POST LOGGING BAN TIMBER TREE PLANTING IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Cases of Philippines and Thailand

Paper prepared for International Conference Taking stock of smallholder and community forestry: Where do we go from here? 24 - 26 March 2010, Montpellier, France, organized by CIFOR, the French research institute for development (IRD) and the French international research center for agricultural development (CIRAD).

Prepared by Yonariza

Research associate Center for Irrigation, Land and Water Resources and Development Studies of Andalas University (PSI-SDALP Unand).

Address: PSI-SDALP Unand, Kampus Unand Limau Manis, Padang 25161 Indonesia, Phone/Fax: (62-751) 74389. Email: yonariza@faperta.unand.ac.id, yonariza@gmail.com

Table of Contents POST LOGGING BAN TIMBER TREE PLANTING IN SOUTHEAST ASIA ............... i Cases of Philippines and Thailand............................................................................. i Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................... 1 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 3 THE STUDY .................................................................................................................. 3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 3 Post Logging Ban Tree Planting Policies and Practices........................................... 3 Tree planting support policies .................................................................................. 4 Legal support ...................................................................................................... 4 Material and Technical support ............................................................................ 5 Marketing support ............................................................................................... 6 Tree planting practices............................................................................................. 7 Species selection: demand and supply driven ....................................................... 7 Planted timber tree administration ....................................................................... 8 Small Holder Response ........................................................................................... 9 The Future of Small Holder Tree Planting ............................................................ 12 CONCLUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................... 13 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 13 Recommendation ..................................................................................................... 14 Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................ 14 References .................................................................................................................... 14

ii

Abstract
Two decades ago, Thailand adopted total logging ban policy in natural forest and the Philippines applied logging moratorium in most provinces. These restrictions of logging in natural forest caused a serious domestic timber supply in both countries, but at the same time opening new market opportunities for planted timber. Nevertheless, the process of timber tree domestication in both countries take different paths where Thailand promote local tree species, the Philippines adopted exotic species. Yet the bureaucracy of planted timber, i.e; planting registration, harvesting and transporting permit follow the same path. This finding has far reaching implication on the future of small holder forestry in the tropic. This paper aims at 1) discussing post logging ban tree planting policies and practices in Thailand and Philippines, 2) examining the small holders response, 3) discussing the future of tree planting from the point of economic and environmental values of the planted trees. Based on recent field work in Thailand and Philippines, this paper argues that the future of small holder forestry would depend on incentive availability. These include market incentive, government subsidy, environmental service payment, and other locally available incentive.

Key words: post logging ban, policy, timber tree, domestication, Southeast Asia, Philippines, Thailand INTRODUCTION Background Logging ban and other similar policy tools utilized to restrict timber cutting in natural forest are seen as a panacea to halt continued forest degradation in the tropic . In Asia, this policy has been adopted by Thailand, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka (Waggener 2001), and to lesser extent by Indonesia (Wardojo et al 2001 and Fathoni 2004). A reason behind was an alarming rate of deforestation that devastated the environment. In Southeast Asia, Thailand is the first country to adopt a total logging ban when she revoked 258 logging concessions in the kingdom in 1989. In Philippines, there are over 20 policy issuances on logging ban and moratorium imposed in selected municipalities, provinces, regions, or nationwide over the last three decades (1970-2000). As of 2000, more than 70 percent of the Philippines 77 provinces have logging bans or moratoria (FMB/DENR 1999; DENR 1999 in Bugayong 2006). The logging bans disallow the extraction of timber from the natural forests. Operating strategies vary from cancellation, suspension and non-renewal of timber license or logging concession or revoke the logging concession (Bugayong 2006). There is similarity in term of reasons for adopting logging ban both in Thailand and in the Philippines, this policy instrument used by government responding to environmental, socioeconomic, political and other concerns and issues that threaten the forest and the resources within. For Philippines, Bugayong (2006) claims that these policies have been issued mainly as a reaction to various environmental crises such as calamitous typhoons, landslides, destruction and loss of lives and property, and unchecked deforestation, many sectors have been affected. In Thailand this policy was adopted after Southern Thailand experienced floods and mudslides (PER 1992). The calamity killed more than 370 people and caused US$ 240 million worth of property damage (Saddof 1992). This triggered more anger among environmental activists who claimed that the mudslides from the rain buried villages under tons of uprooted and illegally cut logs swept down the hillside by the storm (Saddof 1992). The enormity of the disaster, coupled by persistent public pressures from NGOs and the 1

