philippines tree registration is a government requirement encouraging registration of allprivate tree plantation (DENR Memorandum 99-20) and tree registration will help makeharvesting and transport of timber easier (DENR Memorandum Circular 97-09). To attracttree registration, government offer access to free technical assistance from DENR and relatedagencies, especially on tree growing technologies and marketing as well as easiness to securedocuments/clearance to harvest and transport timber, exemption from forest charges andother environmental fees, recording the tree in DENR database which help tree grower belinked to buyers, and better access to potential buyers through DENR information system that

could result in a better price for timber (Mangaoang et al 2006). Registration can be done anytime but tree growers are encouraged to do it earlier for above mentioned benefit. But, ruralpeople are not really aware about this regulation; one of the major reasons is their lack ofknowledge of government policy on tree registration (Gravoso et al, 2009). As such, moresocialization is still needed.

Some ifference between these two countries is that in Thailand, plantation registration takesplace at Provincial office which is very far from rural areas where people grow tree while inPhilippines, it take places at CENRO, community level office. In Philippines, it takes 3 daysto get plantation certificate while in Thailand it takes weeks to months.

As many scholars claim, government policies in tropical countries more often hindered treeplanting by small holders. Tree planting regulation such as timber tree registration whichintended to protect tree in natural forest from cutting is also used for exotic species which isclearly not coming from natural forest. Hence, it becomes a contradiction between marketforce and government policy as case in The Philippines (Masipiquea, Masipiquea, andde Groot, 2008). These regulations caused some burdens in part of small holders to extendthat excluding them from timber market while at the same time let other involved in illegallogging. For many rural Thai small holders, dealing with bureaucracy is a troublesome.Hence, it becomes disincentive to promote timber tree planting in rural areas. Afterinterviewing key informant in the Philippines Department of Environment and NaturalResources, it was found out that this policy was adopted to protect exotic tree species planted

in state forest as part of reforestation project where exotic species, such as gemelina, was alsoplanted.

Small Holder Response

Given above mentioned market incentives as well as policy and program for timber treeplanting in Philippines and Thailand, how did the land owners and private sector respondedto this policy and support? What are the socioeconomic characteristics of small holder that


12/22

10

are able to take advantage tree planting policies? These variables are important to predict thefuture of timber tree planting by small holders.

Both in Thailand and Philippines some private land owners responded to the policy byengaging in timber tree planting. Field evidence found some tree lots in former farm land.Plot-to-plot survey of Thailand study sites found more or less 400 plots where timber tree is

planted with total estimated area is 16,078.86 rai (1 rai 1s 1,600 m2) out of a total 1,150,964rai agricultural land in study sites. It is relatively small area, only constitute between 1.5 to 2percent of total agricultural land in each district. In Philippines, secondary data from CaragaRegion shows that there is a total of 20,480.19 ha of land planted with tree (Table 1).

Tabel 1. Number of tree farmers and area 2002-2007 in Caraga Region, Philippines.

Year No. of Tree Farmers Area Planted (Has.) Average (ha)

2002 561 3,544.52 6.322003 1,146 6,775.70 5.912004 1,772 6,704 3.782005 559 2,154.79 3.85

2006 104 595.09 5.722007 123 706.08 5.74

4,265 20,480.19 4.80

Source: DENR Caraga Region

In Thailand, small holders adopt 2 types of tree farming either as monoculture timber treeplantation or fences (in the border of farm land). In Philippines; tree grower preferred to plantmix tree species over monoculture. However, there is a significant difference among region.In Region 8 tree grower only planted different timber tree species in a plot of land while inRegion 10 is more on agro forestry where timber trees are interplant with cash crops asidefrom planting different timber tree species. Monoculture is less practiced. Based on age

estimation in the field, majority of these trees in Thailand is below 20 years, they wereplanted after logging ban policy implemented.

