Philippines: Scoping Baseline Information for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance, and Trade

By

Chen Hin Keong, James Hewitt and Thang Hooi Chew

EU FLEGT Facility Kuala Lumpur January 2012

PHILIPPINES: Scoping Baseline Information for

Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade

© EU FLEGT Facility, Philippines: Scoping baseline information for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade, January 2012. 1

This Action is funded by the European Union and the governments of Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union. www.euflegt.efi.int

Regional Support Programme for the EU FLEGT Action Plan in Asia

Background The European Commission (EC) published a Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan in 2003. FLEGT aims not simply to reduce illegal deforestation, but in promot-ing good forest governance, aims to contribute to poverty eradication and sustainable management of natural resources. The European Forest Institute (EFI), an international research organisation with its headquarters in Finland, conducts, advocates and facilitates forest research networking at the pan-European level. Under its Policy & Governance programme, the EFI assists in the EU’s implementation of the FLEGT Action Plan. In 2007, the EU FLEGT Facility was established, hosted and managed by the EFI. The Facility (i) supports the bilateral process between the EU and tropical timber-producing countries towards signing and implementing “Voluntary Partnership Agreements” (VPAs) under the FLEGT Action Plan, and (ii) executes the regional support programme for the EU FLEGT Action Plan in Asia. The FLEGT Asia Regional Office (FLEGT Asia) of the EFI’s EU FLEGT Facility was formally estab-lished in October 2009. FLEGT Asia seeks to collaborate and build synergies with existing regional initiatives and partners in Asia. The EU FLEGT Facility is managed and implemented by the EFI in close collaboration with the EU.

Goal of FLEGT Asia The goal of the FLEGT Asia Regional Programme is the promotion of good forest governance, con-tributing to poverty eradication and sustainable management of natural resources in Asia, through direct support of the implementation of the EU’s FLEGT Action Plan.

Strategy The strategy to achieve this goal focuses on promoting and facilitating international trade in verified legal timber—both within Asia and exported from Asia to other consumer markets. In particular, it aims to enhance understanding of emerging demands in key timber-consuming markets and pro-mote use of systems that assist buyers and sellers of Asian timber and timber products to meet these demands. Work Programme The work programme to achieve the Programme’s goal has three phases:

1. Information Collection

Baseline information (trade statistics, product flows, future scenarios, stakeholder identifica-tion and engagement strategies), applied to countries in the region. Information on produc-ers, processors, exports and major consumers of exports from this region will be collected and collated. It will then be used to develop training and communication materials; to further define the nature of the capacity-building to be undertaken (who the target beneficiaries and what the training needs are) and form the baseline for monitoring the progress over the three-year duration of the programme.

2. Capacity-building



The second phase is the strengthening of key institutions (companies, trade associations, NGOs, government agencies, Customs organisations, etc.) for improved forest governance in each country and across the region to meet the identified market needs. This will consist of training (at individual level, training of trainers, workshops, pilot studies e.g. on individual supply chains and for Timber Legality Assurance); information dissemination and communi-cations (roadshows, seminars, communication materials, website, etc).

3. Customs & Regional Collaboration

The work to support trade regionally and to invest in Customs capacity in accordance with market requirements will be undertaken in collaboration with other programmes in the region. The FLEGT Asia financed this report because it is part of phase 1 and 2 activities.

Address European Forest Institute—FLEGT Asia Regional Office c/o Embassy of Finland 5

th Floor, Wisma Chinese Chamber

258 Jalan Ampang 50450 Kuala Lumpur Tel: +60 3-42511886 Fax: +60 3-42511245 Website: www.efi.int/portal/projects/flegt, www.euflegt.efi.int

http://www.efi.int/portal/projects/flegt

http://www.euflegt.efi.int/



The views of the authors expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the TRAFFIC network, WWF or IUCN, or EFI. The designations of geographical entities in this publication, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of TRAFFIC or its supporting or-ganizations, or EFI, concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authori-ties, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and Registered Trademark ownership is held by WWF. TRAFFIC is a joint programme of WWF and IUCN.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement 6

Acronyms 7

Executive summary 9

1. Introduction 12

2. Methodology 12

3. Policy and Legislation 13

4. Forest Resources 16

5. Conservation, Community-based and other Initiatives relating to the Forest Sector 18

6. Logging 19

7. The Forestry Industry 20

8. Stakeholder Strategy for Engagement 21

9. Trade in Wood-based Products 23

10. Conclusion and Recommendations 27

References 29

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Philippines trade in wood-based products from 2000-2009 in million m

3 RWE 23

Figure 2: Philippines’ imports of wood-based products by product category from 2000-2009

in million m3 RWE 24

Figure 3: Philippines export of timber products by product categories, 2000-2009 in million m

3

RWE 25 LIST OF ANNEXES Annex 1: The Philippines-additional information of relevance on policies and legislation 31 Annex 2: List of stakeholders in the Philippines 33 Annex 3: Figures of Philippines imports of wood-based products from 2000-2009, in million

m3 RWE 37



Figure 4: Philippines imports of VPA core products by supplying countries from 2000-2009, in million m

3 RWE 37

Figure 5: Philippines imports of other timber sector products by supplying coun-tries from 2000-2009, in million m

3 RWE 37

Figure 6: Philippines imports of logs by country from 2000-2009, in million m3

RWE 38 Figure 7: Philippines imports of sawn timber by country from 2000-2009, in mil-

lion m3 RWE 38

Figure 8: Philippines imports of veneer by country from 2000-2009, in million m3

RWE 39 Figure 9: Philippines imports of plywood by country from 2000-2009, in million

m3 RWE 39

Figure 10: Philippines imports of mouldings and joinery by country from 2000-2009, in million m

3 RWE 40

Figure 11: Philippines imports of wooden furniture by country from 2000-2009, in million tonnes 40

Figure 12: Philippines imports of pulp by country from 2000-2009, in million ton-nes 41

Figure 13: Philippines imports of paper by country from 2000-2009, in million tonnes 41

Annex 4: List of stakeholders participants at the meeting of 19 January 2012 in Manila 42

Figure 14: Philippines exports of VPA core products by destination country from

2000-2009 in million m3 RWE 42

Figure 15: Philippines exports of other timber sector products by destination country from 2000-2009 in million m

3 RWE 42

Figure 16: Philippines exports of sawn timber by destination country from 2000-2009 in million m

3 RWE 43

Figure 17: Philippines exports of plywood by destination country from 2000-2009 in million m

3 RWE 43

Figure 18: Philippines exports of mouldings and joinery by destination country from 2000-2009 in million m

3 RWE 44

Figure 19: Philippines exports of wooden furniture by destination country from 2000-2009 in million tonnes 44

Figure 20: Philippines exports of paper by destination country from 2000-2009 in million tonnes 45

Annex 5: Tables of Philippines imports and exports of timber products, 2000 - 2009 in mil-

lion m3 RWE 46

Table 1: Philippines imports of timber products from selected destinations, in-

cluding the EU, 2000 - 2009 in million m3 RWE 46

Table 2: Philippine exports of timber products, 2000-2009, in million m3 RWE to

selected destinations 47 Annex 6: List of stakeholders participants at the meeting of 19 January 2012 in Manila 48



Acknowledgements

The production of this report was commissioned by European Forest Institute’s EU FLEGT Facility which is funded by EU, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherland and the UK. Special thanks go to Vincent van den Berk, Aimi Lee Abdullah, Tiina Joutsenvaara and others for their support, pa-tience and feedback. The authors are grateful for the funding support from EFI for support for this study. The authors would like to thank Hugh Speechly, Flip van Helden, Thibaut Portevin, and Raul Briz of Forest Management Bureau, Philippines for reviewing this report. The authors also wish to thank TRAFFIC colleagues for their review of the report, in particular: Roland Melisch, Stephanie von Meibom, William Schaedla, Richard Thomas, Sabri Zain and Julie Gray.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of all those who came for the stakeholders consultation in Manila at the FMB meeting room on 19 January 2012. The list is in Annex 6.



