CPBRD Forum No. 2013-02- Reforestation Program of the DENR

CPBRD FORUMC O N G R E S S I O N A L P O L I C Y A N D B U D G E T R E S E A R C H D E PA R T M E N T

Assessment of the efficiency And effectiveness of the RefoRestAtion PRogRAm of the denR

OctOber 2013 NO. 2013-03

This article is based on the study presented by Dr. Danilo C. Israel on 3 July 2013 at the House of Representatives as part of a seminar series on Zero-Based Budgeting. The Forum was organized by the Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department and Philippine Institute for Development Studies in partnership with the Committee Affairs Department (Cluster 2). The study assesses the reforestation program of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, i.e., whether the program has been efficient and effective in achieving its objectives.

Dr. Danilo C. Israel, Senior Research Fellow of Philippine Institute for Development Studies, presented an assessment of the Reforestation Program of the DENR.

Background Dr. Danilo C. Israel, Senior Research Fellow of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), started his presentation by discussing the importance of Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) approach in budget decision-making. In 2011, the Aquino administration instituted this approach to assist in the budget evaluation of the different government programs. Through this approach, programs and projects that are not delivering their intended results or outcomes are either terminated or reduced in funding requirements. In contrast, efficient and effective programs are provided with additional budget to sustain their services, especially in poverty reduction.

The reforestation program of the DENR is one of the projects assessed by PIDS using the ZBB approach to determine if the program has been successful in attaining its objective of mitigating the adverse impact of climate change on the environment.

The specific objectives of the study are: a) to assess the accomplishment of the reforestation program of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for the past 20 years and determine the causes of delays in its implementation; b) to determine if the program

has been implemented efficiently and effectively in achieving its objectives; c) to understand the National Greening Program (NGP) in terms of its coverage, modalities, annual targets and cost and see if it addresses the issues and problems identified in the reforestation program and the measures to ensure the success of the program; and d) to assess existing plans for reforestation and other tree planting programs and suggest measures for improvement considering the annual targets and annual funding requirements of DENR out of the goal set under the NGP.


Figure 1TargeTs in area and Trees PlanTed oF The naTional greening Program, 2011-2016

Source: DENR NGP Brochure

In his study, Dr. Israel measured the efficiency of the program based on secondary data from the DENR, Commission on Audit (COA), Local Government Units (LGUs) and other sources. He measured efficiency of the program by using the ratio of number of hectares planted to the cost of planting. In determining the effectiveness of the program, he compared the actual performance or accomplishment to the pre-set targets that were established. Finally, the effectiveness was measured in terms of the level of satisfaction of the various stakeholders involved in the program.

reforestation laws, programs and plans

After presenting the objectives and methodology of the study, Dr. Israel discussed the issues and challenges in the implementation of reforestation policies and programs in the country.

Reforestation laws. There are numerous laws and other legal instruments for reforestation program in the country. However, the level of understanding of these documents may still be inadequate especially among stakeholders at the ground level. The study recommends for the laws on reforestation be summarized or simplified from their legalistic forms into plain and easy to understand local terms. These materials can then be reproduced and distributed to peoples organizations (POs) and other local stakeholders, making them more aware on how these are being implemented and improving their participation in the implementation of reforestation programs.

Reforestation programs. Since 1986, various reforestation programs have been implemented by the government. Dr. Israel pointed out that although there have been individual program assessments, a comprehensive assessment of all these programs is still lacking. He suggested for a bigger effort towards a complete review of all these programs in terms of their outcomes which can be basis for planning for future programs.

National Greening Program (NGP). In 2011, President Aquino issued Executive Order (EO)

26 declaring the implementation of the NGP, a government priority program to reduce poverty, promote food security, environmental stability and biodiversity conservation, and to enhance climate change mitigation and adaptation. The program seeks to plant 1.5 billion seedlings in 1.5 million hectares of public lands nationwide in six years from 2011 to 2016 (Figure 1).

Dr. Israel questioned the desired targets of the NGP, citing that the desired coverage is more than twice the governments accomplishment for the past 25 years, which adds to only 730,000 hectares. He also added that the target of 1.5 million hectares of public lands to be reforested is also more than double the target of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2011-2016 of 600,000 hectares of increased forest cover by 2016 (NEDA 2011).