media, finally convinced the government to impose a logging ban on 17 January 1989 through Cabinet Resolution (Order number 32/2532). An immediate effect of logging ban policy was, of course, the radical reduction of domestic timber supply. In Thailand, timber shortage prompted government to import timber from Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Malaysia. As of 1991, 77 percent of logs used in Thailand were imported (Sadoff 1992). In Philippines, Guiang (2001) reported that volume of wood import is more than 1 million m3 per year in last twenty years (Guiang 2001). As temporary solution to timber shortage, Thailands Royal Forestry Department (RFD) pushes small-tree use and RFD would promote the efficient use of small trees in private forest plantations to help reduce log imports costing Bt10 billion a year with the price more likely to go up further (Bangkok Post 20 October 1996 and 8 March 1989). The Bangkok Post of 28 June 1996 also reported that the value of wood product imports had risen from 804.6 million baht in 1990 to 1,481.1 million baht in 1994. In the Philippines, as of 1997, approximately US$1 billion was spent on importing forest products (FMB/DENR 2000 cit Guiang 2001). At the end, it is the forestry industry and the forest-dependent communities as well as the buying public that took the brunt of the decreased supply and increased prices of forest products from the local natural forests (Bugayong 2006). Timber industry and wood processing company suffered a lot from logging ban policy. Number of wood processing companies decline. Domestic timber shortage and incline import have put government under pressure to focus on timber tree planting. In Thailand, many researchers, Royal Forestry Department (RFD), and Forest Industry Organization (FIO) officials have suggested that Thailand must produce more of its own timber and wood products for domestic consumption, but also protect its natural forests and environment (Lakanavichian 2001). Hence log import was to be seen as a temporary remedy, and in the long term these researchers agree that Thailand must become independent in wood production for local consumption (Bangkok Post 4 Mai 1989). The RFD has been urged to focus on this issue and to engage in commercial reforestation on 23 million rai of land for the next 25 years to cope with domestic demand for wood (Bangkok Post 8 August 1994). In Philippines, dependence on imported wood will remain until the country has enough forest plantations to meet its domestic demand. At an average yield of 200 m3 per ha of fast-growing forest plantations, a total of 25 000 ha per year will be needed to meet the average annual demand of 5 million m3 (Guiang 2001). A major criticism of the logging ban policy in the region that it lacked consideration for domestic wood supply. As Bugayong (2006) claimed, logging ban policy in the Philippines lack of objective pertains to the rehabilitation of denuded areas or the establishment and development of production forests and plantations to address the loss of wood supply resulting from the ban on harvesting. Meanwhile these tropical countries, Thailand and Philippines have local timber tree species that can be promoted for timber production. In Thailand, there are also more than 600 species of merchantable timber that could be tapped to be domesticated. Hence, what many people believe that when one door closes, another opens and new opportunities present themselves. Logging ban should be seen as an opening door for tree planting. This paper raised questions; 1) how government respond to public voice regarding timber planting post logging ban policy, 2) How small holder response to the logging ban policy as well as tree planting policies?, and 3) how is the future of small holder timber tree planting in this region? 2

Objectives By way of comparison, this paper aims at; 1) discussing post logging tree planting policies and practices in Thailand and Philippines, 2) examining how small holders responding to those policies and practice, and 3) discussing the future of tree planting from the point of economic and environmental values of the planted trees. This paper first briefly describes about the study to which the data presented here relied on. THE STUDY To examine post logging ban tree planting policy and practices, the studies relied on secondary and documentary data; insights from interviews with key informants; wood lot survey; and tree grower survey. Data collection in Thailand was carried out from August 2008 to May 2009 and in the Philippines from October 2009 until present,1 so data for Philippines must be treated as preliminary. Site selection was guided by data on the distribution of logging operation in both countries. In Thailand, field work was carried out in Northern Thailand, focusing on Chiang Mai Province as the former center of logging area. In this province, Chiang Dao and Mae Chaem districts were selected for primary data collection since these were the main logging areas with 9 logging concessions operated in each district prior to logging ban (see Figure 1). In the Philippines field data were collected in Region 8, covering Samar and Leyte island, and Region 10 covering two provinces; Misamis Oriental and Bukidnon. Logging ban in Southern Leyte imposed in 1982 (MNR Administrative Order No. 31, 1982) and in Eastern, Northern & Western Samar it was imposed in 1989 (DENR Moratorium Order, 1989). Aside from Region 8 and 10, secondary data for tree plantation in Caraga Region that covers province Agusan Del Norte, Agusan Del Sur, Surigao Del Norte, and Surigao Del Sur were also collected. Caraga Region is known for tree planting belt in Mindanao Island. In both cases, among the data surveyed were; size of wood lot and its land tenure status, timber tree species planted and reasons behind species selection, sources of planting material, reason for planting timber tree, previous land use, tree planting technique, plan to expand the plantation, and compliance with government regulation such plantation registration. RESULT AND DISCUSSION This part is organized into three subheadings; post logging ban policy and practice, small holder response and their socioeconomic characteristics, and the future of small holder forestry. Post Logging Ban Tree Planting Policies and Practices Unsustainable commercial logging led to severe forest degradation. As a case in Thailand, forest area declines tremendously from 23,096,354.17 ha or 45% of the total land area (RFD Statistics) in the beginning of 1970 to only 147,620.000 ha or 28.9 % of total land areas as of 2002 (German-Thai Chamber of Commerce 2007). The Philippines has lost some 15 million ha of tropical forest since the 1950s, leaving less than 1 million ha of primary forest and the rate of tropical deforestation in the Philippines is among the fastest in the world (Espaldon
1

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

and Smith, 1998). Post logging ban forest development in the region has been focused on reforestation of degraded forest along with promoting timber tree planting. Thailand wants to restore 40% of land area to be forested where 25% of these to be protected areas and only 15% allocated for production forest. Smaller portion of forest to be allocated for production forest means timber production should be carried out also outside forest area. Hence timber tree planting by private land owners must be promoted. What are characteristic of policy adopted by government to promote timber tree planting in the Philippines and Thailand? How conducive these policies for small holders? What form of timber tree planting practiced? Van Noordwijk et al (2008) examine six issues that hinder a regreening revolution based on farmer tree planting. First, issues of terminology for forests, plantations, and reforestation are linked to land tenure and land-use restrictions. Second, access to high-quality planting material remains a challenge, especially at the farmer level. Third, management skill and information often constrain production for lucrative markets. Fourth, overregulation often restricts market access for farmer grown tree products, partly due to rules intended to curb illegal logging from natural forests or government plantations. Fifth, there is a lack of reward mechanisms for environmental services provided by agroforestry. Sixth, there is a lack of supportive legal and institutional frameworks for smallholder tree growing and agroforestry in general. However, this paper has different opinion with regards to point 2, 4 and 6, but agrees with the rest of the point. The following section elaborates further tree planting policies and practices focusing on legal support, material and technical support, as well as marketing support.