Acronyms

A&D Philippines Alienable and Disposable lands AFN Asia Forest Network APFSOS FAO’s Asia Pacific Forest Sector Outlook Study ASEAN Association of Southeast Asia Nations CADC Philippines Certificates of Ancestral Domain Claims CADT Philippines Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title CALC Philippines Certificates of Ancestral Lands Claims CALT Philippines Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles CBFM Community-based forestry management CBFMA Community-based forestry management agreements CDM Clean Development Mechanism CPIP Chamber of Furniture Industries of the Philippines CV Certificate of verification DENR Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources EC European Commission EFI European Forest Institute ENR-SECAL World Bank’s Environment and Natural Resources—Sectoral Adjustment loan

for the Philippines EO Philippines Executive Order EU European Union EUTR EU Timber Regulations FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FAO FRA FAO Forest Resources Assessment report FDC Philippines Forestry Development Centre FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade FMB Philippines Forest Management Bureau FOB Free on board FPIC Free and Prior Informed Consent FSC Forest Stewardship Council FSP OECF’s Forest Sector Programme IFMA Philippines Integrated Forest Management Agreement IPRA Philippines Indigenous Peoples Rights Act ITTO International Tropical Timber Organisation JICA Japan International Co-operation Agency KfW Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau—Germany’s development banking group LGU Philippines local government units LKPOLLDA Philippines Laguna Lake Development Authority LPG liquefied petroleum gas MAR Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NGP National Greening Programme NIA Philippines’ National Irrigation Administration NIPAS Philippines National Integrated Protected Area System NPC Philippines’ National Power Corporation NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products OECF Japan Overseas Economic Co-operation Fund PATECO Pacific Timber Export Corporation PD Philippines Presidential Decree PEF Philippine Eagle Foundation



PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification PFC Philippine Forest Corporation PFEC Philippine Federation for Environmental Concern PNRPS Philippines National REDD-Plus Strategy PNOC Philippines National Oil Corporation PO Philippines People’s Organizations POFP Philippines people-oriented forest programmes PTFI Provident Tree Farms Incorporated PWPA Philippine Wood Producers Association PWG Philippine Working Group for Community Resource Management RA Philippines Congress of Republic Act REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RWE Roundwood equivalent SEA Southeast Asia SFF Society of Filipino Foresters SFM Sustainable Forest Management SMF Self Monitoring Form SUDECOR Philippines Surigao Development Corporation TLA Philippines Timber License Agreement TLAS Timber Legality Assurance System VPA Voluntary Partnership Agreement UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UPLB-CNFR College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines WCO World Customs Organisation



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides overview and baseline information relating to timber trade, industry and forest governance within the Philippines. The study on which it is based used Customs statis-tics for the period 2000 to 2009 for analysis of trade, specifically Tradeline Philippines and UN Comtrade statistics. As anomalies and inconsistencies occur in these data, they should be taken as indicative of trade only. Presidential Decree 705 of 1975 as amended (Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines) is the basic law in forestry which is the source of the implementing rules and regulations pertaining to forest resources in the Philippines, though selected sections have been amended or modi-fied by various forestry-related laws since 1987 to the present. Several versions of Forest Management Bills have been submitted since 1988 and containing major policy directions to underpin development of the forestry sector in the country has not yet been enacted. The lat-est version of which is the Sustainable Forest Management Bill of 2010 that finally reached the Philippine Senate. However, it was not passed into law due to lack of quorum. In 2010, it was estimated that the Philippines had 7.67 million hectares of forest (FAO, 2010). Forest land is accorded functional use classes, broadly speaking being designated for produc-tion or protection. In recent years, community-based and other reforms of forest management policy have been at work, but the forestry sector is not without incidence due to numerous re-ported cases of illegal logging in the country, which the authorities have difficulty in controlling. The Philippines is not a major trader of timber products from the Southeast Asia region. There is intra-regional timber product trade, but it is small with Malaysia being the main trading part-ner. In general, the Philippines imports larger quantities of round logs and various timber products than it exports. However, Philippines had negligible exports to the EU but the exports are mostly mouldings and joinery and high value finished products like wooden furniture. The import value of the wood-based products imported into the EU from the Philippines during 2009 amounted to USD25 million. The Philippines supplied a negligible share which is less than 1% by value of the wood-based products imported into the EU from South-east Asia during the last decade. However, it is possible that some of the imports to the Philippines, especially from neighbour-ing countries, could be included in the products exported to the EU. Philippines main exports are to China (sawn timber) and Japan (mouldings and joinery). Some intra-regional timber flows include shipments from Indonesia that appear to be of dubious origin. These imported products could be further processed or directly re-exported to the EU, in which case EU Regu-lation No. 995/2010 (widely known as the “EU Timber Regulation”), laying down obligations for operators who place timber and timber products on the market, would apply. For Malaysia and Indonesia, once the EU Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) is signed, products with a mix of imported materials without verified supporting legal documents may not be able to en-ter the EU market: negotiations with other countries in the SEA region, such as Vietnam, have only started recently. Therefore, there is still a need for the Philippines to clarify the legality of its sources of timber and the supply chain. In 2005, about 85% of forest was State-owned; 14% privately owned; 0.1% municipality-owned; and 0.3% was owned by the community. The legal status of supply from all the different types of ownership and management would need to be established as part of overall legality verification in the forestry sector.



In terms of industry bodies, the main companies to be engaged first in seeking legality of the forestry sector in the Philippines are timber product exporters, and those members of the Phil-ippines Exporters Confederation. If these companies can advocate and help their supply chain to be legal, this will create a multiplier effect. The challenge is how best to motivate these companies to take on their corporate social responsibilities. The Forest Management Bureau (FMB) serves as the lead agency on all matters pertaining to the management of the country’s forestlands. Therefore it would be most appropriate for the Director of FMB to be appointed as the focal person and co-ordinator for arranging stake-holders’ consultations in the Philippines with regard to issues on FLEGT affecting the Philip-pines. Besides, the Philippines has organized, handled and hosted various regional discus-sions, workshops, and meetings tackling the varied issues to combat illegal logging as well as money laundering in Asia Pacific forest law enforcement and governance from 2003 to late 2007. By 2020, the natural forests in the Philippines will have declined further, a consequence of un-sustainable forest management practices, forestland conversion to other uses, illegal logging and collection of fuel wood persist. However, the area of forest plantations is predicted to ex-pand in terms of area planted and developed. If Malaysia were to sign the VPA, and Indone-sia which has signed the VPA with the EU, the possibilities of illegal timber being traded by these two countries with the Philippines would be reduced.

The EU should consider the following recommendations to assist the Philippines to meet the VPA and EU Timber Regulation requirements:

The stakeholder consultation of 19 January 2012 in Manila encouraged the EC to visit Philip-pines soon to encourage and discuss the possibility of the country to enter into a negotiation for a VPA.

Enhancement of the awareness and knowledge of the VPA and the EU Timber Regulation, and their implications to timber trade in the Philippines. This is particularly important for those industries in the chain supplying EU markets, which will need to ensure they have clear evi-dence of the origin of their raw materials and verification of its legality. It is recommended that more awareness, training and capacity-building among the timber industries, civil society and government agencies can be conducted. A particular challenge with the Timber Regulation is that the legal requirement in the EU requires the first placer of the timber to have a traceability system. It will be easy for operators in the EU to obtain legal documents but not the full trace-ability system back to the stump. Hence, the evidence that might be needed for operators and monitoring organisations under the Timber Regulation has to be from a combination of a fea-sible and working timber tracking system and chain of custody procedures including some form of forest certification system using an internationally accepted forest assessment tool such as the Philippine Criteria and Indicators with audit system that will lead to SFM in the country. EC should consider providing support to Philippines for their industry to meet the re-quirements of the EU Timber Regulations (EUTR).

Assistance in developing ways of capturing national data on domestic trade. Governments should develop a system for data collection, compilation and analysis to determine the scale and scope of domestic consumption. This information, coupled with production data, imports and exports, can give a good basis for evaluating and revising national policies, legislation and systems. This is in particular relevant as there are significant unaccounted logs circulating in



the market in the Philippines and some of which could be exported in a processed form, in-cluding to the EU.