The initiative behind tree planting can be categorized into own initiative, government sponsoror other. In Philippines, most of private tree growers, given conducive circumstances, madetheir own initiative to do tree planting and no so much depend on government sponsor.Planting initiatives in Region 8 however are mix between own initiative and governmentsponsor while in Region 10, own initiative is more obvious. In Thailand, proportion of owninitiative tree grower and government sponsored are equal.

Since private tree growers planted timber trees in their farm land, it is also interesting toinvestigate kind of crop grown before planting timber tree. The survey in Philippines found

that tree growers did not plant timber tree in a premium farm land such as land for food orcash crop, they plant timber tree in less suitable land for agriculture such as grasses land,pastureland, cogonal area. But, some of them replaced their coconut plantation with timbertree, like fast growing. Very few of them planted timber tree in upland rice field or fruit treefarming. This shows that timber tree planting is not in direct competition with agriculturalfarm land. In Thailand, on the other hand, there are seven categories of previous land uses,these are; annual cash crops including irrigated land, fruit trees, degraded land/forest, emptyland, newly bought land, and other. Majority of former land use among these timber tree plotswere fruit farm, irrigated land, and annual cash crops. These three categories all together


13/22

11

constitute three quarters of former use timber tree plots. Hence, timber tree compete with fruittrees.

Reasons behind tree planting vary widely from economic to environmental reasons. InPhilippines, among economic reasons are; it is a good investment both for livelihood -furniture purposes, do not need fertile land, good source of income with less maintenance,

and good market. It also good idea to utilize open area and to make the lot productive. Moreimportantly, it is easy to collect seedlings and less expense incurred. Among environmentalreasons are; a believe that planting trees will be able to come up with a good healthy andclean environment, to maintain watershed around, tree as fencing and to protect water source,for shade, conservation, and protection against typhoons. Government program is anotherreason because DENR organized people into organization with an aim of providingalternative livelihood at the same time reforest the area. In Thailand, reason for selectingtimber tree can be group into; related to teak, related to planter, related to alternative land use,related to government program, related to land, and some other reasons. Logging ban policyis paramount reason behind the rest of reason, it is an underlying factor.

But, there seems a problem with planting technique know how both in Philippines and

Thailand. For example, there is no consistence with regards to planting distance andvariations of planting distance within the same species vary widely. It could be because treegrowers adopt mix tree farming, so planting distance depend on type of farming techniquethey adopt. Planting distance vary from 1 x 1 meter to 6 x 6 meters. On the other hand it alsoreflects an insufficient technical support. In Thailand, data from tree grower show a quitevariety of planting distance. The distance is as dense as 1 x 1 until 3 x 5 meters. Farmerpractices their own knowledge as they respond to logging ban. Nevertheless, many of treegrowers follow RFD planting distance, a dense 2 x 2 meters planting distance. This meansthat they put high expectation from their timber tree planting.

Compliance with government regulation is an indicator for policy clearness to thecommunity. In Philippines, only a few farmers and plantation owners register their tree farmswith the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). One of the majorreasons is their lack of knowledge of government policy on tree registration (Gravoso et al.2009). Probably, it is not only about lack of knowledge, other factors also counted. However,Bugayong (2006) reported that there are 14,019 registered private forests or plantations withan aggregate area of 45,760.93 ha all over the country as of 2005. In our study sites, 75%respondents has registered their timber plantation, the rest is yet to do. In Thailand, farmersresponded differently to this regulation. Those who grow timber by their own initiative areyet to register. But, they know about the regulation, some of them mentioned that they woulddo it in later time if they are about to harvest their tree. After all, the regulation does notspecify the age of tree when grower should register, they can do it any time as far as they

have supporting document, such as land title.

However, based on data released by Royal Forestry Department, number of tree growerdecline after the first year of the program (see Figure 1). The same also hold true for thePhilippines, the number of tree grower decline (Table 1). These post a threat to the future oftimber tree planting.