Tree planting support policies Tree planting is an economic activity carried out either by state, private sector, community, or individual land owners. However, this activity is not and should not only be driven by market force, government policy to large extent affect tree planting practices. In addition, tree planting involved biological resources which in many countries is under state control for various reasons. What type of policies support government in Thailand and the Philippines have provided to accelerate timber tree planting post logging ban in natural forest? Legal support In both countries, trees naturally grown in the forest are regarded as state property; not only that timber tree species that belong to reserve species in Thailand or premium species in the Philippines where ever they grow are regarded as state property. The 1941 Thailand Forestry Law stipulated that there are 158 trees species belong reserves tree species. The same is also hold true for the Philippines, DENR Administrative Order No. 78 series 1987 which later on amended by DENR Administrative Order No. 92-46 specifies premium species as state property. There are 19 species belong to Premium species. As state properties; cutting, transporting, and marketing of those trees are subject to government regulation. Their harvest is also subject to various tax and fee, i.e. forest charge, environmental fee, etc. This forestry law is not conducive for tree planting and it may discourage people from planting reserve species or premium tree species in their land. To overcome this problem, a legal basis that back up timber tree planted is needed. In Thailand, RE-AFFORESTATION ACT B.E.2535 (A.D.1992) was issued. Re4

Afforestation" means the surface of land which has been registered to re-grow and improve the trees which are reserved timber species (krayaloi) under the Law on Forests. Land owners will get Certificate of the Registration of Forest Plantation Land. The forest plantation Act allows people to grow reserved species by themselves but they are requested to register their land to Thai Royal Forestry Department (RFD). The registered land is the basis for the government to issue harvesting and transporting permit later on. By registering their land for timber tree planting, land owners are exempted from forest obligation. However, in the Philippines, regulation on tree registration came much later. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources issued Memorandum Circular No. 97-09 May 27, 1997 regarding Documentation of Tree Plantations in Private Lands and DENR Memorandum Order No. 99-20 July 29, 1999 regarding supplemental guidelines governing the registration, harvesting, transport and marketing of timber by-products coming from private plantations within private lands or tax declared alienable or disposable lands. A main difference between Thailand and Philippines plantation registration is that in Thailand it is only applied for reserved timber tree species, it is not applied for exotic tree plantation such as Eucalyptus. In Philippines, plantation registration is applied both on premium species and non premium species including exotic species such as Mahogany and Gmelina. Material and Technical support Planting massive timber trees required much supports. In the first place, rural people were not used with tree planting especially for timber as a plantation; but they know well planting multipurpose tree species (MPTS). Secondly, planted tree takes years before harvesting in which not many rural people can afford especially if it competes with their agricultural land use, hence maintenance support is needed. Thirdly, rural people were not used of having timber tree nursery, especially reserved species or premium species; hence support is needed for seedling provision. Fourth, technique on tree planting is different from agricultural crops in which not many land owners have experience with. Hence material as well as technical support are required. Both Thailand and Philippines cases show that material and technical supports were provided. However, there is slightly difference approach between these two countries. In Thailand, to accelerate timber tree planting, Thailand Royal Department of Forestry launched the commercial tree farming promotion project beginning in 1994, five years after implementation of logging ban policy. The project targeted five million rai of land (Bangkok Post 20 October 1996), and government provided the subsidy to land owners who grew timber tree in their farm land. This subsidy was intended to cover costs for land preparation, planting materials, and keeping costs down for the first five years. Participating farmers received five-year allowance (3,000 baht per rai, or about USD 600 per ha), up to 50 rai., maintenance cash allowance was graduated 800, 700, 600, 500, 400 baht per year. It was reported that at least 1,904,087 rai of private land has been reforested, with 1,381,122 million baht distributed to more than 100,000 farmers (Bangkok Post 20 October 1996 To supply seedling, Thai government has set up nursery units nationwide as part of reforestation program. These nurseries collected seeds from the wild as well as bought these from suppliers, and take charge of the sowing. The seedlings were then distributed for free. 5

In the Philippines, there is no such commercial timber tree planting, the general policy since 1987 has been aimed at providing incentive for land owners and Filipino citizen to engage in tree planting as part of National Forestation Program. A variety of government programs have been implemented to support smallholder forestry for production and conservation purposes (Harrison, Emtage, and Nasayao 2004). For example, government provide schemes to allow people using degraded forest land with various form of tenure, among other are; Private Land Timber Permit (PLTP); Forest Land Management Program (FLMP); USUFRUCT Rights in Tree Farming within forestlands where occupation is not allowed; and Socialized Industrial Forest Management Agreement (SIFMA). An objective of The Socialized Industrial Forest Management Program (SFLMP) is expected to result in increased supply of wood and other forest products; accelerated. Seedlings in the government nurseries are primarily raised for free distribution to landholders (Gregorio et al 2004), similar with those in Thailand. Former Timber License Agreement area is still available for timber tree planting; hence IFMA (Industrial forest management agreement) aimed at ensuring adequate supply of timber and other forest products for domestic and export market (Administrative Order No. 60, dated October 4, 1993). IFMA is a contractual agreement entered into DENR and qualified applicant that devolves to the applicant responsibility to invest in, manage and protect a defined area of land under the DENR jurisdiction, to establish, manage and utilized industrial forest Plantation in specific locations within the area primarily to supply the raw material requirements of forest-based processing and energy-related industries; and improve manage and protect residual forest in the area and utilize on a sustainable basis timber and non timber forest products from the residual forest. Technical support is probably the weakest part in the timber planting promotion program in both countries. Looking through this aspect in government policy in last twenty years, it is obvious that there has been not enough policy devised in the Philippines. The only available policy is implementation of timber production sharing agreement at pilot scale (1988), with further more developed into guidelines governing the evaluation of timber resources within areas under timber sharing agreement (1989), creation of regional ad-hoc committee to plan and implement tree planting (1994), and performance evaluation guidelines for IFMA. Specific to local timber tree species the only effort made was a guidelines for the establishment of Pilot Diterocarp Plantation and it was only available in 1996. There is no attempt to improve planting technique. As will shown later, this affect tree planting practice at farm level where tree growers did not take planting distance into account when they planted the timber tree. The same also true for Thailand, farmers tend to grow timber trees densely and they did not do thinning properly. This shows lack of know how. Marketing support Both in Philippines and Thailand, government facilitate marketing of planted timber by various means. The commons strategy is to provide information on marketing. Hence, government provides guidelines on timber price and circulated these timber price list and list of potential buyer to tree grower. As such, timber market has never relied on market force alone, government has played important role in term of tax, transportation fee, etc. But, the government has also made an attempt to control the market and the price of timber for the sake of timber producer since that the state itself is also timber producer. Forestry Industry Organization (FIO) is a state apparatus in timber marketing and production. RFD circulates 6