EU engagement with other countries and territories that export timber to the EU which may originate from Philippines, and other Asian markets (in particular South Korea), India and the Middle East. For countries such as China and Japan, which are already in dialogue with the EU, the EU should identify specific areas for collaboration, such as Customs co-operation, and to review the trade in sawn timber which makes up the most volume of export to China from the Philippines. Presumably the mouldings and joinery exports to Japan remains in that coun-try.

Engagement with the Philippines Government to assist in reforming of the forestry sector, in-cluding its laws and mechanism to ensure legality of the raw timber materials entering into the timber industries and operations in the country to meet the requirements of the EU Timber Regulations. More streamlined legal controls may help in reducing illegal logging and illegal timber trade and provide a more consistent and legal supply of timber from the Philippines.

To look further into the movement of timber from Indonesia to the Philippines. And to look into the movement of round log from Malaysia or Indonesia, Papua New Guinea or Solomon Is-lands to the Philippines (including into Special Economic Zones) although covered by log sup-ply contracts authenticated by the Philippine embassies or consular offices on the country of origin.

To look further into the Malaysia-Philippines timber trade, in particular Malaysia’s export since it is one of the main exporter of timber products to the Philippines.

Encourage the EC to provide support to look into the role, sustainability and legality of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) for livelihood, conservation and trade in the Philippines which many local communities are dependent upon.



1. INTRODUCTION This study provides overview and baseline information relating to timber trade, industry and forest governance within the Philippines. It draws on existing national data and recommends steps for further analysis and monitoring, and proposes an engagement strategy for moving the Asia Regional Programme of the European Union (EU)’s Forest Law Enforcement, Gov-ernance and Trade (EU FLEGT) forward in its implementation with key stakeholders in Philip-pines. The Philippines is considered as one of the 18 mega-diversity countries which together con-tain 70-80% of global biodiversity. In fact, the country has more than 52 177 described species and the number continues to be updated. More than half of the recorded 1130 amphibians, birds and mammal species in the Philippines are found nowhere else in the world. The diver-sity of plants in the country is equally amazing. There are between 10 000 and 14 000 species of vascular and non-vascular plants, half of which are endemics. Additional information is found in Annex 1. The Philippines was one of the largest exporters of timber products in the Southeast Asia region in the 1970s before its forest resources were reduced through over ex-ploitation, harvesting beyond the authorized cut and designated cutting area, unsound forest management practices, and the need for land for development and other uses that made Phil-ippines a net importer of timber products in recent years.

2. METHODOLOGY

This study used official Customs statistics of the Philippines for the period 2000 to 2009, inclu-sive (often referred to in the report as “the last decade”). Customs statistics are one of the few data sets that are comparable across countries. The official Customs statistics of the Philip-pines are classified according to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) of the World Customs Organization (WCO), an internationally standardized system of names and numbers for categorizing traded products. The HS codes used by all Customs agencies which are members of the WCO are similar, to the 6 digit level. The statistics con-sidered in this study were solely those under the HS44 timber product code. Official export statistics for the Philippines under this code were compiled and analysed. The Philippines data sources are Tradeline

1 Philippines for the years 2000-2006 (excluding

wooden furniture) and UN Comtrade for data for the period 2007-2009, and wooden furniture2.

Some of the data are based on a constant factor of value and so the various anomalies would need to be addressed before they could be used comparatively. Round Wood Equivalent (RWE) volume is a measure of the volume of logs used in making a given volume or weight of a wood-based product. For each type of product, the volume of logs used might vary, perhaps substantially, depending on such factors as the type of mill and the diameter and quality of those logs. In this assessment, RWE has been estimated by mul-tiplying source data (revised where anomalous or estimated from trade value) by the following: in cubic metres per cubic metre—1.4 (particleboard), 1.8 (sawn timber and fibre board), 1.9 (veneer and mouldings), 2.3 (plywood); and, in cubic metres per tonne: 1.6 (wood chips), 2.8 (wooden furniture), 3.5 (paper), 4.5 (wood-based pulp), zero (pulp based on waste paper). In order to avoid double counting, it might be appropriate to modify such factors if a substantial

1http://tradelinephil.dti.gov.ph/betp/dti2.main

2http://comtrade.un.org/db/dqQuickQuery.aspx?cc=4407*,%20-4407&px=H0&r=608&y=2008&p=ALL&rg=1&so=8



proportion of the timber raw material actually used in making a given type of product was al-ready accounted for in the RWE volume of the products from which that raw material was de-rived. It is important to note that the statistics compiled contain some anomalies and inconsistencies and should therefore be taken as indicative of the extent of the trade only. “Paper sector products” in this study equate to wood chips and mill residues, wood-based pulp and paper; timber sector products are all wood-based products other than fuel wood and pa-per sector products. A stakeholder consultation that brought 16 persons from various organisations such as De-partment of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Forest Management Bureau (FMB), customs, industry, NGOs and professionals to discuss the draft report and recommendations was organised with the help of FMB in Manila on 19 January 2012. The list of stakeholders is found in Annex 6. A revised set of recommendations is incorporated into this report.

3. POLICY AND LEGISLATION

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines has stipulated three modalities of exploiting natural resources, including forest resources. These are through joint venture agreement, co-production agreement and production-sharing agreement. As a result, the old Timber Licence Agreements (TLAs) or the concession system have been phased-out and replaced with the In-tegrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA), which is actually a production-sharing agreement. The maximum area of a given IFMA is 40 000 hectares and the tenure-holder is required to rehabilitate the residual forests and develop forest plantations using fast growing species suitable to the area. For areas that are very poorly stocked, the IFMA holder is al-lowed to plant agricultural crops, as long as the area planted does not exceed 10% of the total IFMA area. The last TLA in the country will expire in 2023. The Presidential Decree (PD) 705 of 1975 as amended, otherwise known as Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines embodies most of the regulations on the management, administration, regulation, use, protection, and development of forest resources in the country. Its policy im-plementation strategy is based on management of productive forests, reforestation, stabiliza-tion of upland communities, and protection of critical watersheds. The policies adopted by the Code are as follows: (i) the multiple-use of forestlands to be oriented to the development and progress re-

quirements of the country, advancement of science and technology, and public wel-fare;

(ii) land classification and survey to be systematized and hastened;

(iii) establishment of timber processing plants to be encouraged and rationalized; and (iv) the protection, development and rehabilitation of forestlands to be emphasized to en-

sure their continuous productive condition.

As PD 705 was drawn up when the major thrust of the Philippine forestry was towards mas-sive commercial exploitation of the vast State-owned natural forests by large corporations, there have been various forestry-related laws introduced since 1990, such as the ban on har-



