Rebirthing Philippine Forests

7/23/2019 Rebirthing Philippine Forests

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rebirthing-philippine-forests 1/50

BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED IN MORE THAN TWO DECADES



A species of dipterocarp tree, commonly named Apitong is a superb and high qual ity hard wood species

for rainforestation (VSU-ViFARD File Photo).

developing rainforestation through the years as well as to the numerous advocates and

implementers of rainforestation.



APRIL 2013

Prepared by the Visayas State University - Visca Foundation for Agricultural and Rural Development

(VSU-ViFARD) for the Foundation for the Philippine Environment (FPE), under the Up-Scaling Forest

Restoration Efforts in Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) project.

DISCLAIMER

This publication is made possible through the generous support of the American People through the

United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this publication are the

sole responsibility of the case study writer and VSU-ViFARD, and do not necessarily reflect the views

of USAID, the United States government, or FPE.

REBIRTHING PHILIPPINE FORESTSBEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED IN MORE THAN TWO DECADES

OF VSU’S RAINFORESTATION IMPLEMENTATION



In this emerging era of climate change, environment and natural resources (ENR)

around the globe are threatened with destruction to an extent rarely

seen in earth’s history. The mitigation of the pernicious effects of climate

change compels government, particularly us in the DENR, to adapt an integrated

approach to ENR planning and decision making.

Constructive engagement, international partnerships, and collaboration with the

different sectors of society are forged not only to b race up our limited resources,

but more so to create an enabling policy environment that would enhanceinstitutional and regulatory capacities.

It is in this complicated and complex task of building partnerships with key

stakeholders that we appreciate the role played by the Foundation for the

Philippine Environment (FPE). A catalyst for cooperation, the FPE blazes trails

in efforts to promote and encourage international and local cooperation among

NGOs, business groups, and communities towards developing good policies

and effective programs on biodiversity and sustainable management.

The case studies presented in this publication bear testament to FPE’sleading role in facilitating collaborations for sustainable development. Without

the foundation’s assistance and effort to involve key stakeholders’ cooperation,

appropriate assessments regarding the current conditions and trends of eight

key biodiversity areas in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao would not have been

made. Our success, hence, in establishing reliable bases for developing goals

and strategies for future biodiversity and sustainable management interventions

in these areas can only be ensured with support from the Foundation for the

Philippine Environment.

MESSAGE FROM

DENR

RAMON J. P. PAJE

DENR Secretary



MESSAGE FROM

USAID

The realization of our shared vision of broad-based and inclusive growth is greatly

aided by enhancing environmental resilience and ensuring that the country’s

bountiful natural resources and life-giving ecosystems services are sustainably

managed while reducing the risk of disasters. The U.S. Government holds firm

to its commitment to help the Government of the Philippines to achieve this goal.

Expanding the network of environmental stakeholders and providing continued

support to local governments and communities on proper natural resource

management are crucial strategies to achieve this goal. With these in mind, ourpartnership with the Government of the Philippines has yielded a large network of

partners that engages local communities and groups in biodiversity conservation

and natural resource management. We have helped empower our partners to be

more involved in decision-making leading to better management and protection

of natural resources that they depend on.

This publication captures the key strategies applied through the years that “Up-

scaling Forest Restoration Project” attempted to scale up in the last two years

in eight key forest areas of the country. Eight case studies feature committed

forest guard volunteers, lessons from science-based forest restoration efforts withindigenous peoples, and partnership building among government, communities,

and the private sector to restore forest habitats and watersheds. This collection of

stories is a testament to the hard work of our partners, led by the Foundation for

the Philippine Environment, which collaboratively worked with local stakeholders

to ensure that the approaches employed, milestones achieved, and lessons

learned from our forest restoration efforts are carefully documented.

It is our hope that knowledge sharing through publications like this will become

a staple element in how we sustain our efforts in forest management. There is

wisdom from the grassroots, as we have valuably learned through our initiatives,which have significant impact at the national level. I invite you to read these

stories and share them with your network and other organizations working

towards biodiversity conservation and environmental resilience.

GLORIA D. STEELE

Mission Director, USAID/Philippines



MESSAGE FROM

FPE

FPE’s twenty-one years of working with partners to save forests and sustain lifehave borne fruit. Eight (8) case studies documenting the progress and challenges inexpanding forest governance in key biodiversity areas (KBAs) are now available tothe public.

The cases relate, among others, how our partner in Negros Occidental transformeda silent subsistence community to active forest protectors; how planting native treespecies revived dying forests and earned income for farmers in Leyte; how synergisticpartnerships among various agencies accelerated watershed rehabilitation in DavaoCity; and how the concept of social fencing in the provinces of Quezon and Lagunadeepened the communities’ collective resolve and shared responsibility in guardingtheir forests for life.

These are testaments of progress in FPE’s conservation support. But the missionof the foundation is none more relevant than today, as scarcity of natural resourcesworsens hunger, climate change brings collateral damage to conservation invest-ments, and unbridled population growth threatens the carrying capacity of our remain-ing forests. In almost all USAID-FPE Up-Scaling Project sites, our partners continue toface the challenges of poverty, unsustainable economic development, and fragmentedor uncoordinated conservation initiatives.

Notably, this is the first time in many years that our long-time partners in conservationtook the initiative of assessing and documenting what strategies worked and what could still work to sustainably protect our forests in KBAs. This is a conscious attempt to create tools and platforms for knowledge access and sharing.

Al l these int eresting case studies consti tute the second set of Kal ikasan (KaalamangLikas Yaman) Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development series, one of FPE’s regular publications. The first set describes the results of resource and socio-economic assessments in selected KBAs. This second set combines best practicesand lessons learned in forest restoration efforts under the USAID-FPE Up-Scaling Project.

Al l Kal ikasan BCSD ser ies are packed with knowledge from pro jects and fie ldexperiences. FPE does not stop at merely making beautiful publications, but

endeavors to translate knowledge into action towards improving our work andcontribution to BCSD.

Al low me to congra tulate our pro jec t partners, local government uni ts in pro jec t sites an USAID for making the case studies of the Up-Scaling Project possible. Wehope our readers distill the lessons to guide future actions for more effective forest restoration and hunger alleviation.

NESTOR R. CARBONERA

Chair and CEO



MESSAGE FROM

VSU-ViFARD

The Visayas State University’s ongoing advocacy, not only for the protection of the remainingforest in the region, in particular, but also for the restoration of denuded forestland can beseen through the various environmental projects it has implemented starting in the early1990s.

To achieve sustainable reforestation, for instance, the ViSCA-GTZ Ecology Programexperimented on the closed-canopy farming system and was successful in proving that one can still earn from high valued crops while maintaining the native tree species plantedin his/her farm. Only a few, however, know this.

By sharing the cases of successful adopters/implementers of rainforestation farming, it ishoped that more people will adopt this VSU-developed technology. May the successfuladopters share their knowledge and expertise to their children and to other people intheir community so that the trickling effect will help the government achieve its goal of “greening the Philippines.”

As Execut ive Director of the ViSCA Foundat ion for Agr icultural and Rural Development Foundation, Incorporated (ViFARD, Inc.) which manages the funds for the project on “Up-scaling Forest Restoration Efforts in the Mt. Nacolod Key Biodiversity Area,” I would like tocongratulate the project leader and staff for coming up with this case book. This shouldbe a “book-to-read” by VSU students of the course on ecology. This case book should,

likewise, find its way into the libraries of state colleges and universities offering Ecologywho, I am sure, are also pushing for sustainable environment.

It is hoped that this case book will produce more champions of sustainable reforestation.Many believed that it is impossible to put together rainforestation farming and agriculture.We have disproved this belief. The case book simply tells the story.

WOLFREDA T. ALESNA, Ph.D.

Executive Director



KALIKASANThe BCSD

Knowledge Series of FPE

Kaalamang Likas Yaman or simply, KALIKASAN, is the publication series of the

Foundation for the Philippine Environment (FPE) on biodiversity conservation and

sustainable development (BCSD).

Kaalaman is the Filipino term for knowledge while Likas Yaman is the term for

nature or natural resources. Kaalamang Likas Yaman literally means knowledge of

nature. As FPE’s main thrust is BCSD in key biodiversity areas of the Philippines,

this series is essential in presenting and promoting valuable theories, case studies,

site assessments, best practices, and other learning materials.

As Atty. Danny N. Valenzuela, FPE Chair and CEO (2010-2012), explains,

“That the work of the Foundation for the Philippine Environment on biodiversity

conservation and sustainable development has gone a long way in the past twenty

years cannot be overemphasized. In fact, it has become imperative for FPE to

embark into an appropriate, meaningful and innovative knowledge management

systems in order to preserve and properly utilize the significant learnings out of its

various collaborations with partners in key biodi versity areas all over the countr y.”

As a major repository of the knowledge base o f FPE and its partners, KALIKASANwill serve as a series of dynamic and enriching resource materials that will educate

the readers, in particular those involved in the environmental protection of key

biodiversity areas, and equip them with both theoretical and practical knowledge.

Kaalamang Likas Yaman may also refer to the richness (yaman) of natural or intuitive

knowledge (kaalamang likas) . This is in recognition of the a priori knowledge of

the local communities in FPE areas of operation and concern, especially among

the grassroots communities and indigenous peoples, in environmental protection

and conservation.

KALIKASAN seeks to serve as a comprehensive BCSD reference and research

source while tapping and augmenting the existing knowledge base of i ts partners,

beneficiaries and communities. This is the legacy of the current FPE leadership

to the next generation of Filipino environmentalists who will continue and further

develop the current advocacies and endeavors of FPE and its partners.



Up-Scaling Forest Restoration

on Efforts in Key Biodiversity Areas

USAID-FPE PROJECT

For more than two decades, FPE has been at the forefront of biodi versity conservation andsustainable development in the Philippines. FPE operates as a catalyst for cooperation,fund facilitator, and grant maker in order to save species, conserve sites, and sustaincommunities.

Capitalizing on previous and existing forest restoration initiatives of its local site partners,FPE, in partnership with USAID, implemented the Up-Scaling Forest Restoration Efforts inKey Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) project from 2011 to 2013. This project seeks to addressthe decline of the Philippine forests by strengthening the protection of approximately170,000 hectares of forest habitats and reforesting a total of 480 hectares within 8 sites

in the bioregions of Cebu, Negros, Leyte (Eastern Visayas), Luzon and Mindanao. Theproject has also instituted mechanisms to sustain conservation efforts and continuouslyaffect a macro-level of consciousness among stakeholders.