14/22

12

Figure 3. Number of area planted with timber tree in Thailand

The Future of Small Holder Tree Planting

The evidences from Thailand show that, currently, tree planting only happened in less than1.46% of farm land. In addition, tree grower survey shows that only a third of them wouldlike expand their tree farm. Some groups would expand when there is government subsidy,while other grower would still expand regardless government support. In Philippines, itdepends in the status of tree planting enterprise. Individual tree grower has limitation on theland, so land availability is a main constraint, they do not have plan to expand their treefarming, they want to focus on other activities such as poultry and piggery farming. Few ofthem event mentioned that tree farming is very discouraging. Individual tree grower whowant to expand their tree farming, on the other hand, see that tree farming is indeed a goodsources of income, at the same time, they can also enjoy viewing plantation, they woulddefinitely plant more tree and expand their tree farming, especially those who run timber tree

farming as part of larger business of lumber and furniture. In general, above mentionedevidences show quite low number small holders participation in timber tree planting andmore effort is needed to make tree planting attractive. This is very relevant with the future ofsmall holder tree planting as well as reforestation program in the tropic, it also has somethingto do with climate change mitigation agenda.

Why yes and why not to expansion of Timber tree Plantation? There are various reasons whysome farmers want to expand or not to expand their timber tree plantation. These havesomething to do with land availability, government matter; nature of timber tree planting, itsmarket, labor force; time need to grow timber tree.

Judging from tree grower response, unless the benefits on planting tree is expanded intoenvironmental service, it seems that under current timber price and considering long terminvestment of tree planting, there is little hope that rural people would grow more timbertrees. It is very clear that planting trees currently is not that attractive. In the Philippines,similar finding by Schuren and Snelder (2008, 75) reveal that over the past 30 years treeintegration in farm fields seems to be, though marginally, increasing due to shifting marketimperatives in favor of tree products, decreasing competitiveness of alternative seasonal cashcrops (mainly yellow corn) and decreasing availability of natural tree product supply. In thesame line of thinking, Olschewski and Bentez (2005) suggest that considering tropical


15/22

13

forestry is often not competitive with agricultural land uses such as pasture for cattleranching, additional revenues from carbon sequestration generated by the Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol can change this situation. In this regards,government initiative to register planted trees may foster tree planting since the growers canget benefits without cutting the trees and more tree grower would be more than willing toregister their trees.

Other locally available incentive should be explored. Aside from Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM) programme, also known as carbon credits, special incentive can be givento tree grower such as lower bank rate for their credit as a case of the Bank for Agricultureand Cooperatives (BAAC) of Thailand that would provide special incentives for borrowerswho promise to grow trees as part of a campaign to promote green areas. It is part of theBAAC's plan to cover 300,000 rai with trees within three years, paving the way forreforestation in exchange for interest-rate cuts (The Nation, June 22, 2007).

In addition tree has been part of life, planting tree should also be integrated into daily lives.Important events in live such as wedding can be marked by tree planting. The Nation,(August 31, 2008) for example, reported that Indonesian couples must bring trees to their

wedding.

All sectors of life should also involve in tree planting in more serious way, not a ceremonialone. These include private sector, government agencies. For example in Thailand, ForestryDepartment and Ratchaburi Electricity Generating Holding (RATCH) joins effort to savenation's forests (The Nation, May 23, 2008) under "Love the Forest and the Community"programme to protect natural resources in community forests. Similar activities should beexpanded to other sector including automotive companies. Toyota Motor Thailand, forexample, each year, uses different methods to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the countryby as much as 10,000 tonnes (The Nation, January 30, 2008). Although Cossalter and Pye-Smith ( 2003) were pessimistic about Carbon sequestration by as planting tree by saying thatthese plantation will do little to counter the problem of global warming, but without it, theclimate change mitigation will slowdown.