vesting and cutting of mangrove trees through the enactment by Congress of Republic Act (RA) 7161; the promulgation of an Act in 1992, RA 7586, better known as the National Inte-grated Protected Area System (NIPAS) that declared certain areas in the public forest as pro-tected areas and excluded from timber exploitation although prior rights or vested rights are respected, multiple-use zones established; and Protected Area Community-based Forest Management Agreement (PCBARMA) as well adoption of the Community-based Forest Man-agement Agreement in 1995 as the national strategy for the management and sustainable de-velopment of forest resources in the Philippines through Executive Order (EO) 263; and EO 318 of 2004 that mandates Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) as the overarching frame-work for all activities involving the development, conservation and protection of the forest re-sources of the country. Other legislation includes the RA 7160 of 1991 on the Local Govern-ment Code that grants authority to local governments units through devolution to manage for-estlands such as small watersheds and integrated social forestry areas; EO 247 of 1995 on prospecting of biological and genetic resources; RA 8371 of 1997, commonly referred to as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA Law), which recognizes, protects and promotes the rights of indigenous communities and indigenous peoples; RA 8425 of 1998 that addresses social reform and poverty alleviation programme; RA 9147 of 2001 or the Wildlife Conserva-tion and Protection Act for the conservation and protection of wildlife species and their habitats to promote ecological balance and enhance biological diversity, including the listing of threat-ened terrestrial animal and plant species; and RA 9367 of 2006 or the Biofuels Act that calls for the replacement of diesel fuel with bio-diesel and gasoline with bioethanol due to the rising cost of fossil fuel on the economy. The issuance of the above-mentioned legislations by the Philippines Congress and executive orders by the Executive Department were also aimed to halt the rapid depletion of the forest resources that was attributed to big logging concessionaires during the late 1950s to 1970s; the inevitable occupation of logged-over forestlands by the landless who converted these ar-eas into slash-and-burn farm lands (kaingin); illegal cutting for fuel wood production and other uses of timber by forest-dependent communities and those living within the vicinity of forested areas; as well as uncontrolled conversion of forestlands to non-forest uses (Forest Manage-ment Bureau, 2008). This brought about a major forest policy shift in the early 1990s. It changed from a highly cen-tralized to a decentralized mode of governance, and from a timber production-oriented to a more protection-focused management approach through the implementation of the Master Plan for Forest Development in 1990 (revised in 2003). This policy change was manifested through log and lumber export bans; a ban on timber harvesting or logging in old growth for-ests/virgin forests and in areas with slope greater than 50% and those with elevation higher than 1,000 m above sea level; delineation of boundaries between forest lands and national parks; increased forest charges; massive tree-planting efforts; reforestation and establishment of forest plantations; creation of a sound national protected area system to promote biological diversity conservation; and implementation of ecosystem and watershed approaches in forest management. The changing policy was also evidenced by the devolution of certain forest management and protection functions of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to local government units (LGUs); participation of civil society, particularly non-governmental organiza-tions (NGOs) and People’s Organizations (POs), in people-oriented forest programmes (POFPs); recognition of vested rights of indigenous peoples (IPs) over their ancestral lands; and adoption of the Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) as the national strategy for SFM and social justice.



In this regard, the CBFM provides the legal basis for the participation of local communities in the management of watersheds that cover all areas classified as forestlands, including allow-able zones within protected areas. Under CBFM, communities are organized and given long-term tenurial instruments called - CBFM Agreements (CBFMAs) - good for 25 years, renew-able for another 25 years, over forest areas of a maximum of 5,000 hectares each, with the privilege to derive direct benefits through harvesting of forest products, albeit with permits awarded by the DENR, agro-forestry and other livelihood programmes. Benefits derived from production shares and livelihood opportunities are supposed to be ploughed back and equita-bly distributed to the POs, their members and families, while at the same time protecting the entire forestlands within the Agreement area in the long term against illegal logging and the unauthorized extraction of forest products, slash-and-burn agriculture, etc. Additional details of other non-forest laws impinging on the forestry sector are outlined in An-nex 1. The significant laws are the Local Government Code (RA 7160 of 1991) that provides for decentralization of powers and greater involvement of the people in decision-making at re-gional, provincial and community levels which, in turn, is expected to result in much more ro-bust discussion of policy matters and policy implementation; and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (RA 8371 of 1997) that ensures indigenous peoples have priority rights in the de-velopment and exploitation of natural resources within their ancestral lands and domains. Any development activity including renewing and issuance of new tenure instruments within such areas needs to go through the process of securing the Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) of the affected indigenous peoples’ community. In 1989, a Sustainable Forest Management Bill (House Bill No. 1713, known as the New For-estry Code) was filed and deliberated in the Philippine Congress for passage into law. It con-tained major policies to underpin development of the forestry sector in the Philippines. These include policies on logging bans, devolution of management of part of forestlands to relevant stakeholders, policies and incentives on forest plantation establishment and development in public and private lands, including harvesting and transport of harvested products, delineation of the limits of the public forests, and policies on forest industries. However, 22 years later, a new SFM Bill is still pending in the Philippine Congress. The lifting of a moratorium on the establishment of new sawmills will also spur the develop-ment of forest plantations as private plantation owners will now be able to process their own logs and benefit from value added to the products. However, this could lead to the demand for illegal natural forest logs. The most recent laws on forestry are the Presidential Executive Orders (EO) no. 23 and 26. EO No. 23 of 1 February 2011, declared a moratorium on the cutting and harvesting of timber in the natural and residual forests, and creating the anti-illegal logging task force. EO No. 26 of 24 February 2011 created a national greening programme (NGP) as a govern-ment priority. The NGP shall plant some 1.5 billion trees covering about 1.5 million ha for a period of six years from 2011 to 2016 in public domains such as forestlands, mangrove and protected areas, ancestral domains, civil and military reservations, urban areas under the greening plan of the local government units, inactive and abandoned mine sites and other suitable lands.



4. FOREST RESOURCES Land in the Philippines is categorized basically into forestlands, national park, mineral land and alienable and disposable (A&D) lands (Anon., 2010). Forestlands are public lands meant to be maintained as forest and cannot be alienated. Legally classified forestlands are those lands that belong to the public domain and are classified for forestry purposes, regardless of the present state of the forest cover. Forestlands include public forest, permanent forest or forest reserves, and forest reservations. The A&D lands, on the other hand, are those lands of the public domain which have also been classified and declared as not needed for forestry purposes and can be titled. These include private forest areas, agricultural lands, built-up ar-eas and others. However, public lands which are of 18% or over in slope cannot be classified as A&D lands. In 1934, forest cover in the Philippines was around 17.8 million hectares, covering about 59% of the country. Since then, there has been a rapid decline, accelerated when logging started in earnest in the late 1950s and peaked in the 1970s. This was the period when the country had more than 300 TLAs in operation and logged-over areas were quickly occupied by the land-less upland farmers, displaced workers from the logging companies and timber industries, and converted into agricultural lands through slash-and-burn cultivation practices. Through a com-bination of illegal logging and conversion to subsistence agriculture, forest areas were de-pleted at an alarming rate, estimated at 300 000 hectares a year in some years. By 2010, the Philippines Country Report of the FAO FRA 2010 (FAO, 2010) reported that the country had an area of 7.67 million hectares (25.5%) of forest, 10.13 million hectares (33.8%) of other wooded land, 12.02 million hectares (40.1%) of other land, and 0.18 million hectares (0.6%) of inland water bodies. In terms of forest status, the Philippines Country Report of the FAO FRA 2010 estimated that the Philippines in 2010 had a total of 861 000 hectares (11.2%) of primary forests; 6 452 000 hectares (84.2%) of naturally regenerated forests; and 352 000 hectares (4.6%) of planted forests, of which 347 000 hectares were planted with introduced species. These planted for-ests are basically developed by the DENR, and by NGOs, generally through TLAs, IFMAs and other forest agreements, private landowners, and CBFMAs. Given the varied agreements, col-laboration and funding available, the quality of these plantations is probably variable and it is uncertain how much useful timber may be produced. It has been estimated that the country should have at least 1 million hectares of plantations to satisfy local demand for timber and to be able to export logs. In this regard, it is projected that by 2020 the Philippines will be able to produce 2 million m

3 of logs with an estimated 90% coming from forest plantations while at the

same time increasing the export of plantation logs (Forest Management Bureau, 2010). With regard to functional use classes, in 2010, the Philippines had designated a total of 5.86 million hectares (76.4%) as Production Forest; 0.62 million hectares (8.1%) as forests for the protection of soil and water; and 1.19 million hectares (15.5%) for the conservation of biologi-cal diversity (FAO, 2010). In this regard, it may be noted that the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) in its “Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005 (Summary Report)” estimated that 6.51 million hectares were designated as Permanent Forest Estate with 4.97 million hectares (76.3%) being Production Forests and the balance of 1.54 million hectares (23.7%) Protection Forests (ITTO, 2006). In 2010, the Philippines had a total of 0.26 million hectares of mangrove forests; 0.19 million hectares of bamboo forests; and 8000 hectares of rubber plantations (FAO, 2010).