FPE supports its partners on sites in drawing lessons from projects and sharing results of research and experiences. FPE considers the knowledge gathered and lessons learnedby the forest resource managers — people’s organizations (POs), indigenous people’sorganization (IPOs), forest guards and wardens, and the communities themselves — asone of its strategic assets in improving methodologies, practices and systems towardBCSD.

In Leyte, the Visayas State University (VSU) developed the rainforestation (RF) technologythat has been successfully implemented in the province and replicated by other conservationorganizations. Through the USAID-FPE Up-Scaling project, VSU was able to increase thescope of its rainforesta tion sites, particularly in Mt. Nacolod. It was also ab le to implement the RF technology in partnership with people’s organizations, discovering realities about implementation that were different from the controlled environment in the academe.Through this case study, VSU-ViFARD attempts to document both the facilitating andconstraining factors to improve RF implementation as the prime technology in rebirthingPhilippine forests.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

CONTEXT

What is Rainforestation?

Milestones of Rainforestation

ANALYSIS OF CONVERGENCE-BUILDING EFFORTS

The Case of Cienda-San Vicente Farmers’ Association

The Case of Prof. Manual Posas: A Private RF Adopter

The Case of Mr. Macario Romano: Farmer

The Case of Can-ugkay Rainforestation: An LGU-supported Rainforestation

The Case of PENAGMANNAKI

The Case of Visayas State University as an Academic Implementer

of RF: The PTFCF Silago Project

More Lessons Learned

A VISION FOR RAINFORESTATION

MAPPING OUT FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

1

3

4

5

16

18

29

31

32

34

11

20

23

25

6

7

35



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Mt. Nacolod Map

Figure 2 – Established RF sites in the Philippines

Figure 3 – Rainforestation Participatory Approach and Implementing Strategies

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Summary of the Different Rainforestation Cases

Table 2 – Summary of Rainforestation Milestones

Table 3 – RF Farm location and size in Pilar, Camotes, Cebu

Table 4 – List of RF Farms, Land Status and the Number of Hectares initiated in Negros Oriental

Table 5 – Number of Species per Taxa recorded in Liptong Woodlands

4

8

30

9

9

22

23

26



ACRONYMS

AFP Armed Forces of the Phi lippines

BMYEP Marcos Youth Environment Protectionist

BTLNP Balinsasayao Twin Lakes Natural Park

CARFA Can-ugkay Rainforestation Farmers’ Association

CBFM Community-Based Forest Management

CBL Constitution and By-Laws

CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research

CO Community Organizer

CSVFA Cienda-San Vicente Farmers’ Association

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

ELTI Environmental Leadership and Training Initiative

ERDB Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FMB Forest Management Bureau

FPE Foundation for Philippine Environment

GTZ/GIZ German Organization for International CooperationITEEM Institute of Tropical Ecology and Environmental Management

IUCN The World Conservation Union

KBA Key Biodiversity Areas

KICCFA Katipunan, Imelda, Catmon Community Forestry Association

KUFA Kilim Upland Farmers’ Association

LGU Local Government Unit

LIP Leyte Island Project

MC Memorandum Circular

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MPSAP Mt. Pangasugan Social Action Program

NGO Non-Government Organization

NGP National Greening Program

PAGE 1 | REBIRTHING PHILIPPINE FORESTS: BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED IN MORE THAN TWO DECADES OF VSU’S RAINFORESTATION IMPLEMENTATION



NTFP Non-timber Forest Product

PDRAtFA Poblacion District II Rainforestation Farmers’ Association

PENAGMANNAKI Pederasyon sa Nagkahiusang mga Mag-uuma nga

Nanalipud ug Nagpasig-uli sa Kinaiyahan, Inc.

PFEC Philippine Federation for Environmental Concerns

PFEN Philippine Forestry Educational Network

PLPEDA Puntana Livelihood Project and Environmental

Development Association

PNP Philippine National PolicePO People’s Organization

PTFCF Philippine Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation

RF RFRI

ROAD to 2020

Rainforestation

Rain Forest Restoration Initiative

Rainforest Organizations and Advocates to 2020

SLSPU

TARSIER

Southern Luzon State Polytechnic University

Terrestrial and Aquatic Rehabili tation by Students

Immersed in Environmental Restoration

TUFA Tubod Farmers’ Association

USAID United States Agency for International Development

ViFARD VISCA Foundation for Agricultural and Rural Development

VISCA Visayas State College of Agriculture

VSU Visayas State University

2



The concept of rainforestation came about due to several attempts to address the conflict of man’s struggle to feed hisfamily at the expense of the forest.

In the 1990s, the Philippine-German Tropical Ecology Program was implemented at Leyte State University (now VisayasState University) to discover the elements of sustainability in traditional and conventional farming systems. By understandingnatural and agro-ecosystems, the program sought to find innovative approaches to these kinds of farming systems in theVisayas. Hence, this approach puts together the elements of forest and food production systems based on the hypothesisthat if the farming system is more sustainable, the closer it is in species composition to the original local rainforest.

After two decades of implementation, rainforestat ion has shown its potent ial for creating relevant impacts towards thesustainable reforestation of Philippine forests. It has demonstrated that native tree species used in reforestation couldresult in habitat restoration, biodiversity protection, and the provision of a stable income to farmers. It is also socially andculturally viable resulting in the growing number of rainforestation adopters and advocates.

The up-scaling project of FPE-USAID is a timely undertaking to address a need to fast- track rainforestation efforts, therebymeeting national goals such as the ROAD to 2020 and the National Greening Program.

The different cases of rainforestation adopters in the last two decades illustrate that the success factors of the technologyinclude the following:

1. Presence of the adopter’s personal vision and establishing rainforestation based on needs and preference;2. Use of a family-based approach, provision of additional source of livelihood, access to resources and strongpolitical will, creating “local champions” and provision of technical and financial assistance;3. Strengthened and well-capacitated People’s Organization (PO)/adopter through effective community organizingbrought about by personal advocacy of the community organizer and continuous monitoring of implementers; and

4. The execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and the presence of CBFM as tenurial instrument of the PO, which solidified the adoption of the rainforestation strategy and provided sense of empowerment andownership.

On the other hand, experiences that showed RF implementation as being less likely to prosper and be sustained werecaused by the following factors:

1. Inadequately capacitated adopters due to short-term project duration;2. Poor management and leadership along with internal conflicts of the local organization i.e PO; and3. Change in administration in the local government unit.

Rainforestation can broaden its scope and benefits if:

1. It is being replicated by government institutions, the academe and other countries in Southeast Asia;2. There is adjustment of rainforestation to cater to the needs of the adopter;3. Continuous monitoring;4. More native tree seedlings nurseries are established all over the country; and5. More researchers and studies related to RF are conducted.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




INTRODUCTIONThe Up-Scaling Forest Restoration Efforts in Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) project by the Foundation for PhilippineEnvironment (FPE), funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), seeks to address thedecline of Philippine forests by enhancing existing forest restoration initiatives in eight key biodiversity areas (KBA),particularly those situated in the bioregions of Cebu, Negros, Leyte (Eastern Visayas), Luzon, and Mindanao. The NacolodMountain range in Leyte was chosen as one of the project sites in the Visayas region.



METHODOLOGYInformation for this case study was gathered through interviews, focus group discussions (FGD), and secondary datacollection. Since it was not possible to interview all key informants personally, because they live in the different parts of the country, the writer sent out questionnaires through email. Data was also gathered by reviewing reports of past andexisting RF projects. To verify the data, the final draft of the case study was presented to RF experts, implementers, and

key informants. After verification, the case study was submitted to the Foundation for Philippine Environment (FPE).

The Mt. Nacolod watershed forest reserve, as well as the other mountain ranges in Leyte are threatened with mining,massive logging, land conversion and settlements, and soil erosion in denuded slopes. Forest degradation and destructionare brought about by the overexploitation of forest timber and non-timber forest products, illegal timber and wildlifepoaching, which are sources of liveli hood by some upland communities. These are seen as emerging concerns, especiallybecause the watersheds in the area are the main sources of water for the surrounding towns and are home to endangeredwildlife species.

Habitat destruction caused by slash-and-burn cultivation or kaingin carried out by residents both within and outside thecommunities also adds to the worsening state of the watershed and biodiversity in general. In most cases, it is highlydestructive, causing tremendous soil erosion and landslides, particularly on steep slopes along the Philippine Fault.

Different reforestation initiat ives had been implemented in the Philippines since the colonial period. However, reforestationefforts were not able to catch up with rapid deforestation, while some were unsuccessfully implemented due to variousfactors (CIFOR 2006). Most reforestation initiatives in the Phil ippines use exotic or introduced tree species, because theyare fast-growing and easily germinate. The species composition of the original forest that once covered the land prior toreforestation activities are rarely taken into account (Margraf and Milan, 1996).

Rainforestation is a kind of reforestation that favors the use of indigenous tree species in forest restoration. Since itsinception twenty years ago, a number of successful forest rehabilitation using RF had been recorded. As of year 2012, atotal of 1,163 hectares of RF had been established all over the Philippines. The Department of Environment and NaturalResources and a number of environment- related non-government organizations (NGO) such as the Foundation forPhilippine Environment (FPE) , HARIBON Foundation, Philippine Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation (PTFCF), and theNon-timber Forest Product-Task Force (NTFP-Task Force) and foreign organizations like the German Agency for TechnicalCooperation (GIZ) and the Environmental Leadership Training Initiative (ELTI), among others, have acknowledged that rainforestation is a promising forest rehabi litation technology. Members from the academe and other agencies nationwidesuch as the Philippine Federation for Environmental Concerns (PFEC) have also recognized the benefits of RF.

The 1,163 hectares of established RF in the country are still a far cry from the targeted 1.5 million hectares to be

reforested by 2016, as stated in Executive Order No. 26 or the National Greening Program of President Benigno Aquino,Jr. The program a ims to plant agroforestry species for the production zones and indigenous/native/endemic species for

protection zones and urban areas . This program is also backed-up by the Rainforest Organizations and Advocates (ROAD)to 2020 which is an environmental conservation movement committed to restore one million hectares of Philippinerainforests using native tree species by year 2020 (ROAD to 2020, http://www.haribon.org.ph/index.php/road-to-2020).

The project of the FPE-USAID is a timely undertaking for rainforestation initiatives to scale up its efforts in forest rehabilitation, especially in documenting success stories and lessons learned in the implementation of the environmentalprojects.

This case study aims to present rainforestation as a more promising and successful method in reforestation, compared to

reforestation strategies that use exoti c species, by documenting its development,the success stories and lessons learnedby the different rainforestation adopters over the past 20 years.