Another incentive is administrative in nature; simplify the administration procedure is one.As FAO (2005) reported, reforestation can be severely constrained by administrativerequirements; these include the need for harvesting permits, cutting restrictions, transportpermits, checkpoints, export controls, excessive taxation, marketing permits and burdensomedocumentation and paperwork requirements. But, bringing this bureaucratic activity down atcommunity level could reduce the burden.

CONCLUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Conclusion1. Logging ban policy in Southeast Asia is a precondition to promote timber tree planting,but in it self is not enough, a follow on policies should be formulated to provideincentive for land owners to involve in tree planting since logging ban policy lacksconsideration regarding timber production. However, the current incentives are yet to beattractive.

2. Relatively few land owners respond to logging ban policy by planting tree in their farmland, aside from benefitting from market incentive, they also enjoy government subsidy


16/22

14

and material support. But, tree farming is yet to be competitive with agricultural crops.Only minority of them would like to expand their tree farming.

3. Providing more incentive for small holders in term of environmental service paymentand other locally available incentive would make tree planting attractive.

Recommendation

1. Before adopting logging ban policy to save remaining natural forest, domestic timberproduction should be taken into account since relying on international market for timbersupply is not only unreliable but also costly, meanwhile tropical countries blessed withplanting materials and land availability.

2. In order to accelerate timber tree planting, tropical countries need to provide legal,material, technical, as well as marketing support to promote timber tree production.

3. Integrating global convention on climate change mitigation in terms of providingenvironmental service payment to tree growers will help small holder expand their treeplanting and provide strong incentives to maintain trees in the farm land. Treeregistration will be up lifted with the incentive of environmental service payment since itis only registered tree planting could be compensated.

Acknowledgement

I thank Nippon Foundation Asian Public Intellectuals Fellowship Program and DirectorateGeneral for Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Republic of Indonesia for grantingresearch fellowship that enable me to carry fieldwork in Thailand and Philippines. However,I am solely responsible for all material contain in this paper and this should reflect NipponFoundation and Directorate General of HigherEducation of GOI.

References

Baynes J, and Gregorio N (2008) Nursery Training for Smallholders: An Evaluation of Two

Extension Programs in the Philippines. Small-scale Forestry 7:387401.Bernaldez SO and Mangaoang EO (2008) Tree Adoption and Nursery and Propagation

Practices in Smallholder Upland Farms in Inopacan and Isabel, Leyte, the Philippines.Small-scale Forestry 7:295309.

Bugayong LA (2006) Effectiveness of Logging Ban Policies in Protecting the RemainingNatural Forests of the Philippines. Paper presented at the 2006 Berlin Conference onHuman Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Resource Policies:Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity, held at Freie University, Berlin, Germany, on17-18 November 2006.

DENR (2006).DENR Potential Investments Areas: Forestry Plantation Development.Espaldon, Victoria O. and Smit, Barry. 1998. Community reforestation in the Philippines: an

evaluation of community contracts. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journalof Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 10 (1/2), pp. 34-42.

FAO 2005. Helping forests take cover. On forest protection, increasing forest cover andfuture approaches to reforesting degraded tropical landscapes in Asia and the Pacific.RAP PUBLICATION 2005/13

Franzel, S., H. Jaenicke and W. Janssen. 1996. Choosing the Right Trees: Setting Prioritiesfor Multipurpose Tree Improvement. ISNAR Research Report No. 8. The Hague:International Service for National Agricultural Research.


17/22

15

German-Thai Chamber of Commerce 2007. Environmental Study of Thailand 2007, NinthGerman Technology Symposium. Bangkok: German-Thai Chamber of Commerce.

Gravoso R, Mangaoang E, Gerona MA, Pasa A, and Harrison S (2009) Users Reactions tothe Primer on Tree Registration Policies: Lessons for Designing Extension Materialsand Improving Information Flow. Small-scale Forestry 8:275287.