update timber and wood price to cooperatives and provincial government. This list help tree grower in marketing their timber products. Main different between the Philippines and Thailand is that in Thailand exporting of planted timber trees is not allowed while in the Philippines, there is a bulk of deregulation concerning relaxation of harvesting, transportation, and exportation of log and lumber from planted trees since 1987 to 2007 on and off2. Tree planting practices Tree planting by private sectors can be carried out either in state land or private land. In Thailand, it is being carried out in state land such as land reform object and private land with various forms of land tenure. In Philippines, it is also carried out in state land such as alienation and disposable land (A & D), private land or state forest in the form of community forestry, and other forms of land management agreement. Two important aspects regarding tree planting practices are tree species selection and tree planting administration. Species selection refers to what type of species is being promoted in tree planting; it can be local species or exotic species. Provided that most of the tree grower relied on seedling from government; it seems that species selection is government choice or people choice. Species selection: demand and supply driven High-quality seedlings are a prerequisite for successful forestry and agroforestry expansion in developing countries (Baynes and Gregorio, 2008). Hence, there is a need for seedling quality control starting from seed collection, nursery, transporting, and handling. It needs state intervention. Baynes and Gregorios (2008) report that in the central Philippines, as supplies of timber from native forest have diminished in recent years, the expansion in planting of timber trees has been retarded by sub-optimal production of seedlings from small-scale nurseries. However, Bernaldez and Mangaoang (2008) found that in spite of various
. In 1987, government issued deregulation of harvesting, transporting and sale of firewood, pulpwood or timber planted in private land (Administrative order No. 4 dated January 19, 1987), specifically Ipil-ipil (Leucaena spp.) and Falcata (Albizzia falcataria) planted in private lands. In 1988, the restriction is lifted for other tree species planted in private lands except premium hardwood species (DENR Administrative Order No.86, Oct 4, 1988). In the same year, regulations governing the exportation of lumber and plantation logs also amended where government allow exportation of logs produced from planted tree, meanwhile the policy of banning the exportation of round logs produced from naturally grown trees and lumber produced from premium hardwood was maintained (DENR Administrative Order No.33 dated May 6, 1988). However, cutting, transport and disposition of premium species inside private lands remain under close scrutiny of government where cutting permit shall be issued to the land owners themselves and the species to be cut shall be certified by government agency concerned as not rare and endangered in the locality, and there shall be collected an environmental fee. Further more, the permittees shall plant at least five (5) trees which may be forest trees or fruit trees or combination of both, for every tree authorized to be cut. Exportation of logs from plantation was issued in 1993 in which log from plantation was allowed to be exported unlike logs harvested from natural forest. In the following year (1994), log/lumber supply contract was approved and this followed by lifting the prohibition on the transportation of timber cut within PLTP. Somehow in 1997, government stopped the issuance of private land tree plantation cutting permits (PLTPCP/ and or Private land tree cutting permits. But in the following year, government issued Guidelines (interim) for the issuance of cutting permits for private land timber permits. In 2007 ban on the cutting and transport of planted tree species with private land was lifted.
2

constraints and notably the lack of planting materials, farmers are interested in forestry and are adopting some naturally growing trees and producing their own seedlings. Langenberger et al. (2009) reported ethno botanical knowledge of Philippines lowland famers where they have high knowledge on knowing the usage of 122 plant species for 77 purposes, but they do not know how to propagate seeds of forest tree species. Holding, Njuguna, & Gatundu (N.d) found in Kenya that small scale farmers, when considering timber as an enterprise, seek for a multipurpose tree that will complement other enterprises on the farm, yet yield timber as a final product, e.g. Cordia africana - fodder and timber; Grevillea robusta, fuelwood and timber. But, both in Thailand and Philippines, small holder select timber tree species where main expected product is limited to timber such as teak, Dipterocarpaceae, or exotic species such as Mahogany and Gmelina. Seedling provision by government seems to be a key elements, because farmers have not developed local knowledge on seedling production or they may only collect wildling and transplanted into their farm land. Seedlings need to be provided for free by government through related agencies. Hence the role of related agencies in species selection is crucial, because farmer would plant what seedling available to them or what seedling made available to them. Both Philippines and Thailand show supply and demand driven with regards to species selection. Although Philippines and Thailand went for fast growing timber tree species for tree planting, it is interesting to note that there is a significance differences with regards to tree species selection between Thailand and the Philippines. In Thailand, "Re-Afforestation" means the surface of land which has been registered under Section 5, to regrow and improve the trees which are reserved timber species under the Law on Forests; (SECTION 3 Re-Afforestation Act). In Philippines it is exotic tree species was chosen such as Gmelina and Mahogani. In Thailand, species promoted depended on growers choices where government agencies would produce seedling based on this request. As such, it is more reserved species that is propagated. In northern Thailand, for example, it is teak (Tectona Grandis) was strongly promoted while in other part of the kingdom, farmers choose Yang tree (Dipterocarpus alatus Roxb.). All in all there were 50 timber tree species domesticated under this project, aside from Teak (Tectona Grandis), these are SADAO or (A. excelsa), and PRADU PA (Pterocarpus cambodiensis P.). The top 10 species were native species (Annex Table 1), these are species requested by tree grower to be provided in the next planting round, as such number of species requested in last 20 years declined as tree growers learn from previous planted tree, at the end the number of species requested goes down from 50 to 15. In Philippines, top 5 species planted were exotic species (Annex Table 2 and Table 3). These were seedling species prepared by DENR without consulting tree growers. Scientists and extension services general make decisions regarding which species are tested and promoted (Franzel et al. 2002 cit in Van Noordwijk et al (2008). Planted timber tree administration One of major problem with regards to timber production both in the Philippines and Thailand is illegal logging. Timber tree planting on the other hands aims at producing timber outside forest areas. To solve this ambiguity, both in Thailand and the Philippines, government adopt modern tree registration to avoid overlap claim over timber either planted or naturally grown