Based on the study, the basis of the targets set for the NGP has not been clearly explained. Dr. Israel is concerned whether these targets are achievable given the limited resources at hand, the short number of years available, and the past performance of reforestation projects in the country. He added that it would also help if the NGP can elaborate further on why such a target was set nationally, as well as regionally as contained in the commodity roadmap. Thus, the government should provide a clear rationale or explanation in the setting of targets to erase some doubts that the program is more of a politically expedient propaganda of the government.

1

Congressional PoliCy and Budget researCh dePartment

Table 1naTional ForesTaTion Program TargeTs oF The 1990

mPFd, 1987-2000 (000 hecTares)

1990 Master Plan for Forestry Development (MPFD). The 1990 MPFD is one of the two major sectoral plans that were prepared for the forestry sector in the last twenty years. The main objective of the plan was to prepare a long-term 25-year plan for the development of forestry. The 1990 MPFD has an annual forestation target of 100,000 hectares for a total of 1.4 million hectares for the 1987 to 2000 period (Table I).

1

Agency Annual Total DENR 30 420 Other National Government Agencies 3 42 Local Government 12 168 Others 5 70Total Government Sector 50 700 TLA 25 350 Lessee, industry 10 140 Private landowner 5 70 Others 10 140Total Private Sector 50 700Grand Total 100 1,400

Dr. Israel pointed out that the target of 1.4 million hectares for 14 years was relatively conservative compared to the 1.5 million hectares targeted by the NGP for six (6) years. The annual increment of the 1990 MPFD target of 100,000 hectares was also more uniform and consistent compared to the annual increments of the NGP target which rapidly increased from 100,000 hectares in 2011 to 300,000 hectares in 2013 before flattening out at 300,000 hectares thereafter. The very high NGP targets represented a big departure from the conservative targets of the 1990 MPFD.

2003 Revised MPFD. The 2003 Revised MPFD was formulated with numerous objectives for the forestry sector, among the most notable of which was to assess the accomplishment of the 1990 MPFD relative to its objectives, and to re-evaluate and update the plan as needed. The plan estimated that for the next 12 years of its implementation, the country would need to plant 460,000 hectares to satisfy plantation wood demand with plenty to spare

for the export demand. The plan also explained that many regions in the country have comparative advantage with regard to attaining high plantation yield and that planting must concentrate on these areas to attain economic efficiency.

According to Dr. Israel, the 2003 Revised MPFD target of planting 460,000 hectares in 12 years was even more conservative than the 1990 MPFD targets. He explained that the lower targets may have been due to the non-attainment of the 1990 MPFD targets. He was also concerned whether the scaling down of the targets from the 1990 MPFD to the 2003 revised MPFD was considered and taken into account when the NGP targets were set.

analysis of the reforestation program of the denr

Following the objectives of the study, methodology, and reforestation policies, the next part of Dr. Israels presentation shows the overall performance of the reforestation program of the government since 1973. He also discussed the performance of the 1990 MPFD, 2003 Revised MPFD and the NGP in terms of total area and seedlings planted. The study evaluated the performance of these programs by comparing targets to the actual accomplishments, including their budget allocations.

Overall performance (Total area reforested). The area reforested by DENR and other government agencies generally grew at a positive rate during the period of 1974 to 2009. Growth rates were highest in the 1970s. From 1974 to 2009, the average annual growth rate in the area reforested by the DENR was at 35.89%. The area reforested by both government and non-government sectors also grew annually from 1974 to 2009, at an average rate of 24.84% (Table 2). Based on available data, it appears that the reforestation program of the government over time has been performing quite well.

Performance under the 1990 MPFD. Based on past analyses conducted on specific reforestation programs, the 1990 MPFD had under-achieved in

Source: DENR 1990


Table 2 area reForesTed by secTor, average annual growTh

raTes, 1973-2009 (in hecTares)

terms of physical targets (DENR 2003). Of the 1.3 million hectares of forest plantations targeted to be planted between 1991 and 2000, the MPFD planted only 0.68 million hectares during the period or an accomplishment rate of only 50% Underachievement was also reported for the individual activities under the 1990 MPFD (Table 3). Among the issues cited in hindering the attainment of the program include weak institutional arrangements and program implementation.