Gregorio N O, Harrison S, and Herbohn J (2008) Enhancing Tree Seedling Supply toSmallholders in Leyte Province, Philippines: An Evaluation of the Production Systemof Government Nursery Sector and Support to Smallholder Tree Farmers. Small-scaleForestry 7:245261.

Gregorio, Nestor; Herbohn, Joh,l and Harrison, Steve. 2004.Small-scale ForestryDevelopment in Leyte, Philippines: The Central Role of Nurseries. Small-scale ForestEconomics, Management and Policy, 3(3): 337-351, 2004.

Guiang, Ernesto S. 2001. Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural forests:Phillipines. Dalam Patrick B. Durst, Thomas R. Waggener, Thomas Enters, Tan LayCheng (Eds) Forests out of bounds: Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans innatural forests in Asia-Pacific. RAP PUBLICATION 2001/08. Bangkok, Thailand:

Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, Food and Agricultural Organization of the UnitedNations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.Harrison, Steve; Emtage, Nick F.; and Nasayao; Edilberto E. 2004.Past and Present Forestry

Support Programs in the Philippines, and Lessons for the Future. Small-scale ForestEconomics, Management and Policy, 3(3): 303-317,

Holding, Christine; Njuguna, Paul & Gatundu, Catherine. N.d. Farm Sourced Timber: theRestructuring of the Timber Industry in Kenya Opportunities and Challenges. ForestExtension, International Union of Forestry Research Organization.

Lakanavichian, S. 2001a. Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural forests:Thailand . In Patrick B. Durst; Thomas R. Waggener; Thomas Enters; and Tan LayCheng (Eds) Forests Out of Bounds: Impacts and Effectiveness of Logging Bans inNatural Forests in Asia-Pacific. RAP PUBLICATION 2001/08. Bangkok: Food and

Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and thePacific.

Lakanavichian, S. 2001b. Forest Policy and History in Thailand (Working Paper December2001). Research Centre on Forest and People in Thailand.

Langenberger G, Prigge V, Martin K, Belonias B, and Sauerborn J (2009) Ethnobotanicalknowledge of Philippine lowland farmers and its application in agroforestry.Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:173194.

Mangaoang, Eduardo O. and Cedamon, Edwin D. 2004. Building-up Partnerships forCommunity Forestry: The ACIAR Smallholder Forestry Project Experience. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 3(3): 353-362.

Masipiquea, A.B.; Masipiquea, M.D., dan de Groot, W.T. 2008. Over-Regulated andUnder-Marketed: Smallholders and the Wood Economy in Isabela, The Philippines.Dalam Snelder, Denyse J.; Lasco, Rodel D. (Eds.) Smallholder Tree Growing forRural Development and Environmental ServicesLessons from Asia Series: Advancesin Agroforestry , Vol. 5; hal 163-176.

Olschewski, Roland and Bentez, Pablo. 2005. Secondary forests as temporary carbon sinks?The economic impact of accounting methods on reforestation projects in the tropics.Ecological Economics 55 (3), p380-394, 15p.


18/22

16

Project for Ecological Recovery (PER) (1992). The future of people and forest in Thailandafter logging ban. Bangkok: Project for Ecological Recovery, 202 pp.

Sadoff, Claudia W., 1992. The effect of Thailands logging ban: a natural resourcesaccounting approach. Bangkok: Sectoral Economic Program, Thailand DevelopmentResearch Institute. 120 pages.

Sono, P. 1974. Merchantable Timbers of Thailand. Bangkok: Forest Products Research Div.Royal Forestry Depat.

The Nation, August 10, 2008. RFD pushes small-tree use.The Nation, January 30, 2008. Toyota's environmental concern.The Nation, August 31, 2008. Indonesian couples must bring trees to their wedding.The Nation, June 22, 2007. Hug a tree and earn a cheap loan.The Nation, May 23, 2008. Ratch joins effort to save nation's forests.Van Noordwijk, M.; J.M. Roshetko, Murniati, M.D. Angeles, Suyanto, C. Fay, and T.P.