CONTEXT

What is Rainforestation?

Rainforestation (RF) is a method that utilizes native tree species to rehabilitate denuded forests. It was conceptualizedin 1995 by Visayas State University (VSU), formerly Visayas State College of Agriculture, and the German Agency forTechnical Cooperation (G IZ). RF was developed based on the assumption that reforestation strategies in the humid tropicsis increasingly more sustainable the closer it is in its species composit ion to the original local rainforest (Milan and Margraf,1994).

Since one group of its target beneficia ries are farmers, it has to incorporate farming systems to consider livelihood options.Through the years, the different needs and issues of forest restoration led to the creation of different typologies underrainforestation: production (plantation areas and agroecosystem areas), restoration/protection (landslide prone areas,critical watershed a reas, habitat restoration areas, buffer zone areas, and river stabilization a reas), and urban enhancement (eco-parks, roadside beautification areas and arboretums). These typologies were developed based on the purpose,

biophysical suitability and need of the adopters/implementers. Today, rainforestation is used as a national strategy in (1)establishing biodiversity corridors in existing national parks, (2) certificates of ancestral domain claims or titles, and (3) theimplementation of ROAD 2020.

Visayas State University (VSU) envisions itself to be the premier university of science and technology in the Visayas. It aims for excellence in instruction, research, extension, and production. As the originator of RF, VSU possesses the bulk of information on theory and practice gathered through first-hand experiences of researchers and implementers for twodecades. As a prime mover of environmental advocacies and endeavors, it highlights rainforestation as one of its flagshippieces of technology. Rainforestation has been adopted by different environmental advocates from different sectors – theacademe, NGOs, POs, LGUs, private individuals and local and international funding agencies.

6

Members of BSFA of Silago, Southern, Leyte constructing the growthchamber during their on-site RF training (VSU-ViFARD File Photo).



Milestones of Rainforestation

In 1992, the early concept of Rainforestation Farming, otherwise known as Closed Canopy and High Diversity Forest Farming, was implemented. This production system is based on the hypothesis that the closer the structure of a tropicalfarming system is to a natural rainforest ecosystem, the more sustainable it is. For this reason, rainforestation started as afarming system that involves various methods to sustain human food production while simultaneously preserving biodiversity.

The Tropical Ecology Program started a demonstration farm and nursery to test and start research on their hypothesis in1992, by developing a research and model (demo) farm in ViSCA.

Moreover, research fields were extended to volcanic and limestone soils for long-term trials, with partnerships withcooperating farms and land owners in 1994. Ten pioneer farmer cooperators and demo sites were established in Cienda,Marcos, Mailhi, Pomponan, Villa Sol idaridad, Guadalupe, Punta and Patag, Baybay, Leyte and another in Catmon, Ormoc City.These cooperators were organized, received training and were provided with field manuals in the local language (Milan andMargraf 1994). These model farms utilized local species native to the area that can thrive well in different soil conditions.

Monitoring and assessment of these pilot and demo sites started in 1996. Research on the impacts of rainforestation,

silvicultural management, and socioeconomic and marketing strategies were also conducted. Interested clientele composedof scientists, researchers, environmental advocates, students, government officials, and other interested individuals andgroups started coming to VSU for information on RF, which continues to this day in growing numbers.

The period from 2002 to 2004 marked a significant leap for rainforestation. Government and non- government organizations(NGO) started recognizing RF as a sustainable strategy to forest restoration. The HARIBON Foundation forged a Memorandumof Agreement (MOA) with VSU. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) staff from Manila attendeda rainforestation orientation and conducted a cross-visit in VSU. This initiated the DENR issuance of Memorandum Circular(MC) 2004-06, adopting rainforestation as a reforestation strategy in denuded forestlands. The MC was signed by the thenDENR Secretary E. Gozun.

In 2004, representatives from VSU, HARIBON, DENR, FMB, ERDB, UPLB, and SLSPU gathered for a roundtable discussionto scale up rainforestation. The discussion resulted in the founding of the Rainforestation Restoration Initiatives (RFRI) andthe formulation of the ROAD 2020.

The increasing number of rainforestation adopters led to the National Consultation on rainforestation restoration, definingrainforestation typologies in 2005. The consultation was responsible for the evolution of RF from merely a farming systemto a strategy that will fit various landscape types and needs of adopters, thus known as RF typologies. Experts, adopters andvarious stakeholders, NGOs, and GOs provided inputs during the consultation.

Rainforestation training as requested by the HARIBON Foundation was also done in 2005. The training added to the numberof RF advocates and was successfully replicated in the island of Negros. With the success of its replication in Negros in

2007, HARIBON requested VSU to facilitate a series of training and workshop in the Negros islands. The foundation forPhilippine Environment (FPE) also requested trainings in Palawan and Mindoro. At the same time, EURONATUR and DaimlerChrysler and Landestiftung provided funds to conduct RF training in Guinsaugon, St. Bernard in Southern Leyte.

A partnership with the local government of Pil ar, Camotes also took place in 2008 which was an opportunity for RF to betried in a mountainous island.




In January 2009, a partnership between VSU and Environmental Leadership Training Initiative (ELTI) was forged througha MOA. It was followed by a series of National RF Trainers’ Training for Visayas and Mindanao in April, and for Luzon andPalawan participants in December. The last trainers’ training for mixed participants from different part of the country was inDecember of that year. This training paved a way for developing a core o f local person/stakeholders as potential RF trainersall over the countr y. Details of their location can be accessed in the RF Information Portal website, www.rainforestation.ph.

A conference on “Mainstreaming Native Species-based Restoration” in Mani la was organized by ELTI and RFRI members

in 2010. Although it was held in Manila, it was also webcasted in Cebu and Mindanao. The RFRI launching of theRainforestation website www.rainforestation.ph also took place.

In 2011, a training on RF for PASUs in Mindanao was conducted. Moreover, in April of 2011, trainings for Rainforestationresearch and monitoring as well as database management for PFEN members and other NGOs were held. Throughthe project funded by USAID, 777 farmers/POs in 8 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) nationwide were also trained onrainforestation, including those at Mt. Nacolod watershed.

In relation to the implementation of the National Greening Program (NGP) for 2012, training of POs and other stakeholderson establishment of native nurseries in different parts of the country was also conducted.

As of February 2012, a total of 1,163 hectares of rainforestat ion sites was establ ished throughout the Phi lippines as aresult of all the RF trainings, cross-visits and seminars for various clienteles and stakeholders, in partnership with different organizations, groups and individuals.

Rainforestation sites in the Philippines

Figure 1. Established RF sites (Source: ITEEM file)

8



Table 2. Summary of Rainforestation Milestones

1992

“Rainforestation Farming”was conceptualized in LSU;- started as a “Closed

Canopy, High Diversity Farm-ing Systems”

1996-1999

10 pioneer farmercooperators and demosites were established;

subsequently added with 18more farmer adopters

• Monitoring and assessment of the pilot and demo sites

• Conduct of research onimpacts of rainforestation,silvicultural management andsocio-economic and marketingstudies

• Start of cross visits andorientation trainings of

interested clientele

1996 (to present)

The evolution of rainforestation as a strategy, and now as a technology, from a simple farming practice to the innovation of different typologies has undergone serious scrutiny from different fields and specializations. The rainforestation evolution isindebted to the different organizations and individuals who believed and gave RF technology a chance to become part of their environmental crusade, which later recognized this endeavor’s promising benefits.

The following cases are just some of the many success stories of RF. The different cases below represent the different sectors who adopted the technology.

ANALYSIS

Table 1. Summary of the Different RF cases

RF Project Classification Location Key Success

Factors

RF Typology

Cienda-SanVicente Farmers’

Association (CSVFA)

• PO with tenurialinstrument (CBFM)

Baybay, Leyte • Family approach• Passion and

strong protectioninstrument advocacy of the CommunityOrganizer (CO)

• CBFM

• Watershed protec-tion

• Restoration• Production

Marcos RF Farm(Prof. Manuel Posas)

• Private/Individual• Agronomist

Baybay, Leyte • Technical support and monitoring

• Technicalknowledge withpassion for theenvironment andagriculture

• Production

Mailhi RF Farm(Mr. Macario Romano)

• Private/Individual• Farmer

Baybay, Leyte • Continuousmonitoring

• Capability buildingand technicalsupport that reconcile withfarmer’s beliefsand practices

• Production• Landslide protec-

tion




2002- 2004

• MOA signing between VSUand HARIBON

• RF orientation and cross visit of DENR staff from Manila

• Issuance of DENR MC2004-06 signed by formerSecretary E. Gozun.

2004

• Rountable discussion onup-scaling RainforestationFounding of RFRI(Rainforestation RestorationInitiatives)

• “ROAD to 2020” campaignand initiative

2005

• National consultation onRainforest Restorationdefining Rainforestationtypologies

• Rainforestation training that led to the replication in theisland of Negros

Table 1. Summary of the Different RF cases (continuation)

RF Project Classification Location Key Success

Factors

RF Typology

Camotes Can-ugkay

Rainforestation

• LGU-supported

project

Pilar, Camotes, Cebu • Additional source

of livelihood• Political

prerogative andpersonal advocacy

• CreatingRainforestation“local champions”

• Watershed protec-

tion• Mangrove restora-

tion

Pederasyon sa Nagkahiusangmga Mag-uuma ngaNanalipud ug Nagpasig-uli sa Kinaiyahan Inc.(PENAGMANNA KI)

• Federation of POs Negros Oriental • Communityorganizing

• Establishment of DemonstrationSites

• Family-based

initiatives

• Watershed protec-tion

• Production• Restoration

PTFCF fundedSilago project

• Academe led Southern Leyte • Hiring reliablecommunityorganizers

• Presence andvisibility of project implementers

• a well-developedproject

• Restoration inprotected areas

• Production

10



THE CASE OF CIENDA-SAN VICENTE FARMERS’ ASSOCIATION

Location: Brgys. Cienda and Gabas, Baybay, Leyte

RF Typology: Watershed Protection, Restoration and Production

Background of Organization/How RF was adopted

The Cienda-San Vicente Farmers’ Association (CSVFA) from Brgy. Cienda and Brgy. Gabas in Baybay, Leyte, was formalizedin February 1996 through the support of the Leyte Island Rainforestation Project (LIP),under the ViSCA-GTZ AppliedEcology Program. The formalization of the PO was a requirement in their application for the Community-based Forest Management (CBFM) which was one of the strategies to ensure more sustainable rainforestation. Its main objective wasto act as the lead group in the protection, preservation and rehabilitation of the natural resources within their community.