in natural forest. Tree grower will get Certificate of Tree Plantation Ownership in the Philippines and Certificate of the Registration of Forest Plantation Land in Thailand. In Thailand, tree registration is stipulated in Reforestation Bill SECTION 4. A land to be registered for Re-Afforestation in accordance with this Act, shall be land which has been classified as the following: (1) having a land deed or exploitation certificate under the Land Code; (2) having an official certificate, may receive a land deed or exploitation certificate in accordance with the Land Code, or possession. This regulation has been well socialized in which rural people are aware about this. In Philippines tree registration is a government requirement encouraging registration of all private tree plantation (DENR Memorandum 99-20) and tree registration will help make harvesting and transport of timber easier (DENR Memorandum Circular 97-09). To attract tree registration, government offer access to free technical assistance from DENR and related agencies, especially on tree growing technologies and marketing as well as easiness to secure documents/clearance to harvest and transport timber, exemption from forest charges and other environmental fees, recording the tree in DENR database which help tree grower be linked to buyers, and better access to potential buyers through DENR information system that could result in a better price for timber (Mangaoang et al 2006). Registration can be done any time but tree growers are encouraged to do it earlier for above mentioned benefit. But, rural people are not really aware about this regulation; one of the major reasons is their lack of knowledge of government policy on tree registration (Gravoso et al, 2009). As such, more socialization is still needed. Some ifference between these two countries is that in Thailand, plantation registration takes place at Provincial office which is very far from rural areas where people grow tree while in Philippines, it take places at CENRO, community level office. In Philippines, it takes 3 days to get plantation certificate while in Thailand it takes weeks to months.

As many scholars claim, government policies in tropical countries more often hindered tree planting by small holders. Tree planting regulation such as timber tree registration which intended to protect tree in natural forest from cutting is also used for exotic species which is clearly not coming from natural forest. Hence, it becomes a contradiction between market force and government policy as case in The Philippines (Masipiquea, Masipiquea, and de Groot, 2008). These regulations caused some burdens in part of small holders to extend that excluding them from timber market while at the same time let other involved in illegal logging. For many rural Thai small holders, dealing with bureaucracy is a troublesome. Hence, it becomes disincentive to promote timber tree planting in rural areas. After interviewing key informant in the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources, it was found out that this policy was adopted to protect exotic tree species planted in state forest as part of reforestation project where exotic species, such as gemelina, was also planted. Small Holder Response Given above mentioned market incentives as well as policy and program for timber tree planting in Philippines and Thailand, how did the land owners and private sector responded to this policy and support? What are the socioeconomic characteristics of small holder that

are able to take advantage tree planting policies? These variables are important to predict the future of timber tree planting by small holders. Both in Thailand and Philippines some private land owners responded to the policy by engaging in timber tree planting. Field evidence found some tree lots in former farm land. Plot-to-plot survey of Thailand study sites found more or less 400 plots where timber tree is planted with total estimated area is 16,078.86 rai (1 rai 1s 1,600 m2) out of a total 1,150,964 rai agricultural land in study sites. It is relatively small area, only constitute between 1.5 to 2 percent of total agricultural land in each district. In Philippines, secondary data from Caraga Region shows that there is a total of 20,480.19 ha of land planted with tree (Table 1). Tabel 1. Number of tree farmers and area 2002-2007 in Caraga Region, Philippines. Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 No. of Tree Farmers 561 1,146 1,772 559 104 123 4,265 Source: DENR Caraga Region Area Planted (Has.) 3,544.52 6,775.70 6,704 2,154.79 595.09 706.08 20,480.19 Average (ha) 6.32 5.91 3.78 3.85 5.72 5.74 4.80

In Thailand, small holders adopt 2 types of tree farming either as monoculture timber tree plantation or fences (in the border of farm land). In Philippines; tree grower preferred to plant mix tree species over monoculture. However, there is a significant difference among region. In Region 8 tree grower only planted different timber tree species in a plot of land while in Region 10 is more on agro forestry where timber trees are interplant with cash crops aside from planting different timber tree species. Monoculture is less practiced. Based on age estimation in the field, majority of these trees in Thailand is below 20 years, they were planted after logging ban policy implemented. The initiative behind tree planting can be categorized into own initiative, government sponsor or other. In Philippines, most of private tree growers, given conducive circumstances, made their own initiative to do tree planting and no so much depend on government sponsor. Planting initiatives in Region 8 however are mix between own initiative and government sponsor while in Region 10, own initiative is more obvious. In Thailand, proportion of own initiative tree grower and government sponsored are equal. Since private tree growers planted timber trees in their farm land, it is also interesting to investigate kind of crop grown before planting timber tree. The survey in Philippines found that tree growers did not plant timber tree in a premium farm land such as land for food or cash crop, they plant timber tree in less suitable land for agriculture such as grasses land, pastureland, cogonal area. But, some of them replaced their coconut plantation with timber tree, like fast growing. Very few of them planted timber tree in upland rice field or fruit tree farming. This shows that timber tree planting is not in direct competition with agricultural farm land. In Thailand, on the other hand, there are seven categories of previous land uses, these are; annual cash crops including irrigated land, fruit trees, degraded land/forest, empty land, newly bought land, and other. Majority of former land use among these timber tree plots were fruit farm, irrigated land, and annual cash crops. These three categories all together 10