Tomich. 2008. Farmer Tree Planting Barriers to Sustainable Forest Management. InD.J. Snelder and R.D. Lasco (eds.), Smallholder Tree Growing for RuralDevelopment and Environmental Services. Advances in Agroforestry.

van Noordwijk, Meine; Roshetko, James M.; Murniati; Angeles, Marian Delos; Suyanto;Fay, Chip; and Tomich, Thomas P. 2003.Agroforestry is a Form of Sustainable ForestManagement: Lessons from South East Asia. Paper delivered at: UNFF IntersessionalExperts Meeting on the Role of Planted Forests in Sustainable Forest Management

Conference, 24-28 March 2003, Wellington, New Zealand.

Waggener. Thomas R. 2001. Logging Bans In Asia And The Pacific: An Overview. InPatrick B. Durst; Thomas R. Waggener; Thomas Enters; and Tan Lay Cheng (Eds)Forests Out of Bounds: Impacts and Effectiveness of Logging Bans in Natural Forestsin Asia-Pacific. RAP PUBLICATION 2001/08. Bangkok: Food and AgriculturalOrganization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.

Wiriyapong, Nareerat. 2005, Planting trees for a better future. Bangkok Post, 07-08-2008.


19/22

17

Figure 1 Map showing study sites in Thailand


20/22

18

Figure 2 Map showing study sites in Philippines


21/22

19

AnnexTable 1: Top ten timber tree species planted in Thailand in last two decades

No Local name In English Scientific name Number of treeplanted from 1994-2001

1 SAK Tectona grandis 631,341.00

2 SADAOAzadirachta siamensis

Valeton438,308.75

3 PRADU PA Pterocarpus cambodiensis P 382,474.25

4 MAKHAMONG 40,843.25

5 SON PRADIPATCasuarina junghuhniana

Miq.25,969.75

6 SADAO TIAMAzadirachta excelsa (Jack)

Jacobs.23,509.25

7 DAENG Xylia xylocarpa Taub. 20,224.50

8

(

)

SATTABAN (TIEN

PED) Alstonia scholaris R. Br. 12,448.00

9 YANG NA Dipterocarpus alatus Roxb. 12,341.75

10 SAMEDMalaleuca leucadendron

Linn.9,329.50

Source: Royal Forestry Department 2009

Table 2. Timber tree species selected in last four decades based on tree grower survey in 2regions in Philippines

Species Total Percent

1. Gemelina 14 25.45%2. Mahogani 11 20.00%3. Acacia Mangium 8 14.55%4. Teak 4 7.27%5. Nara 4 7.27%6. Albisia Falcataria 3 5.45%7. Toog 3 5.45%8. Acacia 2 3.64%9. Almaciga 1 1.82%10.Antipolo 1 1.82%Total 55 100.00%

Source: Yonariza and Singzon 2009


22/22

20

Table 3. Tree species grown by tree farmers in Leyte island

Species Scientific name Frequency Percent (%)

1. Gmelina Gmelina arborea Roxb. 37 37.82. Mahogany Swietenia mahogani (L.) Jacq. 32 32.73. Bagalunga Melia dubia 6 6.14. Mangium Acacia mangium Willd. 6 6.15. Molave Vitex parviflora 4 4.16. Narra Pterocarpus indicus Willd. Forma

indicus

4 4.1

7. Auri Acacia auriculiformis 3 3.18. Ipil-ipil Leucaena leucocephala 3 3.19. Antipolo Artocarpus blancoi 1 110.Bagras Eucalyptus deglupta 1 111.Toog Petersianthus quadrialatus 1 1Total 98 100

Source: Mangaoang, et al., 2004.

Table 1 3 show that planted trees are mostly timber tree species and not of MPTS.

yonariza paper_post logging ban timber tree planting

Documents