Table 3 summary oF TargeTs and accomPlishmenTs relaTed

To reForesTaTion under The 1990 mPFd

The output/cost ratios (area planted/regular budget) are also computed to give some indication of the efficiency of the DENR in its reforestation function (note that a higher ratio implies increasing efficiency and vice versa). The results show that the annual average output/cost ratio from 1994 to 2003 based on coverage by the 1990 MPFD was 0.14. This ratio, as explained by Dr. Israel shows

1

Year Area Planted (ha)Regular Budget

(in thousand pesos)Output /

Cost Ratio1994-2003Total 217,924 1,546,164

0.14Average 21,792 154,616Average annual growth rate 12.24 13.762004-2009Total 130,717 2,518,132

0.05Average 21,786 419,689Average annual growth rate 95.58 128.831994-2009Total 348,641 4,064,296

0.09Average 21,790 254,019Average annual growth rate 45.57 59.78

Table 4area PlanTed, regular budgeT For PlanTaTion

esTablishmenT and mainTenance and ProTecTion oF The denr, and area PlanTed/regular

budgeT raTio, 1994-2009

Moreover, the accomplishment rate from 1991 to 2003 based on areas covered by the 1990 MPFD was only 43%, with a target of 1.3 million hectares to only 564,279 hectares reforested (Table 5). This validates that the 1990 MPFD targets were not been attained.

1

Target (1990 - 2000) Accomplishments780 km of greenbelts/roadside planting No records except for seedling planted (2.1 million from 1990-2002)

in Metro Manila. Many of those planted have died, or replaced, removed or destroyed due to new infrastructure like road widening.

1.3M hectares of forest plantations 600,000 hectares accomplishedAround 15,000 hectares developed under FSP

40,000 hectares of pine plantations 1,700 hectares accomplished

95,000 hectares of rattan plantations 11,959 hectares established Source: DENR

1

YearsGovernment Sector Grand Total

(Government Sector +Non-Government Sector)DENR Total

(DENR + Other Government Agencies)

Average Annual Growth Rates1974-1979 60.79 70.32 85.881980-1989 19.85 20.84 13.961990-1999 27.28 19.32 5.282000-2009 48.07 42.47 24.71(1974-2009) 35.89 33.65 24.84

Source: DENR

that you can reforest 0.14 hectares of land with every 1 thousand pesos from 1994 to 2003. On the other hand, the annual average output/cost ratio from 2004 onwards based on areas not covered by the 1990 MPFD was only 0.05. For the whole period of 1994 to 2009, the annual average ratio has been decreasing by 0.09 (Table 4). This trend shows that the efficiency of the DENR in its reforestation program through the years has declined.

Source: DENR


Table 5area reForesTed by secTor in The PhiliPPines, TargeT

and accomPlishmenT under The 1990 mPFd, 1991-2003 (in hecTares)

1

Year Government Sector

Non-Government Sector

Grand Total

1991 73,602 19,437 93,0391992 24,304 16,289 40,5931993 6,347 12,864 19,2111994 18,032 31,519 49,5511995 21,841 43,392 65,2331996 18,869 27,227 46,0961997 49,301 16,936 66,2371998 33,219 9,149 42,3681999 31,184 10,983 42,1672000 21,740 5,892 27,6322001 26,524 4,920 31,4442002 20,681 4,939 25,6202003 13,195 1,893 15,088

Total 564,279Target 1,300,000% Accomplished 43%

Performance under the 2003 Revised MPFD. The plan targeted that for the next 12 years of its implementation, 460,000 hectares or 38,000 hectares annually would be planted for commercial plantation. However, there is no available data on the area covered by commercial plantation since 2004. Using available data, Dr. Israel assumed that the target has not been attained. He explained that from 2004 to 2009, the total area reforested by both the government and non-government sectors was only 170,207 hectares or 28,384 hectares annually, way below the target of 38,000 hectares annually set by the 2003 MPFD for commercial plantation. The accomplishment rate of the plan covering the period of 2004 to 2009 is at 75%, which is higher compared to the accomplishment of the 1990 MPFD (Table 6). But still, reforestation targets under this plan were also not attained.