Based on the forest area in 2010, the estimated total growing stock of all trees with 10 cm di-ameter breast height (dbh) and more to be 1,278.3 million m

3. Of this total, 1,236.7 million m

3

(96.7%) were broadleaved species and the balance of 41.6 million m3

(3.3%) were coniferous (FAO, 2010). The Philippines Country Report of the FAO FRA 2010 has also estimated that, based on the available growing stock in 2010, the Philippines had a total forest carbon of 1,251 million ton-nes comprising 535 million tonnes of carbon in above-ground biomass; 129 million tonnes of carbon in below-ground biomass; 73 million tonnes of carbon in dead wood; 16 million tonnes of carbon in litter; and 498 million tonnes of soil carbon (FAO, 2010). In terms of ownership, out of the 7.16 million hectares of forest in the Philippines in 2005, about 6.09 million hectares (85.1%) were State owned; 1.04 million hectares (14.5%) were privately owned; 0.01 million hectares (0.1%) were municipality owned; and 0.02 million hec-tares (0.3%) were owned by the community, including those areas owned by indigenous communities through the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT)(FAO, 2010). In this regard, as of August 2007, there were 57 CADTs approved, covering 1 121 295 hec-tares with a total of 242 356 individual beneficiaries. There were also 172 Certificates of An-cestral Land Titles (CALT) approved, covering 4 855 699 hectares, with 245 148 individual beneficiaries. Currently, there are 181 Certificates of Ancestral Lands Claims (CALC) and Cer-tificates of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADC) covering 2.54 million hectares of forest lands. However, in terms of forestlands, it is not known how much is covered by these Certificates. The Philippine National Oil Corporation (PNOC), through EO 223 of 1987, is vested with the responsibility to protect, manage and rehabilitate about 265 000 hectares of watersheds, while the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) is responsible for 22 252 hectares and the National Power Corporation (NPC) for 397 071 hectares through EO 224 also of 1987, giving a total area of 684 323 hectares for supporting major development projects, such as irrigation, geo-thermal and hydropower projects. As of July 2007, there were 107 protected areas proclaimed under the NIPAS Act covering 3.34 million hectares, comprising 77 terrestrial areas covering 1.85 million hectares and 30 marine areas covering 1.49 million ha; but only 10 of these areas have been enacted for es-tablishment by the Congress. About 16 more protected areas have been submitted to Con-gress by the DENR for enactment, as of the present. Actual protection remains a major chal-lenge with significant illegal logging taking place (Anon., 2005). It is also projected that the forest and forestry in the Philippines in 2020 will see an increase in the forest cover, mainly from industrial timber plantations, as it has been estimated that an ad-ditional 220 000 hectares of forest plantations will be established, and that the rehabilitation of watersheds will exceed the losses from continued illegal logging and the illegal collection of fuel wood. This forest rehabilitation process has been given a boost with the creation of a na-tional greening programme which has the ambition of planting 1.5 billion trees on 1.5 million ha of land by 2016. By 2020, an additional one million hectares of forestlands is projected to be proclaimed as pro-tected area for the conservation and preservation of biological diversity and habitat. Although this will further reduce the areas of natural forest available for timber production, the total ar-eas of Production Forest will increase because of the increase in forest plantations in public and private lands.



The escalating price of fossil fuel will provide the impetus for the establishment of forest plan-tations for the production of biodiesel as provided for under the Biofuels Act of 2006 where a target of two million hectares of forestland has been planned by the government to be estab-lished with jatropha (Jatropha curcas). Currently, the DENR already has an agreement with its subsidiary, the Philippine Forest Corporation (PhilForest), to provide the two million hectares of land for jatropha plantation development and has so far turned over to the corporation a to-tal of 375 000 hectares of forestland (open grassland and brush lands) for this purpose. The demand for fuelwood in the Philippines is estimated to be 29 million m

3 and with the ex-

pected high price of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the coming years the demand for fuel-wood will rise and as a result there will be an increase in fuelwood plantations, which have been projected to be about 10,000 hectares by 2020, although currently there are no planta-tions purposely developed to grow timber for fuel. In fact, an estimated 8.14 million house-holds use fuelwood for cooking, heating water and other purposes, while many power plants in the Philippines are also planning to convert from coal to wood pellets and briquettes for gen-erating power, as coal is highly polluting.

5. CONSERVATION, COMMUNITY-BASED AND OTHER INITIATIVES RELATING TO THE FOREST SECTOR Two policies have been central to the management of the Philippines’s forest during recent decades—CBFM (Pulhin, J.M., 2005) and Multi-sectoral Forest Protection Committees (MFPC)(Cruz, R.V.O., and Pulhin, J.M. (2006)—both of which entail massive public participa-tion and involvement of the private sector. The coverage of MFPC has widened from forestry concern alone in the 1980s to environment and natural resources in 1994 pursuant to Presidential Memorandum dated July 13, 1994. The MFPCs as it is better known were effective only if there was substantial and coherent par-ticipation from both civil society, the church, media, political will from the local government units and then only if sufficient resources were made available—as they were until the World Bank withdrew its ENR-SECAL (Environment and Natural Resources–Sectoral Adjustment Loan) at the end of the 1990s (Cruz, R.V.O. and Pulhin, J.M., 2006). The USA has supported the Philippines Tropical Forest Conservation Fund, an initiative to conserve forest in the Philippines through the debt-for-nature swap concept. An ITTO report (2003) on the Philippines found that the legal, policy and institutional frame-work in the Philippines clearly did not provide a sufficiently enabling environment to achieve a desirable level of progress towards “sustainable forest management”. One of the challenges has been the need to delineate the permanent forests in the Forest Land Boundary Delinea-tion exercise being undertaken by DENR (Forest Management Bureau, 2010). The sector is characterised by a culture of violence and impunity. No convictions had been made for any case of illegal logging brought to court before the 1990s (prior to the ENR-SECAL)(Embido, O.L. 2001). Journalists and forest rangers were being murdered (Anon., 2010a) or threatened (Anon., 2010b) for their efforts to expose the powerful individuals who profited from illegal logging activities or corruption.



Although, the Philippines’ Navy has conducted anti-smuggling patrols jointly with its Indone-sian counterpart (Anon. 2006), there has been concern that Indonesian timber is laundered through the Philippines for onward export on behalf of interests in Singapore (Anon. 2006a). In certain parts of the country, particularly where government authorities have failed, the church is mediating between those affected by illegal logging and illegal logging interests (Anon. 2008). Increasing awareness of the contribution of forest to climate change mitigation is likely to prompt the Philippine Congress to enact the Sustainable Forest Management Bill. This will stabilize policies, improve the effectiveness of their implementation, and gain the trust of the private sector leading to higher investment in forest development and forest product process-ing, thereby increasing forest plantations and greater production of forest products. It will also improve governance in the forestry sector and improve confidence of the government regard-ing its ability to govern the sector and revise policies, such as that banning the export of round timber produced from natural forest in forestlands and imported logs: it is expected that, by 2020, export of timber and timber products produced from imported logs will be allowed. On October 2009, the Climate Change Act of the Philippines was enacted, and the Climate Change Commission was created to be the sole national-level decision-making body on cli-mate change mitigation and adaptation (Anon., 2010c). Executive Order No. 881 designated the DENR as the operational arm for REDD-Plus activities. The PNRPS assumes a 10 year time horizon (2010-2020) and serves as the approximate guide for development of REDD-plus activities in the Philippines. Presently, the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), an agency attached to the DENR, has a project with the World Bank to establish reforestation projects for accreditation under the CDM of the Kyoto Protocol. Another government entity, the PNOC is also developing a project in its Pantabangan watershed for submission under the CDM and the Philippine Eagle Foundation (PEF), an NGO, is assisting several communities in the Arakan Valley in North Cotabato in Mindanao to develop CDM projects. It is expected that with the LLDA spearheading the development of CDM projects, more private plantations will be developed as CDM projects or even as projects under the REDD-plus that is currently be-ing negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