The association’s origin can be traced to an informal group that some farmers organized sometime between 1985 and1987, primarily to protect the forest from uncontrolled illegal logging and slash and burn agriculture. This informal groupbecame Kilim Upland Farmers Association (KUFA). In 1988, KUFA’s activities were later chosen as a pilot project for theIntegrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP) of the DENR. However, KUFA was not able to sustain its act ivities due to lack of

government support. After its collapse, illegal logging activities in the watershed again surged.

The Ormoc tragedy was a great contributor to KUFA’s concerns for the environment. They feared that the continuous illegalactivities in the environment might create another disaster. The KUFA officers turned to VSU (then ViSCA) for help. Theypersonally made an appointment with the ViSCA- GTZ project leaders to help them in their forest restoration and otherecological concerns. Their meeting was timely since ViSCA-GTZ was also looking for a sit e for their rainforestation project.Since then, their partnership began. In December 6, 1996, 63 farmers were trained for ra inforestation, although only 27farmers pursued the RF establishment (Ceniza, Milan 2006). A memorandum of agreement (MOA) was signed betweenthe two parties to forge their partnership and to define each of the party’s responsibilities.

Members of CSVFA consequently also became peer trainers to farmers interested in learning about RF and in using their

farms as demonstration sites for cross-visitors and trainees.

2007

• RF orientation, hands-on

training, and cross visits inLeyte of more participantscoming from several sites inthe country

• Negros Islands in partnershipwith HARIBON

• Palawan and Mindoro inpartnership with FPE

• St. Bernard, Southern Leytewith EURONATUR and DaimlerChrysler and Landestiftung

2008

• Partnership with LGU

Pilar, Camotes, Cebu• RF training and

establishment of RF sitesin Camarines Sur andQuezon Province, and

Pilar, Camotes, Cebu

• MOA signing with ELTI

• Series of Trainers’training from Luzon,

Visayas, Mindanao andPalawan

2009

Table 2. Summary of Rainforestation milestones (continuation)




2010

• Conference on

“MainstreamingNative Species-based

Restoration”• Establishment of six native

tree nurseries and POs in

Silago, Southern Leyte,under the PTFCF Project

2011

• RF training for RF PASUs

of Mindanao areas• Rainforestation Research

and Monitoring Training• Database management

training of SUC’s members

of PFEN and other NGOs

• FPE-USAID training for the

8 KBA in the Philippines• Rainforestation Forum in

Bukidnon

2012

• PA signing of ViFARD, VSU and

USAID-FPE on the “Up-ScalingForest Restoration Efforts in KeyBiodiversity Area - Mt. Nacolod,Southern Leyte”

• Training of POs and otherstakeholders on native treenurseries in the implementationof the NGP

• Establishment of 60 hectares ofrestoration sites in Mt. Nacolodarea under the USAID-FPE Up-

Scaling Project

Description of RF site

Topography: Slightly rollingTotal area of RF: 0.9707 hectareNo. of species planted: 21 pioneer, 12 dipterocarp, 7 fruit treesTotal # of trees planted: 6,817

The rainforestation area was previously cultivated and planted with upland rice and converted to coconut plantation. It waspreviously dominated by cogon and talahib (Saccharum spontaneum ). In March 1996 during the RF establishment, fast-growing indigenous tree species were planted following 2m x 2m spacing. After two years, dipterocarps were interplantedusing 1m x 2m spacing. The fast growing trees served as nurse trees for the dipterocarps.

The CSVFA members performed occasional pruning in their established RF site. RF had been replicated by the PO membersin their privately-owned plots and had been beneficiaries of different environment-related project grants that enabled themto sustain and replicate RF.

12




The luscious growth of native tree species in a 15 year old

CSVFA RF site (VSU-ViFARD File Photo).



Key Success Factors

1. The Role of a Community Organizer

The CSVFA started as one of the pilot RF projects of ViSCA. Mr. Marlito Bande, who was then assigned asa community development assistant in Cienda instrumental in the success of this pilot project’s initiative. Hewas also one of the pioneer field researchers for rainforestation. With so many things to be done, Mr. Bandestarted with the restructuring and later on maintaining CSVFA as a People’s Organization (PO). He prioritizedstrengthening the organization believing that a strong PO foundation with a legal structure can operatebetter. He also emphasized bayanihan and camaraderie among its members. He was also responsible forinitiating the tree seedling livelihood project of the PO which greatly increased participation and the numberof members from 27 to 107 active members.

Mr. Bande is a strong advocate for the environment and won the hearts and trust of the people. In order tofully perform his job as a community organizer, he lived in Cienda throughout his term. Even with his meagerallowance, he refused to accept high paying jobs offered to him locally and abroad. With his good intentionsand personal relationships with the community, he was well-loved and respected even by the elders. With

the respect and trust he gained from the community especially from their leaders, he was able to inject RFtechnology and instill in them support for RF to benefit Cienda and the neighboring barangays.

2. Family approach

The “family approach” was also used in the implementation of RF in Cienda in order to avoid conflictsbetween family members during various phases of RF implementation (ie. doubting wives when husbandscome home late after farm activities)and to discourage men from being drunk after farm work. It alsodeveloped cooperation between family members during establishment and maintenance of the RF. The men(husbands and older male sons) collect wildlings from the forest, prepare the land, and plant. The women(wives, daughters) and young boys did the potting and bagging of wildlings and prepared food during meals.

3. CBFM

The CSVFA, aided by their community organizer (CO), applied for the Community-based Forest Management (CBFM) in 1997. However, CBFM was not yet introduced regionally when CSVFA applied for it. Nevertheless,after some delays and funding issues, the CSVFA was awarded their CBFM in 2000.

Although the PO’s CBFM is jus t an offshoot of thei r adoption to RF, this tenuria l instrument strengthened andempowered the PO in implementing environmental stewardship and other advocacies. This gave a sense of ownership among members and encouraged them to sustain their RF project.

Challenges met

The initial implementation of the project did not receive a warm welcome from the leaders of Cienda, whowere not members of the association. This emanated from rumors that ViSCA may be using the CSVFAfor their experiment, without giving benefits to the people in the community. The GTZ, with funds comingfrom Germany, was accused of using the project to implement survey for the leader finally agreed and wasconvinced. However, after a series of talks and presentation of the whole program plan, the leader finallyagreed and was convinced.

A general init ial apprehension for RF adopters is the notion that dipterocarps are a slow growing species.Due to this, members of the association were doubtful of the outcome of the project.

14



“I believe that the hardest part in farming is the planting. A lot of people would easily cut trees.

This is because they did not plant those trees. Once you plant a tree, you will develop the loveyou have for that tree. As it grows, you will feel the fulllment of being a farmer or being a

steward of the environment.”

Mr. Renato Poliquit

Farmer and CSVFA President, 2005-2010

A lot of people ask me what made me adopt rainfo res tat ion. I always tel l them, it was the additiona l income from RF that

appealed to me most. Just like other farmers, you will not be able to convince them to adopt a certain farming strategy if

they are not convinced that it can provide food and money for their families. They will just tell you “wala pa mo dinhi, buhi

na mi” (we knew how to survive even before you came). We were able to benefit financially from RF. We were able to get

income from cash crops, tourism, from our seedlings and others.

But in retrospect, I believe that more than the economic gains, we were able to benefit more socially. For the years that

we had been implementing RF, each one of us (CSVFA members) matured in our understanding of the environment and of

other people. Inspired by RF, we were awarded with our CBFM which empowered us to become defenders of our natural

resources. We were not afraid to apprehend illegal poachers and hunters and we even stood up against big mining com-

panies planning to set up in our area.




Just last year, I harvested four Bagalunga (Melia dubia Cav.) that I planted and registered 15 years ago. I cried a bit when

it was cut. But then I had to do it because my family needed the money. What I’m saying is that, we should not just plant

trees, we should also take care of them and learn to love them. That’s the definition of being real stewards of the environ-

ment. For sure, they (the forests) will also love us back.

Have you seen our forest lately? Thanks to rainforestation, since a lot of us replicated it, it had since made our forests

lush and green again.

Because of rainforestation, we did not just become implementers, but also educators. We wanted to share our passion

with other people. Hence, we became on-call trainers to other barangays and municipalities who teach about forest man-

agement. We were also invited to different conferences, trainings and workshops to talk about our organization, CBFM

and rainforestation. I did not finish college, but professionals, scientists, students and even the media asked me about RF

technology. Foreigners also thanked me for the lessons they learned from me every time they visit us here in our farm. I

have never felt this intelligent and important before. We were constant contacts of national and international groups and

associations because of rainforestation.

But most of all, because RF encourages the family approach, RF gave us opportunities to have family bonding activities.

THE CASE OF PROF. MANUEL POSAS: A PRIVATE RF ADOPTER

Location: Brgy. Marcos, Baybay, LeyteRF Typology: Production

Description of RF Site/How RF was Adopted

Before RF, Professor Manuel Posas’ area was planted with bananas, cacao, cassava, Xanthosoma, upland rice and coconut.These previous crops did not thrive well because the area was being grazed by his neighbor’s carabaos. He thought that theonly way to prevent his neighbors’ animals from grazing was if he planted trees.

So in 1994, Prof. Posas attended a seminar on RF through ViSCA’s extension program Mount Pangasugan Social ActionProgram (MPSAP). He volunteered his farm for rainforestation establishment, which was supposedly maintained bythe Marcos Youth Environmental Protectionist (BMYEP), a youth organization of the MPSAP. However, when the youthorganization became inactive, Prof. Posas had to take over in maintaining the farm as stated in the MOA.

Prof. Posas modified the planting scheme to cater to his intended needs and purpose. He planted more fruit trees to gainmore income from its harvest. He also planted pineapple and root crops such as yam and coco yam under the trees.

During the early period of RF establishment, even with his busy schedule as a Professor in ViSCA, he would take time tovisit his farm. He goes to his farm every Wednesday during lunch breaks to water his fruit trees, while the pioneer treeswere watered every Saturday.

The ‘Marcos RF farm’ had been a usual destination of cross visit participants and other VSU visitors interested in RF. Thefrequent visits to his farm served as encouragement to Prof. Posas in maintaining and enriching his RF farm, while learningfrom the participants as well.

16



Topography of RF Site: Slightly rolling

Total Area of RF: 0.30 ha

No.of species planted: 8 pioneer, 4 dipterocarp, 5 fruit trees

Total no. of trees planted: 660

Key success factors

1. Technical support and monitoring from ViSCA/VSU

ViSCA/VSU provided technical support through conducting trainings and workshops. He was also provided with plantingmaterials and labor assistance to help him in the establishment of his RF farm. According to him, without the technical andmaterial support from the project, he would have second thoughts in adopting RF.