DENR performance report. In contrast to the findings made by Dr. Israel for the 1990 MPFD and the 2003 Revised MPFD, DENR reported that from 1990 to 2011, the targets set by the department for areas reforested were attained for most years. Since 2001, reforestation accomplishments

Source: DENR

Table 6 area reForesTed by secTor in The PhiliPPines, TargeT

and accomPlishmenT under The 2003 revised mPFd, 2004-2009 (in hecTares)

1

Year Government Sector

Non-Government Sector

Grand Total

2004 12,436 7,902 20,3382005 7,187 9,311 16,4982006 4,476 2,747 7,2232007 25,024 2,813 27,8372008 27,752 15,857 43,6092009 53,842 950 54,792

Total 170,297Target 228,000% Accomplished 75%

exceeded targets annually except for 2009 (Table 7). Dr. Israel pointed out for a need to reconcile data he has made with the accomplishments of the 1990 MPFD and the Revised MPFD. However, he explained that the inconsistency of results may be due to the different target levels set by the DENR and the plans.

He also noted that DENR targets from 2004 onwards are varied with annual targets lower than those of the 2003 Revised MPFD. These low targets resulted in the high accomplishment rates in these years.

Table 7areas reForesTed in The PhiliPPines, 1990-1992,

1995, 1997 and 2001- 2011

Source: DENR Planning and Evaluation Division

1

Year Target Accomplished %1990 127,648 191,663 1501991 54,733 93,039 1701992 31,257 40,592 1301995 87,463 65,234 751997 64,230 66,236 1032001 22,693 31,440 1392002 22,910 25,620 1122003 14,914 15,087 1012004 15,495 20,333 1312005 13,400 16,499 1232006 6,129 8,809 1442007 8,939 27,838 3112008 29,538 43,610 1482009 57,668 54,789 952010 35,925 36,875 1032011 105,938 119,759 113

Source: DENR


For 2012, DENR again missed its target, accomplishing only 132,710 hectares out of the 150,000 hectares targeted or an accomplishment rate of only 88%. Among the regions, only Regions III, IVA, IVB, IX, NCR and ARMM did not attain their targets. For this period, the highest accomplishment rate comes from other partners with 178% (Table 8).

Overall, the NGP has been a success in attaining its targets of area planted. It surpassed its targets in both years at the national level.

Table 8ngP accomPlishmenT rePorT (in hecTares)

1

ParticularsFor CY 2011, As of December 31, 2011 For 4th Quarter 2012, As of February 1, 2013

Target Area Area Planted % Accomplished Target Area Area Planted % Accomplished

National 100,027 128,558.11 129 200,000 221,753 111

Other Partners - 31,021.80 - 50,000 59,053 178

DILG - 15,372.99 - - - -

DENR-NGP 100,027 82,163.32 82 150,000 132,710 88

CAR 6,838 6,671.67 98 9,409 9,455 100

R-1 5,000 5,080.17 102 7,121 7,307 103

R-2 3,616 4,305.03 119 5,994 6,777 113

R-3 5,547 5,548.03 100 9,032 8,446 94

R-4A 4,735 4,759.89 101 9,225 8,907 97

R-4B 4,999 5,150.98 103 6,392 6,045 95

R-5 5,584 6,079.68 109 8,034 8,036 100

R-6 4,033 3,963.47 98 8,313 9,482 114

R-7 5,632 5,736.76 102 5,743 6,980 104

R-8 8,105 8,105 100 5,134 6,145 100

R-9 4,804 4,804.68 100 6,155 6,079 99

R-10 4,336 4,336.80 100 8,195 8,234 100

R-11 5,514 5,734 104 6,249 6,249 100

R-12 4,705 5,007.50 106 7,664 8,295 108

R-13 5,000 5,522.89 110 7,790 7,817 100

NCR 350 329.77 94 977 915 94

CSLC - - - 34,613 15,531 45

ARMM 588 - 0 1,776 597 34

Central Office 19,241 - 0 - - -

ERDB 1,400 1,027 73 - - - Source: DENR

Performance under the NGP. DENR data shows that the NGP implementation in 2011 and 2012 attained its targets of area planted, with an accomplishment rate of 129% and 111% respectively, at the national level (Table 8).

In 2011, DENR alone missed its own NGP target with an accomplishment rate of only 82%. Among the regions, only CAR, Region VI and NCR did not attain their targets. Both the ARMM and the DENR Central Office have 0% accomplishment in 2011, with targets of 588 and 19,241 hectares respectively (Table 8).