6. LOGGING A number of leading USA-based timber companies was involved in unsustainable logging in the Philippines subsequent to the Philippines gaining Independence from the USA in 1946 (Vi-tug, V. 1993, and Contreras, A. 1987). However, most of the deforestation took place in the middle of the 1960s up to the early 1980s with Japan as the main destination for the logs then exported from the Philippines. As the countries’ forests became exhausted, logging enterprises from the Philippines helped estab-lish a similarly rapacious industry in Indonesia, again, largely for export to Japan (Vitug, V. 1993, Ross, 2001). Industrial roundwood production from natural forest in the Philippines declined rapidly during the 1970s and has continued to decline ever since. By 2007, natural forest roundwood pro-duction amounted to little more than 150,000 cubic metres—roughly 20% of all industrial roundwood production, with a further 728 000 m

3 coming from plantation forests. However, it

has been estimated in 2005 that one million cubic metres of logs enter the market unac-



countably, in addition to 500 000 m3 from legitimate loggers and another 1 million m

3 of log

and lumber import (Anon., 2005a). The development of pulpwood and timber plantations in the Philippines has been expensive (Forest Management Bureau, 2010) and seems to have been driven primarily by the public sector and loans (Philippines Forestry Master Plan, 2003). Funding for the sector has been provided by the Asia Development Bank and Japan’s Overseas Economic Co-operation Fund (OECF) as part of a Forest Sector Programme (FSP) and the World Bank. However, it ap-pears that even private plantations are uncompetitive without subsidies (Forest Management Bureau, 2010). Further, the area actually covered by the plantations sector is, for various rea-sons, considerably smaller than government records suggest (Forest Management Bureau, 2010). Also, small holders have become disaffected by the behaviour of the companies which procure their logs (Tadem, E. 1990). Commercial logging in the Philippines is carried out through a permit system or long-term agreements. Most industrial roundwood from the natural forest is produced under TLAs and IFMAs. Most industrial roundwood from plantations is produced under Self Monitoring Form (SMF) and Certificate of Verification (CV) according to the data from DENR (Forest Manage-ment Bureau, 2010). TLAs are not being renewed but they can be converted into IFMAs (Forest Management Bu-reau, 2010). The last remaining TLA—of Surigao Development Corporation (SUDECOR)—will expire during 2011 although the area of 75 671 hectares of SUDECOR has been con-verted to IFMA (No. 06-2009), expiring on 31 December 2034 (Forest Management Bureau, 2010). A number of concessionaires have not been allowed to convert their TLAs into IFMAs—due particularly to their poor performance as timber concessionaires, and non-compliance to appli-cable government regulations for conversion to IFMA. The government’s Forest Management Bureau has published details of current IFMAs includ-ing other tenure instruments on their website.

3

The area of forest cover and plantations in the Philippines is unclear and depends on one’s definition (Forest Management Bureau, 2010). The most recent estimates have been 5.4 mil-lion hectares (2002) and 7.2 million hectares (2003), the difference being largely attributable to small forest fragments and plantations. However, roughly 0.9 million hectares of natural forest was allocated for sustainable logging during 2007, i.e. the sum of area allocated as TLAs (75,000ha) and non-planted IFMAs (907,000 hectares minus 91,000ha), a rather low produc-tion figure but that is what the records from DENR showed and could indicate poor quality for-ests resulting from previous logging.

7. THE FORESTRY INDUSTRY The most relevant trade associations in the Philippines are:

The Philippine Exporters Confederation;4

3 http://forestry.denr.gov.ph/IFMA%2803-2010%29.pdf

4 http://www.philexport.ph/index.html

http://forestry.denr.gov.ph/IFMA%2803-2010%29.pdf

http://www.philexport.ph/index.html



Chamber of Furniture Industries of the Philippines and, rather more specifically;

The Philippine Wood Producers Association whose members include enterprises which log, trade and process wood-based products (particularly plywood).

5

Other relevant organisations that support, monitor and control the industry include:

The Society of Filipino Foresters;6

The Haribon Foundation (which is supported by the EU);

The Philippine Export Zone Authority;7

Philippines Federation for Environmental Concern Leading local enterprises such as:

Pacific Timber Export Corporation (PATECO)8 a former TLA holder and currently an

IFMA holder, has kiln-driers of sawn timber, makes veneer and plywood for the local market, and exports joinery to the EU;

Provident Tree Farms incorporated (PTFI), a large integrated agriculture industry com-pany;

C Alcantara, a large plywood manufacturer

A more comprehensive list of stakeholders is in Annex 2.

8. STAKEHOLDER STRATEGY FOR ENGAGEMENT The forest policy shift of devolution of forest management referred to earlier was partly evi-denced by the devolution of certain forest management and protection functions of the DENR to local government units; participation of civil society, particularly NGOs and people’s organ i-zations; recognition of vested rights of indigenous peoples over their ancestral lands; and the adoption of CBFM as the national strategy for SFM and social justice. In this context, currently a number of organizations are actively involved in promoting better forest governance, as well as forest law compliance in the Philippines, which should contribute to enhanced management, conservation and development of forest resources in the country, including legality of harvested and traded timber and timber products. The Forest Management Bureau (FMB) serves as the technical advisory to the DENR on for-estry policy and other matters pertaining to management of the country’s forestlands, man-dated to mainstream forestry back into the economy; revitalize the life support functions of the forests; promote equal opportunities to the benefits of forests; and bring people to the forefront of forestry. The Philippines through the DENR-FMB has been active in the East Asia Pacific Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (EAP-FLEG) initiative since 2002 after the Bali Declaration. FMB could lead any FLEGT discussions and support any implementation of FLEGT related activities after years of articulating, organising and hosting FLEG discussions within the EAP.

5 http://www.pwpa.org.ph/organization.php

6 http://filipinoforester.com/

7 http://www.peza.gov.ph/

8 http://www.pateco.com.ph/coprofile.html

http://www.pwpa.org.ph/organization.php

http://filipinoforester.com/

http://www.peza.gov.ph/

http://www.pateco.com.ph/coprofile.html



One of the aims of the FLEGT Action Plan is to strengthen governance by enhancing forest sector transparency, participation and accountability. One of the key elements in which the EU does this is through the support of stakeholder involvement in the design and implementa-tion of any voluntary partnership agreements, including civil society to minimise adverse im-pacts on local communities and poor people, and any requirements imposed are not an undue burden on small scale producers. It would be appropriate for the Director of FMB to be appointed as the focal person and co-ordinator for arranging stakeholders’ consultations in the Philippines with regard to issues on FLEGT affecting the country. The FMB will need the support of civil societies; the Catholic Church; academia; and industry participation to ensure that the FLEGT agenda are under-stood well and the results of the consultations are implementable. It may be advantageous for the Government of Philippines to engage with the EU on the need to prepare the timber industries to market their products to the EU as well as to reform the for-estry sector, including its laws, to help ensure the legality of the timber industry and related operations in the country. More engaged and streamlined legal controls may help in reducing illegal logging and illegal timber trade and provide a more consistent supply of legal timber from within the Philippines. At the moment, it appears that there is some ambiguous move-ment of timber from Indonesia to the Philippines and this may require further investigation, as it is a route where illegal timber could be leaving Indonesia bound for other Asian countries. Strengthening controls at the borders of the Philippines will obviously help Indonesia. In this context, the most important stakeholders that should be involved, at least in the initial engagement, are those listed in this report in Section 7 on The Forestry Industry, in addition to the following:

(i) Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR);

(ii) Forest Management Bureau (FMB);

(iii) Bureau of Customs;

(iv) Philippine Wood Producers Association (PWPA);

(v) Chamber of Furniture Industries of the Philippines (CFIP);

(vi) College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines (UPLB-CFNR)

(vii) Forestry Development Center (FDC);

(viii) Asia Forest Network (AFN);

(ix) NGO CBFM Consortium;

(x) Center of Communication;

(xi) Philippine Federation for Environmental Concern (PFEC); and



(xii) Society of Filipino Foresters (SFF).

The Philippines is not a significant trader of timber products with the EU (see next section) al-though it does import timber products from other countries in the SEA and the Pacific region, which may still end up in the EU as re-export. It may be sufficient to create awareness of the impending EU Timber Regulation, and possibly the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) as appropriate and emphasise the complementarities with the US Lacey Act amendment to advocate for a clean and legal timber supply chain for the timber industry in the Philippines. There are companies that should be firstly engaged in ensuring legality in the forestry sector are especially those members of the Philippines Exporters Confederation, and manufacturers like the Chamber of Furniture Industries of the Philippines and timber exporters and timber processing companies in the Philippines. It is a start to convince these companies, so that they could act as advocates in helping their supply chain to be legal, and create a multiplier ef-fect. The challenge is how best to motivate these companies to exercise their corporate social responsibilities.