constitute three quarters of former use timber tree plots. Hence, timber tree compete with fruit trees. Reasons behind tree planting vary widely from economic to environmental reasons. In Philippines, among economic reasons are; it is a good investment both for livelihood furniture purposes, do not need fertile land, good source of income with less maintenance, and good market. It also good idea to utilize open area and to make the lot productive. More importantly, it is easy to collect seedlings and less expense incurred. Among environmental reasons are; a believe that planting trees will be able to come up with a good healthy and clean environment, to maintain watershed around, tree as fencing and to protect water source, for shade, conservation, and protection against typhoons. Government program is another reason because DENR organized people into organization with an aim of providing alternative livelihood at the same time reforest the area. In Thailand, reason for selecting timber tree can be group into; related to teak, related to planter, related to alternative land use, related to government program, related to land, and some other reasons. Logging ban policy is paramount reason behind the rest of reason, it is an underlying factor. But, there seems a problem with planting technique know how both in Philippines and Thailand. For example, there is no consistence with regards to planting distance and variations of planting distance within the same species vary widely. It could be because tree growers adopt mix tree farming, so planting distance depend on type of farming technique they adopt. Planting distance vary from 1 x 1 meter to 6 x 6 meters. On the other hand it also reflects an insufficient technical support. In Thailand, data from tree grower show a quite variety of planting distance. The distance is as dense as 1 x 1 until 3 x 5 meters. Farmer practices their own knowledge as they respond to logging ban. Nevertheless, many of tree growers follow RFD planting distance, a dense 2 x 2 meters planting distance. This means that they put high expectation from their timber tree planting. Compliance with government regulation is an indicator for policy clearness to the community. In Philippines, only a few farmers and plantation owners register their tree farms with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). One of the major reasons is their lack of knowledge of government policy on tree registration (Gravoso et al. 2009). Probably, it is not only about lack of knowledge, other factors also counted. However, Bugayong (2006) reported that there are 14,019 registered private forests or plantations with an aggregate area of 45,760.93 ha all over the country as of 2005. In our study sites, 75% respondents has registered their timber plantation, the rest is yet to do. In Thailand, farmers responded differently to this regulation. Those who grow timber by their own initiative are yet to register. But, they know about the regulation, some of them mentioned that they would do it in later time if they are about to harvest their tree. After all, the regulation does not specify the age of tree when grower should register, they can do it any time as far as they have supporting document, such as land title. However, based on data released by Royal Forestry Department, number of tree grower decline after the first year of the program (see Figure 1). The same also hold true for the Philippines, the number of tree grower decline (Table 1). These post a threat to the future of timber tree planting.

11

Figure 3. Number of area planted with timber tree in Thailand The Future of Small Holder Tree Planting The evidences from Thailand show that, currently, tree planting only happened in less than 1.46% of farm land. In addition, tree grower survey shows that only a third of them would like expand their tree farm. Some groups would expand when there is government subsidy, while other grower would still expand regardless government support. In Philippines, it depends in the status of tree planting enterprise. Individual tree grower has limitation on the land, so land availability is a main constraint, they do not have plan to expand their tree farming, they want to focus on other activities such as poultry and piggery farming. Few of them event mentioned that tree farming is very discouraging. Individual tree grower who want to expand their tree farming, on the other hand, see that tree farming is indeed a good sources of income, at the same time, they can also enjoy viewing plantation, they would definitely plant more tree and expand their tree farming, especially those who run timber tree farming as part of larger business of lumber and furniture. In general, above mentioned evidences show quite low number small holders participation in timber tree planting and more effort is needed to make tree planting attractive. This is very relevant with the future of small holder tree planting as well as reforestation program in the tropic, it also has something to do with climate change mitigation agenda. Why yes and why not to expansion of Timber tree Plantation? There are various reasons why some farmers want to expand or not to expand their timber tree plantation. These have something to do with land availability, government matter; nature of timber tree planting, its market, labor force; time need to grow timber tree. Judging from tree grower response, unless the benefits on planting tree is expanded into environmental service, it seems that under current timber price and considering long term investment of tree planting, there is little hope that rural people would grow more timber trees. It is very clear that planting trees currently is not that attractive. In the Philippines, similar finding by Schuren and Snelder (2008, 75) reveal that over the past 30 years tree integration in farm fields seems to be, though marginally, increasing due to shifting market imperatives in favor of tree products, decreasing competitiveness of alternative seasonal cash crops (mainly yellow corn) and decreasing availability of natural tree product supply. In the same line of thinking, Olschewski and Bentez (2005) suggest that considering tropical 12