In terms of fund utilization, data shows that as of December 2011, the NGP was not quite performing well with only 79% fund utilization rate at the national level. Among the findings, it is notable that a) NCR and Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB) which did not attain their planting targets had 100% fund utilization; b) most of the regions which attained their planting targets had lower than 100% utilization; c) ARMM which had a 0% accomplishment in planting had a 100% fund

Table 9 ngP sTaTemenT oF alloTmenT, obligaTions

incurred and uTilizaTion, as oF december 31, 2011 (in Thousand Pesos)

1

Particulars Total AllotmentTotal

Obligation% of

UtilizationGrand Total 1,331,143 1,048,945 79CAR 105,962 101,683 96R-1 58,186 58,098 100R-2 66,914 61,478 92R-3 87,756 82,000 93R-4A 86,516 80,417 93R-4B 72,106 71,907 100R-5 74,202 59,634 80R-6 72,318 16,131 22R-7 74,488 65,932 89R-8 111,311 109,767 99R-9 65,901 63,046 96R-10 69,760 59,886 86R-11 65,635 62,636 95R-12 63,166 56,645 90R-13 68,267 62,387 91NCR 10,025 10,025 100ARMM* 7,000 7,000 100Central Office (OSEC) 153,430 2,073 1ERDB 17,300 17,300 100

As of May 2012, updated figures show that the NGP fund utilization rate has improved. Nationally, in 2011, the program has a fund utilization rate of above 80% for current funds and above 90% for continuing funds (Table 10). Dr. Israel explained that these figures imply that the fund utilization performance of the NGP is improving.

Table 10ngP sTaTemenT oF alloTmenT, obligaTions incurred

and uTilizaTion, as oF may 11, 2012 (in Thousand Pesos)

1

Particulars Total Allotment Total Obligation % of UtilizationFY 2010 1,243,208 1,200,432 96.56 Current 1,012,720 969,987 95.78 Continuing 230,488 230,445 99.98FY 2011 1,423,462 1,189,138 83.54 Current 1,380,729 1,147,026 83.07 Continuing 42,733 42,112 98.55

Performance Based on COA Reports. COA reported that based on the reports of the DENR, the targets for areas planted from 2003 to 2010 were more than attained except for 2009 and 2010 (Table 11). The reported performance for forest protection was also highly satisfactory in years covered by the report.

Source: DENR

Table 11naTional reForesTaTion TargeTs and accomPlishmenTs

rePorTed by The denr, 2003-2010

Source: COA Annual Audit Reports

Source: DENR

1

Year Rehabilitation of degraded forestlands area planted (hectares)

Forest protection forest are patrolled/protected (hectares)

Target Accomplishments % of Accomplishments Target Accomplishments% of

Accomplishments2003 14,914 15,087 101 - - -2004 15,495 20,333 131 - - -2005 19,508 20,753 106 - - -2006 4,657 7,222 155 - - -2007 5,936 6,662 112 4,075,832 4,089,465 1002008 29,538 43,609 148 4,903,853 4,903,855 1002009 57,668 54,789 95 - - -2010 16,538.50 14,836 90 4,737,664 4,762,227 101

utilization rate; d) and the Central Office only had 1% fund utilization rate (Table 9).

Despite these reports, COA also made several observations that point to the inadequacy and


problems in the conduct of reforestation by the DENR. Among the reasons put forward behind the non-attainment of targets in many regions were: a) desired seedling survival rates of 97% were not attained; b) some funds were utilized for purposes other than their intended objectives; c) no seedling was produced because no funds were allotted for the maintenance of the project; d) only a fraction of beneficiaries continued the maintenance and protection activities or complied with their obligations; e) the Inspection and Acceptance Committee was negligent; f) delay in the implementation of projects due to the delay in release of funds and slow preparation of required documents; g) seedlings were procured by beneficiaries from commercial nurseries instead of own established nurseries; h) submission of financial documents was delayed because of the change of implementers; and i) transfer of project areas due to unsuitability of areas initially proposed for development.

To address deficiency in program implementation, COA recommends: a) the implementation of NGP and similar programs should be effectively monitored and evaluated periodically at national, regional and local levels; b) management should instruct the Planning, Policy and Project Management Office and the Financial Management Services to jointly monitor the release and utilization of program funds; c) management should instruct the Regional Executive Directors to see to it that the seedlings to be planted are within the DENR standards and the protection and maintenance activities for seedlings planted are carried out; d) management should assess the adequacy and enhance the existing measures to protect seedlings during typhoons and summer season; and e) monitoring teams should be formed to closely monitor and encourage contractor Peoples Organizations/Coops to finish their reforestation contracts on their due dates.