9. TRADE IN WOOD-BASED PRODUCTS

The Philippines imported about 800 000 m3 RWE of timber products in 2009, a decrease from

around 1.5 million m3 RWE in the earlier years of the last decade (Figure 1)(Annex 5 Table 1).

Philippines export value is much higher due to the exports of value added products in com-parison to imports of VPA core products of logs, sawn timber, veneer and plywood. Figure 1: Philippines trade in wood-based products from 2000-2009 in million m

3 RWE

Source: Tradeline Philippines, UN Comtrade



The imports have been mostly VPA core products of logs, sawn timber, veneer and plywood, and furniture, but wood-based pulp and paper were substantially larger volumes (Figure 2). In 2009, the VPA core products was about 400 000 m

3 RWE, while for non-VPA products it was

about 370 000 m3 RWE (Annex 3 Figure 4 and Figure 5).

Figure 2: Philippines’ imports of wood-based products by product category from 2000-2009

in million m3 RWE

Source: Tradeline Philippines, UN Comtrade Most of that decline was attributable to logs supplied from New Zealand and the Solomon Is-lands, and sawn timber and veneer supplied from Malaysia (Annex 3: Figures 6 and 7). The Philippines imported a small amount of logs, less than 30 000 m

3 in 2009, from Malaysia (An-

nex 3 Figure 6). It declared a substantial volume of more than 200 000 m3 of sawn timber im-

ports from Malaysia at the beginning of the last decade, but the volume had declined almost 90% to 20 000 m

3 by the end of the decade (Annex 3: Figure 7). Nevertheless, Malaysia

(predominantly Sarawak) remained the Philippines’ leading supplier of round logs and sawn timber. Malaysia also exported 30 000 tonnes of furniture to the Philippines annually in the last decade (Annex 3 Figure 11), and a small amount of moulding and joinery of less than 10 000 m

3 RWE annually from 2004 to 2009 (Annex 3 Figure 10).

In contrast, the weight of wooden furniture import from mainland China (Annex 3 Figure 11) and RWE mouldings and joinery from mainland China and Japan rapidly increased (Annex 3 Figure 10). It must be due to the greater demand for these timber products in the country. Or this is an indication that the Philippines’ timber industry is in decline, or that demand is such that the trade has to depend on imports. The Philippines imports more paper products than timber products, or about 1.3 million tonnes in 2009, with the EU Member States supplying the significant volume of 360 000 tonnes in the same year (Annex 3 Figure 13).



The RWE volume of paper products that were imported into the Philippines during the last decade showed an overall increasing trend. Accounting for 90% of the total and the EU sup-plied almost 20%. On the other hand, the total export volume of timber products from the Philippines in RWE was around 1.51 million m

3 in 2009. This was an increase from around 700 000 m

3 RWE in the

earlier part of the last decade (Annex 5: Table 2)(Figures 1 and 3). The export value for 2009 was around USD900 million. In 2009, the Philippines exported less than 500 000 m

3 RWE of

paper products. It exported around 50 000 m3 annually of veneer and on average 26 000 m

3

annually of plywood in the last decade. It was a much smaller exporter of moulding and join-ery in the early part of the last decade (until 2005) with a high of 0.28 million m

3 RWE in 2000,

and has increased strongly to export between 0.8 and one million m3 RWE per year since,

with nearly all exports to Japan. The Philippines has a negligible trade in mouldings and join-ery with the rest of the insular SEA sub-region (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Timor-Leste). It has been exporting a small amount of furniture, around 100 000 m

3 RWE

yearly in the last decade, but the economic crisis seems to have hit the industry hard as ex-ports in 2009 were only 30 000 m

3 RWE (Annex 4 Figures on exports from Philippines).

Figure 3: Philippines export of timber products by product categories, 2000-2009 in million

m3 RWE

Source: Tradeline Philippines, UN Comtrade The main destinations of Philippines timber products have been China and Japan. The bulk of China’s imports from the Philippines were sawn timber (240 000 m

3 RWE in 2009), and for

Japan it was mostly mouldings and joinery (0.82 million m3 RWE in 2009). The EU is a very

minor trading partner and only imported less than 10 000 m3 RWE of mouldings and joinery in

2009. Throughout the last decade, the EU’s imports have been small, at less than 30 000 m3

RWE annually. In terms of exports to other regions, the Philippines has fairly and consistently exported be-tween 60 000 to 90 000 m

3 RWE yearly to the USA in the last decade. But 2009 was hard hit

by the economic crisis when exports to the USA were only 20 000 m3 RWE.



The RWE volume of the whole timber sector products which was exported from the Philippines during the last decade tended to display an upward trend (Figures 1 and 3). There has been a gradual increase in sawn timber exports from the Philippines in the last decade to a high of 293 000 m

3 RWE in 2009 (Annex 4 Figure 16). Exports of joinery to Japan increased fivefold

during 2006, to 760 000 m (Annex 4 Figure 18).

At least some of this is probably supplied from an export processing zone by an enterprise whose primary source of FSC-certified

9 wood

raw material is New Zealand. There was no corresponding increase in the Philippines’ imports of timber sector product. If the Philippines does not declare as imports products which are supplied from overseas to factories in export processing zones, but it does declare as exports the output of those factories, then this would explain the discrepancy. It is rather less likely that the timber raw material is supplied from unaccounted sources. USA accounted for roughly 80% of the quantity of wooden furniture exported from the Philippines during the last decade—but the total declined rapidly since 2006 (Annex 4 Figure 19). During the last decade, Japan was also the only leading destination for the Philippines’ increasing exports of plywood al-though they are rather small in comparison to those of the other insular SEA sub-region coun-tries at only 30 000 m

3 (Annex 4 Figure 17).

Exports of sawn timber to the EU (primarily France) fell abruptly to zero from 2004 onwards, but those to mainland China increased steeply in 2009 to 240 000 m

3 from a low of 100 000

m3 the year before (Annex 4 Figure 16). The export value of those exports to mainland China,

like their corresponding import value in mainland China, was small and the timber could be de-rived from plantations. During the last decade, the Philippines exported a total of 1.59 million tonnes of paper prod-ucts. The RWE volume of paper sector products exported from the Philippines changed little overall during the last decade (Figure 1). However, exports to mainland China declined and exports to Vietnam and India tended to rise (Annex 4 Figure 20).

There is some intra-regional trade in paper products between Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singa-pore with the Philippines with quantities involved tending to have increased slowly during the last decade. The Philippines imported about 100 000 tonnes of paper products from Indone-sia, and less than 10 000 tonnes from Singapore. The Philippines paper products export to the sub-region are between 10 000 and 20 000 tonnes for Malaysia and Singapore, but negli-gible to Indonesia. The Philippines’ exports of paper outside the sub-region are limited in destination and quantity. Vietnam is the biggest importer of paper products, with around 40 000 tonnes in 2009, and mainland China, Taiwan and Thailand each imported less than 10 000 tonnes per year. The Philippines had negligible exports to the EU but the exports are mostly mouldings and joinery and high value finished products like wooden furniture. A number of small European enterprises have, or used to have, timber processing businesses in the Philippines, particularly in the joinery sector.