Technical assistance and trainings are key incentives for RF adopters. It also boosts morale and the adopter’s participationis encouraged. Mr. Posas considers the monitoring as encouragement to pursue his RF farm. He said that visits from RFexperts helped him properly maintain his RF farm. It was also a venue to share his expertise as an agronomist. He was eagerto share his experiences and learnings as his RF developed.

2. Technical knowledge with passion for the environment and agriculture

As an agronomist, Prof. Posas used his technica l expertise on maintaining and developing his farm. He said that his innatepassion for agriculture and the environment are important factors in deciding and maintaining his RF farm. He could havebeen an ordinary professor in the academe, but his passion brought him to adopting RF and maintaining it. He added that maintaining his RF farm is a relief from stress he gets from the university.

Challenges met

According to Prof. Posas, his only chal lenge in maintaining his farm was the natural calamities (especially typhoons)that struck during the initial phase of the establishment. Some pests and diseases attacked some of the fruit trees but were manageable because he planted different species of dipterocarps and fruit trees. In this way, infestation was not sodevastating to all trees planted, because of its floral diversity.

Manuel Posas, Agronomist

In 1996, when I decided to volunteer my farm as a rainforestation site, I only thought that it would keep away the carabaos

and other animals from grazing my plot. It did. What I did not expect was the passion I developed in taking care of this farm.

No matter how hectic my schedule was, I felt like the farm would pull me to it. When my trees grew, I did not have to do a lot

of maintenance. I just go there to feel the fresh air and gaze at my trees and be grateful for them. It was a good idea that I

chose to apply RF for production in my farm. My fruit trees are sources of my additional income. I had been harvesting some pineapple and ube since 1998 and started earning income from my fruit trees since 2000. The harvests and earnings had

been increasing since then because the fruit trees also increased its production. I have harvested rambutan, marang, santol,

and even durian and cacao. Every season for rambutan, my neighbors and officemates would start to place their orders

in several kilos. I did not need to go far to sell my fruits. We would place the remaining harvests in front of our house and

buyers would even look for more. I would earn additional income of up to P12,000 from the harvest of different fruit trees.

I have the best of both worlds. Being a professor in the academe and a practising agronomist in my little farm. Because of

RF, I also had become a little entrepreneur.




THE CASE OF MR. MACARIO ROMANO: FARMER

Location: Brgy. Marcos, Baybay, Leyte

RF Typology: Production

Description of RF Site/How RF was adoptedMr. Macario Romano or “Nong Macky” is a self-fulfilled farmer in Brgy. Mailhi, Baybay, Leyte. He supported his 5 childrenwith income from the produce of his farm. He had also been an active Barangay Kagawad. He was a typical farmer whobattled with a variety of farming problems everyday. One of his major problems was the occurrence of landslides and thepresence of weeds in his slightly to moderately sloped farm. He was in constant search for new farming systems that wouldsolve his problems and improve his farm’s conditions.

Nong Macky learned about rainforestation in 1994 through Dr. Jose Magraf, Program Consultant of then ViSCA-GTZ AppliedTropical Ecology Program and Dr. Paciencia Milan. He was so eager to learn about the new farming strategy and decidedto apply it in his farm. He was one of the pioneer adopters of rainforestation.

Later on, the Mailhi farm was also used as a demonstration site for a project integrating abaca in existing rainforestationarea. A total of 1000 pieces of suckers had been accommodated in the area.

Today, a number of student and professional researchers conduct their studies in his RF farm which earns him additionalincome from fees, notwithstanding the awards and recognition he got for environmental initiatives.

Topography of RF site: Slightly to moderately rolling

Total area of RF: 3.22

No.of species planted: 14 pioneer, 6 dipterocarp, 7 fruit trees

Total no. of trees planted: 4,210

Key success factors

1. Capability building and technical support that reconcile with beneficiaries’/farmer’s beliefs and practice

Capability building through trainings and workshops strengthen skills and competency. It empowers farmers and gives themconfidence that local knowledge and scientific knowledge can be merged. It is important, however, that capability building bereconciled with beliefs and practices of the farmers. During RF trainings, trainees see to it that cultural beliefs and practicesare respected and integrated in implementation.

As a farmer, “Nong Macky” is already well-equipped with knowledge in farming. During RF capabili ty bui lding, he was tra inedon how to properly collect wildlings of recommended species and on bagging, potting and nursery establishment. Along withthe scientific way of establishing RF, Nong Macky continued his farming practices and beliefs.

Aside from capabili ty building, he received a lot of support f rom GTZ during the ini tial implementation, such as the provis ionof planting materials (native tree seedlings) to be planted in his farm. He was provided with polyethylene bags and fertilizers.GTZ also sent manual help to assist him in planting, repotting and transferring potted plants to the farm.

18



2. Continuous monitoring from ViSCA/VSU

Through project monitoring, regular visitation and recording activities were done at “Nong Macky’s “farm. His RF farm was regularlyvisited and observed by Visca RF implementers especially during its initial phase in the establishment. The regular monitoring ensuredthe proper implementation and progress during and after establishment. It also provided lessons and eld insights for Visca personnel

that enriched their capability in handling RF sites. The mere presence of visitors and Visca RF experts was inspiring enough for “NongMacky “to maintain his RF farm. Just like Prof. Posas’ RF farm, Nong Macky’s RF site is a favorite stop-over during RF cross visits

and hands-on training of advocates and RF trainees.

Challenge met

According to “Nong Macky,” people in his barangay and even some of his rela tives discouraged him from adoptingrainforestation. They urged him to plant exotic tree species such as Gmelina (Gmelina arborea) instead. They insisted that according to experts, they will become millionaires after 10 years if they plant these tree species. Nong Macky confessedthat without the assistance of the GTZ project, he would have continued to plant Gmelina and not opt for rainforestation.




Mr. Macario Romano, Farmer

We used to live in a small hut. But this is our house now. We have expanded it to as big as four times its original size. We

used the harvested pioneer trees we planted for rainforestation. Some of the income from the harvested lumber were also used in the expansion. I decided to adopt RF because I wanted to prevent the landslide prevalent in my farms. As I showed

my visitors, the landslide-prone areas has greatly reduced. This is because of the trees we have planted.

But for me, what matters most is the future of my children and their children. It is true that in the beginning a lot of my

neighbors were telling me that adopting RF was not a good investment because the trees to be planted are slow-growing.

But look at these trees now, especially those lauan and narra – they have already grown. I may not be the one who

will benefit from it because I am already old, but I will always have something to leave my family – these farms and the

dipterocarps that I have planted for them. In a way, I have secured the ir future. It is like having time deposits from which my

children can withdraw.

THE CASE OF PILAR CAN-UGKAY RF: AN LGU-SUPPORTED RAINFORESTATION

Location: Pilar, Camotes

Typology: Watershed Protection

Typology of RF Site: Hill

Description of Implementer/How RF was adopted

Pilar, Camotes is one of the four municipalities/islands of the archipelago of Camotes, Cebu. Rainforestation in Pilar wasinitiated by its youth organization. Ms. Jihan Santiago, a native of Pilar and then president of TARSIER (Terrestrial and AquaticRehabilitation by Students Immersed in Environmental Restoration), a student-based organization from VSU, invited ITE and

VSU to conduct a youth orientation on rainforestation in Camotes. Upon hearing this, Mr. Eufracio ‘Dodong’ Maratas, thenone of the councilors of Pilar, Camotes did not have second thoughts about adopting RF.

He tapped Can-ugkay Rainforestation Farmers’ Association (CARFA), an existing PO in which he is also a member, to takethe lead in the implementation. Right after the RF training with the youth, he scheduled another training for the PO members.He looked for interested land owners who were willing to lease their lands for the RF sites.

The LGU of Pilar targeted converting 10 hectares of land to Rainforestation in their initial plan. Today, they have surpassedtheir target and are able to apply rainforestation to 12.5 hectares located in the different areas in P ilar, Camotes.

Today, as an incumbent Vice Mayor of Pilar, Mr. Maratas continues to make rainforestation one of his project priorities.

20



Key success factors

1. Additional source of livelihood

One of the important factors that sustaining RF in Pilar is their alternative livelihood. According to Mr. Maratas, when theyintroduced RF as a restoration activity, they coupled it with the honeybee and seedling production. Although their alternativelivelihood is not directly related to RF, it has sustained the interest of the PO members to continue their group activities,including RF.

2. Political prerogative and personal advocacy

Political initiatives and programs are major driving forces in forest rehabilitation. The LGU is empowered by the LocalGovernment Code (LGC) to enforce forestry laws and implement reforestation and related forestry projects with DENR andlocal communities (Local Government Code, 1991). Local Government Officials can pass municipal resolutions appropriatingfunds to finance reforestation projects.

According to Mr. Maratas, being a government off icial prov ided him the access to financia l and other materia l resources,manpower and travel allowances in implementing rainforestation. His platform as a government official includesenvironmental advocacy with rainforestation as the main initiative. He allocated funds for conducting trainings, nurseryand RF establishment, cross visits/lakbay aral to environmental sites, and capability-building activities. He was also able tomobilize funds by applying for grants to support their environmental activities.

As Mr. Maratas stated, “I want my fellow Camotesians to be proud of thei r roots. I want them to be proud that they arenatives of an island in Camotes. For me, Rainforestation has that same vision – to bring back and be proud of what used tobe here and erase the mentality that ‘foreign’ knowledge and products are better than our local knowledge and produce”.

3. Creating Rainforestation “local champions”

In order to sustain RF, CARFA sees to it that the real essence of rainforestation is understood by its members. Other CARFAmembers who show interest in RF are sent to trainings and capability building activities , whenever there are opportunities.This is to develop local leaders or ‘local champions’ who will be capable enough to handle CARFA activities including RF.

Mr. Edgardo Salazar, a CARFA member, was one of the successful RF trainees who underwent the trainers’ training andworkshop in VSU in 2009. He now serves as a RF trainer and consultant in Camotes for rainforestation activites. Frequent RF site visits in Leyte, mother tree identification and wildling collection in Silago Southern, Leyte are some of their activitiesconducted to expose their members to RF.