However, Dr. Israel pointed out that not all of the COA recommendations were implemented by the DENR and that some were only partially implemented. He suggested for DENR to make a strong effort to implement all the recommendations and provide

a strong rationale on why other recommendations were not implemented.

Perceptions of Key Informants and Local Stakeholders. Dr. Israel also presented the combined results of the Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) on the various issues in reforestation. Serious problems encountered by key informants and local stakeholders include: a) limited DENR manpower and financial resources, including for monitoring and evaluation; b) some reforestation areas were unsuitable; c) substandard seedlings from improper sources were used; d) diseases attacked seedlings and trees; and e) typhoons and other natural calamities impedes reforestation.

Based on the perception of stakeholders, the reforestation program of the DENR performed fairly well. Although overall targets in terms of area planted were not attained, some individual targets were achieved.

It was viewed as having actually improved forest cover, reduced illegal logging, enhanced biodiversity, improved water availability and quality, promoted downstream irrigation, controlled flood and landslides, and increased environmental awareness.

In terms of poverty alleviation, it was perceived to have actually raised the availability of food, personal incomes and livelihood opportunities of the local people. However, poverty remained an issue due to inherent problems including the lack of capital to buy farm inputs and equipment.

Despite the aforementioned positive perceptions, the stakeholders viewed the reforestation program of the DENR as being only partially successful in attaining its objectives and the NGP as being only partially effective and efficient in its implementation. For the NGP, in particular, the stakeholders asserted that there was a delay in the initial implementation due to the non-availability of mobilization fund. The limited personnel of DENR also constrained its implementation.


Reassessment of Policies

Dr. Israel reviewed policies using past related literature and materials. The study found out that there are policies in the mining and agro-forestry sectors that may have had a negative impact on the reforestation program over the years. He discussed the impacts of these policies in the reforestation efforts of the country.

Executive Order 79. This EO intends to institutionalize and implement reforms in the mining sector. However, it allows existing mining contracts within the No-Go Mining Zones to continue to be valid and in effect. This means continued exploitation of natural resources, including forest resources, as most of those areas included in the No-Go Mining Zones have several existing mining operations. Also, key biodiversity areas and critical watersheds are not included in the list of the No-Go Mining Zones.

Republic Act 7942. The Philippine Mining Law of 1995 gives higher priority to mining over forestry and puts to risk second growth forests in mining areas. Although the law requires that mining operations must rehabilitate second growth forests in their area of operation, it remains doubtful that these forests can be brought back to their original form.

Presidential Decree 1899. The Small-Scale Mining Decree of 1984 empowers provincial governors to unilaterally issue small-scale mining permits. This policy promotes small-scale mining operations that are particularly damaging to forestry because small-scale miners cut trees for the timbering of their tunnels and for domestic and related purposes.

Executive Order 23. Issued in February 2011, EO 23 imposes an indefinite log ban all over the country and creates an Anti-Illegal Logging Task Force. However, Dr. Israel explained that it is seen as a faulty approach to forest management. With the imposition of log ban, subsistence upland dwellers may swarm the forests and indiscriminately cut tress as concessionaires abandon the areas they

once protected. Also, logging ban can result to the loss of public revenues, incomes and employment in the logging industry.

Republic Act 9147. The Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act establishes critical habitats that protect and conserve threatened plant species. However, the establishment of these habitats diminishes the effective areas where commercial harvesting and collection of plants for livelihood purposes can be done.

Dr. Israel pointed out that without more intensive quantitative and qualitative impact analyses of these policies, it would be inappropriate to conclude whether or not these laws and policies should be continued, amended or abolished. He recommended that a fuller study be commissioned using appropriate methods in analyzing the impact of these policies to reforestation. All relevant stakeholders should be involved in the study and results should be disseminated to the proper audiences to gain support and acceptance.