forestry is often not competitive with agricultural land uses such as pasture for cattle ranching, additional revenues from carbon sequestration generated by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol can change this situation. In this regards, government initiative to register planted trees may foster tree planting since the growers can get benefits without cutting the trees and more tree grower would be more than willing to register their trees. Other locally available incentive should be explored. Aside from Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) programme, also known as carbon credits, special incentive can be given to tree grower such as lower bank rate for their credit as a case of the Bank for Agriculture and Cooperatives (BAAC) of Thailand that would provide special incentives for borrowers who promise to grow trees as part of a campaign to promote green areas. It is part of the BAAC's plan to cover 300,000 rai with trees within three years, paving the way for reforestation in exchange for interest-rate cuts (The Nation, June 22, 2007). In addition tree has been part of life, planting tree should also be integrated into daily lives. Important events in live such as wedding can be marked by tree planting. The Nation, (August 31, 2008) for example, reported that Indonesian couples must bring trees to their wedding. All sectors of life should also involve in tree planting in more serious way, not a ceremonial one. These include private sector, government agencies. For example in Thailand, Forestry Department and Ratchaburi Electricity Generating Holding (RATCH) joins effort to save nation's forests (The Nation, May 23, 2008) under "Love the Forest and the Community" programme to protect natural resources in community forests. Similar activities should be expanded to other sector including automotive companies. Toyota Motor Thailand, for example, each year, uses different methods to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the country by as much as 10,000 tonnes (The Nation, January 30, 2008). Although Cossalter and PyeSmith ( 2003) were pessimistic about Carbon sequestration by as planting tree by saying that these plantation will do little to counter the problem of global warming, but without it, the climate change mitigation will slowdown. Another incentive is administrative in nature; simplify the administration procedure is one. As FAO (2005) reported, reforestation can be severely constrained by administrative requirements; these include the need for harvesting permits, cutting restrictions, transport permits, checkpoints, export controls, excessive taxation, marketing permits and burdensome documentation and paperwork requirements. But, bringing this bureaucratic activity down at community level could reduce the burden. CONCLUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION Conclusion 1. Logging ban policy in Southeast Asia is a precondition to promote timber tree planting, but in it self is not enough, a follow on policies should be formulated to provide incentive for land owners to involve in tree planting since logging ban policy lacks consideration regarding timber production. However, the current incentives are yet to be attractive. 2. Relatively few land owners respond to logging ban policy by planting tree in their farm land, aside from benefitting from market incentive, they also enjoy government subsidy

13

3.

and material support. But, tree farming is yet to be competitive with agricultural crops. Only minority of them would like to expand their tree farming. Providing more incentive for small holders in term of environmental service payment and other locally available incentive would make tree planting attractive.

Recommendation 1. Before adopting logging ban policy to save remaining natural forest, domestic timber production should be taken into account since relying on international market for timber supply is not only unreliable but also costly, meanwhile tropical countries blessed with planting materials and land availability. In order to accelerate timber tree planting, tropical countries need to provide legal, material, technical, as well as marketing support to promote timber tree production. Integrating global convention on climate change mitigation in terms of providing environmental service payment to tree growers will help small holder expand their tree planting and provide strong incentives to maintain trees in the farm land. Tree registration will be up lifted with the incentive of environmental service payment since it is only registered tree planting could be compensated.

2. 3.

Acknowledgement I thank Nippon Foundation Asian Public Intellectuals Fellowship Program and Directorate General for Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Republic of Indonesia for granting research fellowship that enable me to carry fieldwork in Thailand and Philippines. However, I am solely responsible for all material contain in this paper and this should reflect Nippon Foundation and Directorate General of HigherEducation of GOI. References Baynes J, and Gregorio N (2008) Nursery Training for Smallholders: An Evaluation of Two Extension Programs in the Philippines. Small-scale Forestry 7:387401. Bernaldez SO and Mangaoang EO (2008) Tree Adoption and Nursery and Propagation Practices in Smallholder Upland Farms in Inopacan and Isabel, Leyte, the Philippines. Small-scale Forestry 7:295309. Bugayong LA (2006) Effectiveness of Logging Ban Policies in Protecting the Remaining Natural Forests of the Philippines. Paper presented at the 2006 Berlin Conference on Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Resource Policies: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity, held at Freie University, Berlin, Germany, on 17-18 November 2006. DENR (2006). DENR Potential Investments Areas: Forestry Plantation Development. Espaldon, Victoria O. and Smit, Barry. 1998. Community reforestation in the Philippines: an evaluation of community contracts. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 10 (1/2), pp. 34-42. FAO 2005. Helping forests take cover. On forest protection, increasing forest cover and future approaches to reforesting degraded tropical landscapes in Asia and the Pacific. RAP PUBLICATION 2005/13 Franzel, S., H. Jaenicke and W. Janssen. 1996. Choosing the Right Trees: Setting Priorities for Multipurpose Tree Improvement. ISNAR Research Report No. 8. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research. 14

German-Thai Chamber of Commerce 2007. Environmental Study of Thailand 2007, Ninth German Technology Symposium. Bangkok: German-Thai Chamber of Commerce. Gravoso R, Mangaoang E, Gerona MA, Pasa A, and Harrison S (2009) Users Reactions to the Primer on Tree Registration Policies: Lessons for Designing Extension Materials and Improving Information Flow. Small-scale Forestry 8:275287. Gregorio N O, Harrison S, and Herbohn J (2008) Enhancing Tree Seedling Supply to Smallholders in Leyte Province, Philippines: An Evaluation of the Production System of Government Nursery Sector and Support to Smallholder Tree Farmers. Small-scale Forestry 7:245261. Gregorio, Nestor; Herbohn, Joh,l and Harrison, Steve. 2004.Small-scale Forestry Development in Leyte, Philippines: The Central Role of Nurseries. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 3(3): 337-351, 2004. Guiang, Ernesto S. 2001. Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural forests: Phillipines. Dalam Patrick B. Durst, Thomas R. Waggener, Thomas Enters, Tan Lay Cheng (Eds) Forests out of bounds: Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural forests in Asia-Pacific. RAP PUBLICATION 2001/08. Bangkok, Thailand: Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Harrison, Steve; Emtage, Nick F.; and Nasayao; Edilberto E. 2004.Past and Present Forestry Support Programs in the Philippines, and Lessons for the Future. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 3(3): 303-317, Holding, Christine; Njuguna, Paul & Gatundu, Catherine. N.d. Farm Sourced Timber: the Restructuring of the Timber Industry in Kenya Opportunities and Challenges. Forest Extension, International Union of Forestry Research Organization. Lakanavichian, S. 2001a. Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural forests: Thailand . In Patrick B. Durst; Thomas R. Waggener; Thomas Enters; and Tan Lay Cheng (Eds) Forests Out of Bounds: Impacts and Effectiveness of Logging Bans in Natural Forests in Asia-Pacific. RAP PUBLICATION 2001/08. Bangkok: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Lakanavichian, S. 2001b. Forest Policy and History in Thailand (Working Paper December 2001). Research Centre on Forest and People in Thailand. Langenberger G, Prigge V, Martin K, Belonias B, and Sauerborn J (2009) Ethnobotanical knowledge of Philippine lowland farmers and its application in agroforestry. Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:173194. Mangaoang, Eduardo O. and Cedamon, Edwin D. 2004. Building-up Partnerships for Community Forestry: The ACIAR Smallholder Forestry Project Experience. Smallscale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 3(3): 353-362. Masipiquea, A.B.; Masipiquea, M.D., dan de Groot, W.T. 2008. Over-Regulated and Under-Marketed: Smallholders and the Wood Economy in Isabela, The Philippines. Dalam Snelder, Denyse J.; Lasco, Rodel D. (Eds.) Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services Lessons from Asia Series: Advances in Agroforestry , Vol. 5; hal 163-176. Olschewski, Roland and Bentez, Pablo. 2005. Secondary forests as temporary carbon sinks? The economic impact of accounting methods on reforestation projects in the tropics. Ecological Economics 55 (3), p380-394, 15p.