Challenges met

1. Topography, lack of biological studies

Pilar, Camotes, is a highly cultivated island, leaving it with very few trees and more barren hills and mountains. Unfortunately,there are no studies conducted to document native tree species in the area. Moreover, there are no sources of wildlingsand planting materials that can be collected and planted in the nursery and the RF sites. Hence, they still have to go toother areas in Leyte, Leyte to gather planting materials. The infertile soils in Pilar also add to the slow growth of trees andother plants that delay the process of reforestation activities. Camotes also suffers from unpredictable weather conditions.




Table 3. RF Farm location and size in Pilar, Camotes

Farm Location Land Area Type of Ownership

Can-ugkay 2 Lots1 ha and 1.5 has

Privately owned, run by PO

Banana Peak 4 has Privately owned, run by PO

Dapdap 2 has Run by parents and teachers

and students of Dapdap Elementary School

Gabigabihan 3 has Run by PO

Kawit 1 hectare Privately owned

2. Land tenure complaints

The children of some land owners who leased their lands for RF claimed that they did not give their permission to use theland and appealed that it be given back to them. Land disputes are usually settled with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)between the land owner and RF implemeters, in this case, CARFA. The formulation and signing of a MOA is an important step in the RF establishment and will serve as reasonable tenure (mostly 25 to 50 years) for RF.

Benefits

1. Social and environmental awareness

RF adopters in Pilar are most grateful for the environmental awareness that was brought about by their adoption torainforestation. It has also instilled environmental appreciation among PO members, and inspired them to learn more

about and value their island, physically and culturally. Moreover, a Rapid Biodiversity Survey (RBS) was conducted withthe assistance of VSU to document existing flora and fauna species on the island. This provided them with the idea of theremaining rich resources they have and what needs to be saved and protected.

The opportunity to travel locally and internationally to learn more about environment and culture benefitted the CARFAmembers including Mr. Maratas.

2. Environmental

The 12 hectares with successfully established RF have now started to fill the once barren hilly lands. They now serve asRF demonstrations sites. Now that the trees have grown, they require lesser labor inputs and in due time will provide more

social and environmental benefits/services.

22



THE CASE OF PENAGMANNAKI

(PEDERASYON SA NAGKAHIUSANG MGA MAG-UUMA NGA NANALIPUD

UG NAGPASIG-ULI SA KINAIYAHAN INC.)

Location: Negros Oriental

Typology: Watershed Protection, Production, Restoration, Riverbank Stabilization

How RF was adopted

Moreover, the entire membership of the Federations of Mt. Talinis and Twin Lakes People’s Organizations, in cooperationwith the LGUs of Dauin, Bacong and Valencia, Negros Oriental, initiated a training and workshop on rainforestation with theassistance of VSU rainforestation experts, Mr. Marlito Bande and Mr. Tony Fernandez. Rainforestation has gone a long waysince the other members of the federation adopted the technology in their own farms. The local governments of Bacongand Valencia also initiated similar activities encouraging other NGOs, students and the local Department of Education toadopt rainforestation.

Description of RF site

A tota l of 5 LGUs in Negros Oriental and a number of communit ies already adopted rainforestation (please see Table6). Approximately, 392 hectares of rainforestation were implemented since its inception in 2005. Several other LGUs,individuals, industrial companies and NGOs also asked Mr. Vendiola and Mr. Carino for regular technical assistance inestablishing similar initiatives in their areas (Carino and Vendiola, 2012).

Name of Farm/Location of RF Land Use Status Area (ha)

Baslay Rainforestation, Dauin Forest Land 75

Balinsasayao Twin Lakes Natural Park, Sibulan Protected area 200

Lawigan Watershed, Bacong Alienable and Disposable 5

Mantiquil Rainforestation demo Farm, Siaton Forest Land 10

Liptong Woodlands, Bacong Alienable and Disposable 2

Watershed Rehabilitation Program, Valencia Forest Land 100

TOTAL 392

Table 4. List of Rainforestation farms, land status with the number of hectares initiated in Negros Oriental




Key success factors

According to Mr. Paul Carino, the fol lowing are the factors and strategies that he and PENAGMANNAKI considered to be thesuccess factors in their RF implementation.

1. Community Organizing

Community organizing plays a vital role in establishing the RF farms. In order to establish a more sustainable implementationof the RF program, the community members of each barangay or sitio should be organized and capacitated based onsustainable management principles. They should have a wider understanding of the environment and have the properawareness of how to take care of it. The tenets of RF should also be properly instructed so that they can implement it correctly.

2. Establishment of Demonstration Sites

Demonstration sites serve as an avenue for learning about RF. It can also serve as proof of the technology and can showcaseits benefits. In the case of PENAGMANNAKI, two demonstration sites were established through different initiatives in LiptongWoodlands, Bacong for a 2-hectare rainforestation farm and in the BTLNP, Sibulan with 4 hectares. These demonstrationsites provided the learning experience for people in the academe, LGUs, research institutions, POs and other civil societyorganizations. Other communities were also challenged to duplicate the initiative after learning the economic benefits of theproject. The establishment of these demonstration sites became an effective tool in advocating for biodiversity conservationat the grassroots level.

On these demonstration sites, PENAGMANNAKI showcased a mixture of framework and climax tree species. This providedopportunities for forest succession to be short-circuited. Most of the dipterocarp trees planted performed so well in the openareas of the demonstration farm. After three years, most of the weeds were already shaded out. The framework speciesplanted also served as food plants for many species of seed-dispersing animals like birds and fruit bats, allowing moreseedlings to be produced in the ground cover. This initiative also provided opportunities as income generating where these

seedlings were sold to other reforestation initiatives. Other understorey plants species such as palms, Araceae, tree ferns,Medinilla spp., heliconias and other epiphytes were also introduced in the third year of implementation. These plants alloweda better replica of the original forest that also provided opportunities for other wildlife species (e.g. insects, bats, birds, frogs,lizards and snakes) to feed on the nectars of its flowers, fruits, and prey recruited in the area.

3. Family-based initiatives

Aside from the communit ies’ init iatives through communal farms and CBFM areas, fami ly-initiated farms are also veryeffective in establishing RF farms within alienable and disposable areas or titled lands. A true sense of ownership can beachieved and management is far more effective through its personal initiatives. Direct benefits can also be compared,assessed, and quantified from its actual impacts.

24




Benefits

1. Economic Benefits

The PENAGMANNAKI members received additional income from their individual farms and their income as a federationthrough the demo farm. The farmers earned better from their cash crops, fruits, ornamental plants, and seedling productions.Each farmer involved in the implementation earned an additional net income of at least P20,000 a year from its produce.

This excludes donations from tour guiding (bird watching) and from visitors during field visits to the demonstration sites inLiptong Woodlands and BTLNP.

2. Impacts to Biological Diversity

A total of 256 different species of plan ts, 17 herpetofauna species, 35 avifauna and 17 mammalian fauna were recordedin Liptong Woodlands (Table 5).

This area has been a target site for bird watching activities by the Wild Bird Club of the Philippines. Many endemic birdsand other wildlife species can be observed in the area. Mr. Vendiola was awarded in the 5th Ramon Aboitiz FoundationInc. Triennial Awards in the field of environmental conservation in the individual category. His prize was used to expand thenursery and in strengthening ties and partnership with the LGUs interested in the programme (Carino and Vendiola, 2012).

THE CASE OF VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY AS AN ACADEME IMPLEMENTER OF

RF: THE PTFCF SILAGO PROJECT

Location: Silago, Southern Leyte

Typology: Restoration in Protected Areas, Production

Topography of RF Site: Hilly

How RF was adopted

The Institute of Tropical Ecology (ITE) is presently implementing a project with the Philippine Tropical Forest ConservationFoundation (PTFCF) entitled “Forest Restoration and Biodiversity Protection of Lowland Dipterocarp Forest in Silago”.The project was conceptualized due to the alarming forest destruction in one of the last remaining dipterocarp forests inthe Philippines, making Silago a “biodiversity hotspot”. The sudden grave threat to the forests was brought about by theconstruction of the national highway crossing through the remaining residual and old growth lowland dipterocarp. This paved

the way for the increase in population due to the influx of migrants from other municipalities. Silago was not just threatenedby large but also small-scale forest exploitation. Moreover, the discovery of a new species of Gomphandra (a rare plant species considered vulnerable by IUCN Red List 2010) was sighted in Silago justifying the urgent need to protect andmanage the area before they disappear.

VSU proposed in introducing RF technology in Silago, in the hopes that it would help stop the ill effects of slash-and-burncultivation, biodiversity loss and modifications of ecosystem functions. The project intended to: conduct environmentaladvocacy and capacity building of local stakeholders; conduct biophysical characterization and biodiversity inventory; designand implement sustainable livelihood options; and formulate a co-management agreement between PO, LGU, VSU, thePhilippine National Police (PNP), Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Department of Environment and Natural



Taxa Total number of species

Araceae 10

Auraucariaceae 1

Dipterocarpaceae 19

Taxa 1

Heliconiaceae 15

Melastomataceae 7

Orchidaceae 10

Palmae 10

Zingiberaceae 8

Non-dipterocarps 156

Fern & Fern Allies 15

Herpetofauna 17

Avifauna 35

Mammalian Fauna 16

Table 5 . Number of species per taxa recorded in Liptong Woodlands

Resources (DENR) on the establishment of a 50-hectare long-term ecological ploThe project started with the usual project orientation to the different barangays involved in the project. The proposal was alsopresented to the mayor and the municipal officers. Prior to the project implementation, the study leaders and staff conducteda baseline data gathering to direct the project’s objectives to the needs of the people and the environment. Four POs fromsix barangays were involved in the project. They are Puntana Livelihood Project and Environmental Development Association(PLPEDA) from Brgy. Puntana; Poblacion District II Rainforestation Farmers’ Association (PDRAFA) of Brgy. Poblacion, District II; Tubod Farmers’s Assoiation (TUFA) of Brgy. Tubod; and Katipunan, Imelda, Catmon Farmers’ Association CommunityForestry Association (KICCFA) from Brgys. Katipunan, Imelda and Catmon.

Once the project was approved, community organizing also started. The project staff also worked out the execution of aMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) between VSU, LGU and ViFARD to make a strong foundation for the project.




Key success factors

1. Hiring of reliable Community Organizers. The community organizers were assigned to:

• establish rapport with the community and help them understand the project

• conduct a survey/index of household members in the community

• verify community assets and needs

• assist community members and project leaders in the implementation of the project

• participate in meetings or be visible in community activities

• make contacts with residents and disseminate project-related activities

• ensure report of data gathered from the field pertinent to the project

The hiring community organizers provide the needed assistance to project leaders who are preoccupied with work fromthe university. They do a lot of leg work in the project site so that time spent by the project leaders in the project area ismaximized.