Summary and Conclusions

The overall purpose of the study is to determine if the reforestation program of the DENR over the years has been successful in attaining its stated objectives. According to Dr. Israel, the goal was to develop recommendations to improve reforestation activities in light of the NGP. Among the most important findings of the study are: a) at the national level, the reforestation program of the DENR has only partially attained its replanting targets; b) also at the national level, it appears to have become relatively inefficient in the conduct of replanting activities over the years; and c) at the individual site level, it may have been effective to some degree in increasing incomes and livelihood opportunities, improving natural resources and achieving the other objectives of reforestation in many areas.

Dr. Israel explained that much of the success of the NGP in particular, and future reforestation programs of the country in general, would depend on complex


and sometimes intertwining factors. Other than the infusion of sufficient financial and manpower resources, a reforestation program would have a better chance of attaining its objectives if it can sufficiently monitor its current activities and effectively implement changes in its operation. Dr. Israel hoped that the recommendations proposed by the study can be afforded serious consideration and eventually implemented, for the improvement of the NGP and other future reforestation programs of the country.

Presentation of Director Calderon

Before the open forum, Director Ricardo Calderon of the Forest Management Bureau-NGP also presented the accomplishments and updates of the NGP. Part of his presentation included the state of the forest, NGPs framework/coverage, areas for development, NGPs strategies and expected program outcomes.

State of Forest. Among the ten Association of South East Asian Nation (ASEAN) member states, only Philippines and Vietnam registered positive increase in terms of forest cover from 1990 to 2010

with 16.7% and 47.4%, respectively. Other member states that registered a decline in their forest cover include Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand.

NGP Strategies. National Greening Program adopts strategies that are not found in previous greening efforts. The NGP employs social mobilization which harnesses the collaborative effort of both public and private sectors, POs, NGOs and civil society. It harmonizes initiatives of the government and partners for consolidation and complementation of other components/mandates/activities especially production and planting of seedlings under the program. It also provides incentives for beneficiary

communities by making them priority recipients of the Conditional Cash Transfer of the DSWD besides the proceeds from established agro-forestry plantations.

NGP Accomplishments. In 2011, the NGP planted 89.6 million seedlings in 128,558 hectares of forestlands generating a total of 364,088 jobs from seedling production and plantation establishment. In 2012, the program planted 125.6 million seedlings in 221,763 hectares which generated 384,000 jobs for PO partners and hired 625 extension officers.

Expected Program Outcome. In terms of increasing productivity in the uplands, the NGP intends to enhance farm level productivity, improve household incomes and increase production of food crops, timber and non-timber forest products. The program is also expected to ensure economic security in the uplands by increasing and providing sustainable supply of forest-based raw materials, thereby optimizing the use of upland resources. The NGP is also expected to stabilize environmental condition in the uplands by increasing forest cover by 12% (based on 2003 level) equivalent to 7.2 million hectares with 85% survival rate. It is also expected to increase water holding capacity, reduce downstream flooding and soil erosion, and improve environmental services.

Open Forum

After the presentation of Director Calderon, stakeholders raised key issues and concerns that merit further discussion:

Inefficiency in replanting activities. Reforestation Committee Secretary Rommel Reyes inquired on the relative inefficiency in the conduct of replanting activities of the government. Dr. Israel replied that efficiency is measured based on time-series data on output-input ratio in the area planted and the cost of planting. Based on past trends, ratio actually decreases over time indicating inefficiency in reforestation activities. In terms of how much the government spends on reforestation, the country is producing much less in area hectarage.

Director Ricardo Calderon, National Program Director of NGP, presented the accomplishments and updates of the NGP.


Basis in measuring efficiency and effectiveness. Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB) Director Portia Gamboa suggested that in the assessment of the NGP, other outcomes and objectives should also be considered in measuring

Dr. Portia Gamboa, Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau Director, inquired on the basis of measuring the effeciency and effectiveness of the NGP.

Dr. Romulo Miral, Jr., OIC of CPBRD, asked to be clarified on the framework used by Dr. Israel in his study.

the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. She added that based on the study, the basis of measuring the efficiency and effectiveness is solely based on the area planted/hectares. The study should also consider other objectives of

the program such as job generation, biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration. Dr. Israel opined that the other objectives of the program are evaluated in the CARAGA Region and there is already partial assessment of these objectives. However, Dir. Gamboa pointed out that the assessment should include other sites and not rely on just one region in the assessment of the program.