15

Project for Ecological Recovery (PER) (1992). The future of people and forest in Thailand after logging ban. Bangkok: Project for Ecological Recovery, 202 pp. Sadoff, Claudia W., 1992. The effect of Thailands logging ban: a natural resources accounting approach. Bangkok: Sectoral Economic Program, Thailand Development Research Institute. 120 pages. Sono, P. 1974. Merchantable Timbers of Thailand. Bangkok: Forest Products Research Div. Royal Forestry Depat. The Nation, August 10, 2008. RFD pushes small-tree use. The Nation, January 30, 2008. Toyota's environmental concern. The Nation, August 31, 2008. Indonesian couples must bring trees to their wedding. The Nation, June 22, 2007. Hug a tree and earn a cheap loan. The Nation, May 23, 2008. Ratch joins effort to save nation's forests. Van Noordwijk, M.; J.M. Roshetko, Murniati, M.D. Angeles, Suyanto, C. Fay, and T.P. Tomich. 2008. Farmer Tree Planting Barriers to Sustainable Forest Management. In D.J. Snelder and R.D. Lasco (eds.), Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services. Advances in Agroforestry. van Noordwijk, Meine; Roshetko, James M.; Murniati; Angeles, Marian Delos; Suyanto; Fay, Chip; and Tomich, Thomas P. 2003.Agroforestry is a Form of Sustainable Forest Management: Lessons from South East Asia. Paper delivered at: UNFF Intersessional Experts Meeting on the Role of Planted Forests in Sustainable Forest Management Conference, 24-28 March 2003, Wellington, New Zealand. Waggener. Thomas R. 2001. Logging Bans In Asia And The Pacific: An Overview. In Patrick B. Durst; Thomas R. Waggener; Thomas Enters; and Tan Lay Cheng (Eds) Forests Out of Bounds: Impacts and Effectiveness of Logging Bans in Natural Forests in Asia-Pacific. RAP PUBLICATION 2001/08. Bangkok: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Wiriyapong, Nareerat. 2005, Planting trees for a better future. Bangkok Post, 07-08-2008.

16

Figure 1 Map showing study sites in Thailand

17

Figure 2 Map showing study sites in Philippines

18

Annex Table 1: Top ten timber tree species planted in Thailand in last two decades No Local name In English Scientific name Number of tree planted from 1994 -2001 631,341.00

Table 2. Timber tree species selected in last four decades based on tree grower survey in 2 regions in Philippines Species 1. Gemelina 2. Mahogani 3. Acacia Mangium 4. Teak 5. Nara 6. Albisia Falcataria 7. Toog 8. Acacia 9. Almaciga 10. Antipolo Total Source: Yonariza and Singzon 2009 Total 14 11 8 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 55 Percent 25.45% 20.00% 14.55% 7.27% 7.27% 5.45% 5.45% 3.64% 1.82% 1.82% 100.00%

DAENG ( ) SATTABAN (TIEN Alstonia scholaris R. Br. 8 PED) 9 YANG NA Dipterocarpus alatus Roxb. Malaleuca leucadendron 10 SAMED Linn. Source: Royal Forestry Department 2009

3 4

SAK SADAO PRADU PA MAKHAMONG SON PRADIPAT SADAO TIAM

Tectona grandis Azadirachta siamensis 438,308.75 Valeton Pterocarpus cambodiensis P 382,474.25 40,843.25 Casuarina junghuhniana 25,969.75 Miq. Azadirachta excelsa (Jack) 23,509.25 Jacobs. Xylia xylocarpa Taub. 20,224.50 12,448.00 12,341.75 9,329.50

19

Table 3. Tree species grown by tree farmers in Leyte island Species 1. Gmelina 2. Mahogany 3. Bagalunga 4. Mangium 5. Molave 6. Narra 7. Auri 8. Ipil-ipil 9. Antipolo 10. Bagras 11. Toog Scientific name Gmelina arborea Roxb. Swietenia mahogani (L.) Jacq. Melia dubia Acacia mangium Willd. Vitex parviflora Pterocarpus indicus Willd. Forma indicus Acacia auriculiformis Leucaena leucocephala Artocarpus blancoi Eucalyptus deglupta Petersianthus quadrialatus Frequency 37 32 6 6 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 98 Percent (%) 37.8 32.7 6.1 6.1 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.1 1 1 1 100

Total Source: Mangaoang, et al., 2004.

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

20