2. The presence and visibility of project leaders usually create an impact on the participation of community members on the

project. Local people usually have high regard for professionals outside the community. The project leaders’ frequent visitsdespite their busy schedule usually sustain interest in the project and increase participation during meetings, gatherings andproject implementation.

3. A well-developed project description, plans/objectives and implementation strategies will also lead to more defined andmore efficient project execution.

Establishment of RF site in Silago, Leyte

(VSU-ViFARD File Photo)



Challenges met

As academics, implementers of the project are bound to carry on other duties such as teaching and other academicresponsibilities, implementing research and extension activities, handling several administrative posts and activelyparticipating in numerous university activities. Conflicting time among project leaders due to different class and meetingschedules can sometimes delay project activities. Moreover, the travel time from VSU to Silago would take almost 2 hoursby private vehicle. Public transport schedules are also very limited.

The Silago project was not easily implemented during its initial phase. Some barangay officials in the project sites objectedto the proposed project, while their barangay captain was also hesitant. They protested the project during the project orientation. Their hostility to the project emanated from their previous experience with other project donors and funders.They said that previous environmental projects gave a lot of false hopes and promises to the local people.

In the case of Silago, the influx of environmental projects right after they became a hotspot for environmental threats madethem more skeptical about new projects even when intentions were genuine. This is because some projects, as claimed bythe local people, are not transparent enough especially in terms of financial auditing and allocation. Some funders also didnot undergo protocols and proper project orientation and local officials felt they had been bypassed.

These claims made by the local people, however, made VSU project implementers more cautious. They used this knowledgeas a leveling experience to win the hearts of the people in the community. The harsh terrain and impassable road to theproject site during rainy days also delay its implementation.

One of the challenges met by the project team in the implementation of a community-based project was harmoniouscoordination of all the other initiatives in the area, either by government or non- government agencies. Somehow, there hasto be a leveling off or effective orientation of respective projects so that overlaps or conflicts can be avoided.

Benefits

1. Although this project is still in its implementation stage, the POs already benefitted from community organizing and theconduct of various trainings that capacitate and enhance environmental awareness among the local stakeholders. Thetrainings include paralegal training for Bantay Gubat members, assistance in the formulation and ratification of the PO’sConstitution and By-laws (CBL), and anti-mining advocacy.

They were also assisted in the identification and implementation of suitable alternative livelihoods. The recommended optionwas based on suitability to the physical characteristics of the area, environment-friendliness, with marketability and requiredlevel of maintenance.

2. The establishment of a 50-hectare ecological monitoring plot was a big challenge to VSU project implementers, especiallyin the coordination of the involved units or agencies on specific roles and terms. However, the whole process provided an

arena for scientific opportunities, as well as lessons learned and experience for the implementers who are also researchers/ scientists.




MORE LESSONS LEARNEDFor more than two decades of implementation, not all RF initiatives were successful. A number of them were eitherineffective and/or failed. The following are the factors observed by adopters, implementers and advocates leading to failed

RF implementation:

1. End of project withdrawal from the site without providing enough capability building.

Short-term projects that focused only in creating a PO and establishing a RF site usually end up breaking up PO membersresulting to the discontinued RF implementation. Fast-tracked projects also result to poor or improper project implementation.The project is bound to be ineffective because its short duration is insufficient to inculcate the proper understanding andimportance of RF environmentally, socially and economically among the beneficiaries. Apparently, those groups whoseprojects ended prematurely will never really be able to realize and experience the benefits of RF.

2. Poor management and leadership of a community organization.

Proper management is crucial to an organization and can cause the success or failure of RF implementation becauseRF adopters, especially the POs, always look for proper direction from their leaders. Local leaders of organizations andinstitutions should have the commitment to implement the project and create a rippling effect among its members.

3. Struggle within the implementing organization, i.e. People’s Organization

As with any implement ing body, the objectives of an organization, i.e. PO will not be real ized if unity with in the group isproblematic. From RF implementers, this usually happens when financial matters or other issues remain unresolved. Thisresults in distrust among members resulting in less project cooperation.

4. Change of governance.

A discont inued project due to a change in government leadership is a common occurrence in the Phil ippines, and so iswith Rainforestation. There were instances when implementers established a good relationship with incumbent officials, that upon changing leadership in the next election, especially if the victors are from the other party, RF projects or do not get prioritized. Because of experiences like these, the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) became an important process in the implementing strategies. This will ensure the LGU’s continuing support to the project.

5. Lack of monitoring.

The success of rainforestation does not end in the proper implementation of the training and workshop, capability buildingand the establishment of farms. A big indicator of its success is measured through proper monitoring and evaluation of thesites. Unfortunately, there are many established RF sites in the country that are not yet monitored. This would either result to loss of interest among the implementers and/or improper implementation. Monitoring skills should be developed andmonitoring schemes should be set in place to get necessary and uniform data. Indicators should include environmental,social and economic effects of RF as well as the baseline data, which is equally important. However, what is needed is thesustained financial and commitment of the implementing institution or organization.



30

Rainforestation Participatory Approach and Implementing Strategies

This diagram1 is a technical model for rainforestation which had been developed through 20 years of experience indeveloping RF sites through participatory approach.

1 Develop by Dr.Marlito Bande as adapted from RF Resourcee Manual, In Press

Local Government Unit (LGU)

• Administrative support

• Policy and legal support

• Financial and material support

• Technical support

• Execution of MOA/MOU

Local DENR Office (CENRO)

• Tenurial instrument issuance

• Tree registration

• Policy and legal support

• Administrative and technical support

Local Community

• Identification of potential

rainforestation training participants• Venue and food preparation

• Identification of proposed site

• Land claims settlement

• Labor and material support

• Formation and registration of

farmers association• Formulation of constitution and

by-laws (CBL)

• Execution of MOA

Visayas State University

(VSU)

• Rainforestation technology• Technical support

- Farm development

- Farm maintenance- Nursery establishment

• Financial and material support

• Administrative support

• Execution of MOA/MOU

Development of

Rainforestation

Site

• Community

consultation andorganizing• Focus group

discussion and RForientation- farmer leaders- Barangay Council

members- church leaders• Barangay Council

Meeting• Barangay General

Assembly meeting• Environmental

advocacy

•Environmental Advocacy

and RF Orientation•Facilitates in the inclusion

of RF activities in the AnnualInvestment Plan• Identification of designated

office and contact persons

• Endorsement and

commitment of support • Identification of priority

sites for Rainforestationestablishment •Recognition and accreditation

of farmers association

• RF orientation

• Identification of designatedoffice and contact persons• Delineation of support

and proposed area for RFdevelopment

• Endorsement and commitment of support

• Identification of priority sites for

Rainforestation establishment • Recognition and accreditation of farmers

association

Fig. 3. Rainforestation Participatory Approach and Implementing Strategies




Implementing Strategies2

The following are the steps to implement rainforestation through a participatory approach as shown in the diagram:

1. Environmental advocacy and community organizing2. Community consultation and orientation workshop

3. Training on Rainforestation4. Application/Identification of Rainforestation Cooperators5. Formation and registration of farmers association6. Site identification, biophysical assessment and farm plan preparation7. Formulation and signing of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and/or

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

2 Refer to RF Resource Manual for more details

VISION FOR RAINFORESTATION1. Rainforestation aims to restore Philippine forests using native trees, or trees that originally thrived in the area. The National

Greening Project of the Philippine Government and ROAD to 2020 supplements the vision of rainforestation which is torestore one million hectares of Philippine rainforests using native tree species and to sustain provision of ecological goodsand services by year 2020 through an informed and engaged public.

Rainforestation is envisioned to be one of the better options for rural development and biodiversity conservation, throughenhanced ecological services, biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. Ultimately, it is hoped to ensuresocial equity and poverty reduction of the most disadvantage sectors of the country’s populace.

Successful implementation, however, needs political will, commitment and dedication of the adoptors, for its successfulimplementation. Collaboration and good partnerships among concerned agencies are essential for it to be widely promoted,agencies are limited in their capacities to reach out and extend to the target stakeholders. Hand in hand with one another,

it is hoped that the Philippine forests will be reborn for the benefit of the greater world.

2. Rainforestation in the larger context: as a promising technology to mitigate climate change.Established rainforestation sites serve as carbon sinks to help mitigate climate change. According to Goltenboth (personalcommunication, 2012), a Professor from the University of Hohenheim in Germany, about 320 tons of carbon dioxide willbe absorbed by a 1 hectare area with rainforestation under certain conditions:

• Tropical humid climate with average temperatures of 24-26 degree celsius and about 2,500 mm annual precipitation• About 1,000 trees per hectare with a spacing of 2 x 2 meters and an annual growth in diameter of up tp 1.2 cm.• Crops and other goods produced in a rainforestation farm can be considered to be not only organic products, but also

ecological biodiversity products , because the rainforestation farming system supports rehabilitation of the environment and the

given biodiversity.

The realization of making rainforestation a national strategy should not end in national policies, but in the adoption of the different sectors. Collaborative effort on the proper implementation, monitoring and assessment of rainforestation initiatives are necessary toeffectively measure the impact of the technology.



MAPPING OUT FUTURE DIRECTIONS

FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS

1. RF Replication

a. Government institutions

The DENR recognized RF as an innovative approach for the rehabilitation of degraded lands and effective not only in restoring theforest vegetation and biodiversity but also in improving soil quality and increasing farm adopters’ income. This led to the issuanceof DENR Memorandum Circular 2004-06 which contains the ‘guidelines in the integration of Rainforestation farming strategy inthe development of open and denuded areas with protected areas and other appropriate forest lands’. This development from theDENR, if strictly followed, is crucial in encouraging government institutions as well as other organizations to replicate RF and hastenestablishment of RF in the different forests/areas in the Philippines.

b. Academe/Schools

Academic and research institutions promote science-based policies and programs, provide technical assistance and support,conduct project monitoring and evaluation, critique government policies and produce a new breed of ‘people-oriented foresters’and are responsive to the needs of people-oriented initiatives (CIFOR, 2006). These make the academe an important avenue forup-scaling Rainforestation. It is where future foresters and environmentalists are honed. It is important that students are educated onthe importance of utilizing our own tree species in reforestation. Academes are also home to researchers and scientists with different specializations who can do studies on RF.

Promotion of networking activities on RF by academic institutions would be very effective as a multiplier effect of the strategy.

The chambering method is one of thetrademarks of rainforestation technology,where the seedlings are ready foroutplanting within 3 months, with lowmaintenance from farmers(USAID-FPE Project File Photo).




c. Region-wide adoption of the other parts of Southeast Asia, such as Indonesia,Malaysia and China.