Monitoring accomplishment of the NGP. Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) Director Sheila Siar asked how the DENR monitors and evaluates the performance of the program vis-a-vis its other objectives. She also asked what indicators are used in the evaluation of its performance. NGP Director Calderon answered that an important tool in measuring the effectiveness of the program is through job generation, that the rate of employment in the program can be used as an indicator in evaluating its performance. In terms of monitoring the program, DENR with the help of its Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) partners are currently undergoing nationwide monitoring. Monitoring includes focus group discussion with stakeholders in properly assessing the program.

Framework of the study. Dr. Miral of CPBRD asked to be clarified on the framework used by Dr. Israel

in his study. He cited that the beginning stock ending stock framework was somewhat lost in the presentation. He added that the indicators used in the study are not pointing to the framework. For example, indicators such as targets and

accomplishments, efficiency output and cost are not parallel with the framework used in the study. Dr. Israel answered that the framework presented was actually a partial framework of the study. The framework shown in his presentation did not completely explain the full assessment done in the effectiveness of the program. He also explained that the measurement of the efficiency and effectiveness did not come from the framework, but through the methodology of the study. The framework only pointed to the accounting of forest resources over time.

Lack of forestry data. Dr. Llanto of PIDS explained that the effectiveness of the program is very hard to measure. The lack of accurate forestry data is a challenge in assessing forest resources. He explained that agencies are slightly nervous in sharing data. He suggested that government agencies should cooperate in terms of sharing data, to ensure value for money on programs that are being implemented. Future program assessment should also consider the survival rate of such resources. Director Calderon reacted by saying that the DENR-NGP is open in sharing its data and information. Forestry data and information are made available through websites and site maps. He also answered that the survival rate for reforested tree species is 80% after three years.

Sourcing of indigenous tree species. Reforestation Committee Secretary Rommel Reyes said that some congressmen are concerned with the sourcing of indigenous tree species. The common complaint of these congressmen and other members of the Special Committee on Reforestation is that they find it hard in sourcing out indigenous species of seeds,


References

Israel, Danilo C. and Lintag, Jeffrey H. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. 2013. Assessment of the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Reforestation Program of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Forest Management Bureau. National Greening Program. PowerPoint Presentation by NGP Director Ricardo Calderon.

.

due to the failure in attaining the desired survival rate of these seeds. He cited that most of the seeds distributed by DENR are non-native species. He inquired on how should DENR addressed these problems of selecting, propagating and distributing of seeds. Director Calderon answered that the DENR already invested in clonal nursery for mass propagation of these indigenous species. Seed production areas are established in different regions to continuously supply the needed seeds for reforestation up to 2016.

Director Aquino of CPBRD also shared the experience of Israel in reforestation wherein trees were planted near a river without considering favorable species that can survive in that area. It resulted to the drying up of the river because they did not consider the effects of the tree species to the river. Director Calderon added that the objective of planting and site selection is important in determining the proper selection of tree species.

Re-assessment of policies. Mr. Sherwin of Senate Economic Planning Office also asked on how the government should address the issues regarding the policies that affect reforestation, if there is a need to simplify laws, making them more comprehensive in nature. Dr. Israel answered that the problem is not the laws themselves but in the information dissemination on the laws that relate to reforestation. He said that IEC (Information Education Communication) materials must be properly distributed to Peoples Organizations. The simplification of language to native dialects will provide stakeholders better understanding of these policies.

Delineation of forestland. Director Bangsal of CPBRD inquired on the update on the demarcation of forestland boundary of the DENR. Director Calderon explained that ground delineation in all forest areas in the country is finished, except ARMM where there is still an ongoing delineation. He stressed that the big challenge in ARMM is the training of its own technical people who will be responsible for ground delineation in the region. Provinces of Maguindanao, Iligan and portions of

Basilan are still in the process of demarcating their forestlands. The major challenge in the region is Tawi-Tawi because of the security of its technical staff.

Zero-based budgeting. Dr. Miral of CPBRD closed the forum by pointing out the importance of zero-based budgeting in the allocation of government funds. He stressed that the budget is a very important instrument of the government in addressing socio-economic problems of the country. Zero-based budgeting is seen to enhance the use of evidence-based analysis in the review of the budget. This budgeting technique is also important in the conduct of budget hearings of the different agencies, ensuring strategic and efficient allocation to highly effective programs. Prepared by JOHN PAUL S. QUIETA.

Documents

CPBRD Forum No. 2013-02- Reforestation Program of the DENR