There have been some initiatives reported on the replication of RF in other Southeast Asian countries. The transfer of knowledgeabout the Rainforestation Farming technology to other SEA regions with similar problem is underway. Local and international NGO’slike Naturelife-International (Germany), Diakonie (Germany), Tianzi, (China), Wildlife Society (Sri Lanka), and an agency in Madagascarare working together in the implementation and local adaptation of RF.

This is a welcome development and outputs of these activities are relevant information if the potential succes of the RF can bevalidated in other tropical countries.

2. Adjustment of RF to cater needs of adopter

Another crucial factor is the modication of the technology to suit the needs of the adopter. The adopter/farmer must have the choice

of species that will be planted in their farms. They should also be recommended with methods and systems that are familiar to them.Species should be more diverse for more security to farmers and more mechanisms to avoid pest attacks. Therefore, different components such as soil analysis, topography, climatic conditions as well as cultural beliefs and practices should be considered in

RF implementation.

3. Continuous monitoring

RF does not stop in planting or establishment. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of existing and to be established farms is alsoan important component in the success of RF implementation. Monitoring does not only sustain the interest of its implementers (eg.POs, NGOs, etc.) but allows them to record the different aspects of RF development which could be critical information for furtherscientic, technical and social studies.

4. Establishment of nurseries of native tree seedlings all over the country to provide for

planting materials

With thousands of hectares that need to be reforested, the need to establish nurseries of native tree seedlings should also be fast-paced to have a ready supply of planting materials. This would entail the need for proper training by adopters on wildling collectionand nursery establishment.

In addition, production of quality seedlings is very signicant if massive replanting or rehabilitation activities will be done.

5. More research, studies relating to rainforestation (Ceniza, 2011)

A vast of information on rainforestation is still needed to be studied and experimented on. Some research can focus on the following:

a. Proper identication and phenological observation on the remaining indigenous mother trees between islandsb. Species and site matchingc. More in-depth research on the impacts of the different RF typologiesd. Technical strategies in the implementation of RF (ie. Integration with fruit trees, other modied

practices by the farmers)e. Perfecting the seedling recovery chamberf. Carbon dioxide sequestration of indigenous speciesg. Detailed and sustained economic studies of RF



CONCLUSIONPast restoration efforts in the country have constraints because the focus is on the development of forestry and agro-forestry systems using tree species that are introduced and selected for their fast growth and easy germination. The speciescomposition of the original forest is rarely taken into account. Rainforestation is envisioned to be a paradigm shift from what

has been practiced in forest restoration in the Philippines. In our pursuit for sustainable ecosystem management and theeconomic upliftment for our target clientele, this strategy was developed and introduced with the integration of sustainablefood production, biodiversity protection, and balanced ecosystem functions.

In more than twenty years of development and implementation of RF by VSU, it has proved its potential for creating most relevant impacts towards sustainable reforestation strategies. Bringing back the Philippine forests goes beyond just treeplanting but should include wise decisions as to the species to be planted. In this way, effective environmental services that are delivered and sustained. There should also be a strong policy for country -wide promotion, so that involved agenciesare very well-guided.

In the implementation of this rainforestation strategy by an academic institution like VSU, experiences were varied and

provided additional insights as to its benefits and constraints. The lessons learned provided good inputs to the implementersto propel a successful RF implementation. There are several factors recognized that could influence effective implementation,such as the strong political will and the personal advocacy of the adopter.

Rainforestation proved to be a better alternative option for reforestation, however, there is still a lot to be done if we want tomeet the ambitious objectives in ‘rainforesting’ denuded forests of the Philippines.



REFERENCESCeniza, M.J.C., Milan, P.P., Asio, V.B., Napiza, M., Bande, M.M., Posas, D., and Mondal , H.L. 2004, Evaluati on of S ilvicultura l Management,

Ecological Changes and Market Study of Products of Existing Rainforestation Demonstration and Cooperators’ Farms: Terminal

Report. 2004.

Carino, A. and Vendiola, R. Rainforestation: A Community-based Forest Restoration Initiative in Negros Oriental, Philippines. 2012.Proceedings of the International Symposium on Reclamation, Rehabilitation and Restoration Towards a Greener Asia, L.H. Ang, W.M.Ho, C.T. Lee and H.C. Sim (Editors), 3-5 July 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 107-110.

Ceniza, M.J.C., Milan, P.P. 2006. Collaborative Research Studis and Training. Financing agreement between GTZ-LIP and Leyte State

University. Final report.

Ceniza, M.J.C., 2011. Up-scaling Rainforestation as a Reforestation Strategy in the Philippi nes.

Paper during the Mindanao Forum on Rainforestation, 2011.

Kolb, Matthias. 2003. Silvicultural Analysis of Rainforestation Farming areas on Leyte Island, Philippines.

Master’s thesis, Goettingen University, Germany.

Margraf, J. and Milan P.P. 1996. Ecology of Dipterocarp Forests and its Relevance for Island Rehabilitation in Leyte, Philippines. Singapore.

Milan, P.P. and Margraf, J. 1994. Rainforestation Farming: An alternative to conventional concepts. Annals of Tropical Research.Special Issue on Tropical Ecology.

National Greening Program. http://ngp.denr.gov.ph/faqs.php

Noriel, P, Bande, M. & Pogosa, J. The Role of Academe in People Empowerment: The case of Cienda-San Vicente Farmers’ Association

(CSVFA). Paper presented to Ugnayang Pang-aghamtao Conference. 2007. Unpublished.

RF Resource Manual. In Press.

RFRI. Rainforestation Information Portal. http://www.rainforestation.ph/ ROAD 2020. http://www.haribon.org.ph/index.php/road-to-2020.

Rural Communities and Phil ippine Forests: Cases and Insights on Law and Natural Resources. 2004. Tanggol Kalikasan Center forInternational Environmental law. Edited by Atty. Ipat Luna et. al

Schulte, A. 2003. Rainforestation farming: Option for rural development and biodi versity conservation in the humid tropics of Sountheast Asia. Volkmar Stiebitz, Congress Report GmBH. Shaker Verlag. Germany.

The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). 2006. One Century of Forest Rehabilitation in the Philippines: Approaches, outcomes and l essons. SMK Graf ika Desa Pu tera, Jakarta , Indones ia. Edited by Chokkal ingam et. a l

Velarde, GLM. Dissemination and Adoption of Rainforestation Farming: Some Cases in Leyte. 2007. Unpublished.Undergraduate thesis presented to the Department of Development Communication, Visca, Baybay, Leyte.

CASE STUDY WRITER

PIA LABASTILLA has a degree in Development Communication from Visayas State University and has worked in research,community development and in teaching for various institutes in the Visayas State University. She currently works as aDevelopment Associate for Peace and Equity Foundation based in Quezon City and is a candidate for a Master’s Degree inCultural Anthropology at Ateneo de Manila University. Her background includes project management for natural resourcemanagement, community-based forest restoration and biodiversity protection, rainforestation area monitoring, and anti-mining advocacies.

35



FPE MANAGEMENT TEAM

USAID-FPE PROJECT TEAM

Maria Felda S. DomingoNATIONAL PROJECT COORDINATOR

Rosalie G. PasibeLUZON REGIONAL COORDINATOR

June Arthur P. BanagodosVISAYAS REGIONAL COORDINATOR

Joseph Thaddeus R. RabangMINDANAO REGIONAL COORDINATOR/ NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST

Cherylon A. HerzanoNATURAL RESOURCEMANAGEMENT SPECIALIST

(Sept 2011-June 2012)

Michelle D. AlejadoPARTNERSHIP BUILDING SPECIALIST

Ma. Rhodora C. VelosoKNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST(Feb-Sept 2012)

Florence C. BaulaKNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST

Constancia S. BacolodPROJECT ASSISTANT

Carina Dacillo/ Charity Marces/

Anita T. TungalaBOOKKEEPER

Godofredo T. Villapando, Jr.EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Liza M. VidaOIC-MANAGER, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT UNIT

Fernando M. RamirezMANAGER, LUZON REGIONAL UNIT

Myrissa L. TabaoMANAGER, VISAYAS REGIONAL UNIT

Armando C. PacudanMANAGER, MINDANAO REGIONAL UNIT

Mary Ann B. LeonesMANAGER, INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS UNIT

Jay Carmela C. CiriacoMANAGER, FINANCE UNIT

Doreen A. ErasgaOFFICER, HUMAN RESOURCE UNIT

Pearl C. VivarOFFICER, GENERAL SERVICES UNIT



The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is the United States federal government agency

primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid. In the Philippines, assistance started since 1946 focusing

on economic growth, democracy and governance, health, education, environment, energy and climate change, and

humanitarian assistance.

For environmental governance, USAID works in partnership with the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources, the Department of Agriculture, and a wide range of stakeholders including civil society organizations, to

improve governance of natural resources and conserve biodiversity.

Know more about USAID Philippines at http://philippines.usaid.gov/

FPE is the rst and largest grant-making organization for civil society environmental initiatives in the Philippines.

Its support went primarily to protecting local conservation sites and strengthening community and grassroots-led

environmental efforts in more than 65 critical sites through more than 1,300 projects grants. The establishment of

FPE on January 15, 1992 was meant to abate the destruction of the country’s own natural resources. As many

as 334 NGOs and grassroots organizations, along with 24 academic institutions, helped set its course through a

process of nationwide consultations. Subsequently, Philippine and United States government agencies and NGOs

raised the foundation’s initial $21.8-mill ion endowment through an innovative “debt-for-nature swap”. Today, FPEremains committed in fullling its roles as a catalyst for cooperation, grant maker, and fund facilitator for biodiversity

conservation and sustainable development.

For more information about FPE, visit www.fpe.ph

The ViSCA Foundation for Agricultural and Rural Development (ViFARD) is a non-stock, non-prot corporation,

created due to the growing demands by both government and non-government agencies for various services

towards acceleration of agricultural and rural development. In cooperation with several departments and research

and training centers of the Visayas State University, the premier university of science and technology in the Visayas,

ViFARD offers nancial resources management for education, training and research; program, project implementation

for income-generating establishments, marketing of agricultural products and technology, consultancy services for

the design of development projects, feasibility studies, information campaigns and book publishing; research project

design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and appraisal; policy studies.

For more information on VSU-ViFARD, email [email protected]



BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNEDIN MORE THAN TWO DECADES OF VSU’SRAINFORESTATION IMPLEMENTATION



United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Philippines

Documents

Rebirthing Philippine Forests