10 Some joinery exporters have had their

chain of custody certificates suspended.11

9 http://info.fsc.org/PublicCertificateDetails?id=a0240000005sW6SAAU

10 For example: http://www.scarffi.com.ph/ http://www.chonta.com/company_profile.htm

11 http://www.sgs.com/coc-certificates-2001-2500.pdf

http://info.fsc.org/PublicCertificateDetails?id=a0240000005sW6SAAU

http://www.scarffi.com.ph/

http://www.chonta.com/company_profile.htm

http://www.sgs.com/coc-certificates-2001-2500.pdf



The import value of the wood-based products imported into the EU from the Philippines during 2009 amounted to USD25 million (Annex 4 Figures 14 and 15). The Philippines supplied a negligible share which is less than 1% by value of the wood-based products imported into the EU from South-east Asia during the last decade. The Philippines also exports non-timber forest products (NTFPs). In 2009, the Philippines ex-ported about 313,000 kg of NTFP worth USD423,000 FOB (Philippines Forestry Statistics, 2009). This is comprised of resin, gum, bamboos, rattan poles, rattan split and core, etc. Manufactured NTFPs include plaits, basketwork of bamboo and rattan accounted for a higher volume of 1.4 million kg, amounting to USD4.36 million in 2009 (Philippines Forestry Statistics, 2009).

10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS By 2020, the natural forests in the Philippines will decline further if such factors as illegal log-ging, over-extraction of timber resources, and illegal conversion of forestland into agriculture and collection of fuelwood are not controlled, despite the government’s efforts to rehabilitate inadequately stocked production forest and adoption of sustainable forest management prac-tices. However, the area of forest plantations, especially those established and developed by the private sector, will have greatly expanded. In addition, areas of natural forest available for timber production will also be further reduced as more areas are proclaimed as Protected Ar-eas. Nevertheless, the total areas of Production Forest will also increase a result of new forest plantations being established and developed, particularly by the private sector. The Philip-pines will continue to import semi- processed timber products to meet its needs but amounts will continue to be small in comparison to those in neighbouring countries in the region, and these are mostly for local consumption. One of the main sources of sawn timber is Malaysia and there are concerns that the sawn timber imports of Malaysia from Indonesia are laundered and derived from illegal timber harvested in Indonesia. If Malaysia were to sign the VPA, then the possibilities of illegal timber being traded with the Philippines would be further reduced. Since Indonesia has signed the VPA, and the VPA’s Timber Legality Assurance System (TLAS) should be in placed in the near future, then the possibilities of illegal timber entering the Philippines could likewise be further reduced. However, Philippines had negligible exports to the EU but the exports are mostly mouldings and joinery and high value finished products like wooden furniture. The import value of the wood-based products imported into the EU from the Philippines during 2009 amounted to USD25 million. The Philippines supplied a negligible share which is less than 1% by value of the wood-based products imported into the EU from South-east Asia during the last decade. Furthermore, Customs in the Philippines will have to use appropriate measures to halt the en-try of such shipments without proper customs export declaration documentation, and may need to revise the Customs protocols and documentation procedure and processes to ensure enforcement against illegal timber smuggling and laundering. The EU should consider the following recommendations to assist the Philippines in meeting the VPA and EU Timber Regulation requirements:

The stakeholder consultation of 19 January 2012 in Manila encouraged the EC to visit Philip-pines soon to encourage and discuss the possibility of the country to enter into a negotiation for a VPA.



Enhancement of the awareness and knowledge of the VPA and the EU Timber Regulation, and their implications to timber trade in the Philippines. This is particularly important for those industries in the chain supplying EU markets, which will need to ensure they have clear evi-dence of the origin of their raw materials and verification of its legality. It is recommended that more awareness, training and capacity-building among the timber industries, civil society and government agencies can be conducted. A particular challenge with the Timber Regulation is that the legal requirement in the EU requires the first placer of the timber to have a traceability system. It will be easy for operators in the EU to obtain legal documents but not the full trace-ability system back to the stump. Hence, the evidence that might be needed for operators and monitoring organisations under the Timber Regulation has to be from a combination of a fea-sible and working timber tracking system and chain of custody procedures including some form of forest certification system using an internationally accepted forest assessment tool such as the Philippine Criteria and Indicators with audit system that will lead to SFM in the country. EC should consider providing support to Philippines for their industry to meet the re-quirements of the EU Timber Regulations (EUTR).

Assistance in developing ways of capturing national data on domestic trade. Governments should develop a system for data collection, compilation and analysis to determine the scale and scope of domestic consumption. This information, coupled with production data, imports and exports, can give a good basis for evaluating and revising national policies, legislation and systems. This is in particular relevant as there are significant unaccounted logs circulating in the market in the Philippines and some of which could be exported in a processed form, in-cluding to the EU.

EU engagement with other countries and territories that export timber to the EU which may originate from Philippines, and other Asian markets (in particular South Korea), India and the Middle East. For countries such as China and Japan, which are already in dialogue with the EU, the EU should identify specific areas for collaboration, such as Customs co-operation, and to review the trade in sawn timber which makes up the most volume of export to China from the Philippines. Presumably the mouldings and joinery exports to Japan remains in that coun-try.

Engagement with the Philippines Government to assist in reforming of the forestry sector, in-cluding its laws and mechanism to ensure legality of the raw timber materials entering into the timber industries and operations in the country to meet the requirements of the EU Timber Regulations. More streamlined legal controls may help in reducing illegal logging and illegal timber trade and provide a more consistent and legal supply of timber from the Philippines.

To look further into the movement of timber from Indonesia to the Philippines. And to look into the movement of round log from Malaysia or Indonesia, Papua New Guinea or Solomon Is-lands to the Philippines (including into Special Economic Zones) although covered by log sup-ply contracts authenticated by the Philippine embassies or consular offices on the country of origin.

To look further into the Malaysia-Philippines timber trade, in particular Malaysia’s export since it is one of the main exporter of timber products to the Philippines.

Encourage the EC to provide support to look into the role, sustainability and legality of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) for livelihood, conservation and trade in the Philippines which many local communities are dependent upon.



References: Anon. (2005). Philippines Defense Forces Forum http://z3.invisionfree.com/Defense_Philippines/index.php?showtopic=5621. Viewed December 2010. Anon. (2005a). Philippines Forestry Development Forum, June 2-3 2005, Question & Answer. http://philforestforum.com/q_and_a/q_a.htm. Viewed August 2011. Anon. (2006). Indonesia, Philippines to enhance joint sea patrol. 10 April 2006. Thai Press reports. http://www.illegal-logging.info/item_single.php?it_id=1384&it=news. Viewed August 2011. Anon. (2006a). For timber trade, many routes lead through Singapore. 9 April 2006. Washington Post, USA. http://www.illegal-logging.info/item_single.php?it_id=1367&it=news. Viewed August 2011. Anon. (2008). Agreement reached to finally bring peace to Mindanao’s largest timber concession area. 2 October 2008. Balita.org (UK). http://www.illegal-logging.info/item_single.php?it_id=2899&it=news. Viewed August 2011. Anon. (2010). Philippines Country Report: Criteria and Indicators Used for Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting at the Forest Management Unit Level and Progress in Implementation”. Regional Training Workshop on the Application of Offline Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting (MAR) Format for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) for Forest Management Units in ASEAN, Vien-tiane, Lao PDR, 20-22 January, 2010. Anon. (2010a). Journalist who criticized illegal logging activities in Mindanao is missing. Mindanao Examiner, 21 January 2010. Website: http://www.mindanaoexaminer.com/news.php?news_id=20100121030011. Viewed August 2011. Anon. (2010b).Philippines editor Vitug receives series of death threats. March 23 2010. CPJ Com-mittee to Protect Journalists. http://cpj.org/2010/03/philippine-editor-vitug-receives-series-of-death-t.php. Viewed August 2011. Anon. (2010c). Philippines National REDD-Plus Strategy. Philippines. Contreras, A. (1987). Transnational corporations in the forest-based sector of developing countries. Article in Unasylva No 157-158 Small-scale forest enterprises. Cruz, R.V.O., and Pulhin, J.M. (2006). Country Case Study 7: Review of multisectoral forest pro-tection committees in the Philippines. Verifor. May 2006. Embido, O.L. (2001). Forest law enforcement and investigation techniques in the Philippines. Pa-per for the World Bank. Forest Management Bureau (2010). Philippines Forestry outlook Study. Working paper series, APFSOS II/WP/2009/10 Country report – The Philippines. FAO. FAO (2010). Philippines Country Report”. FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010, FRA2010/164, FAO, Rome, Italy, 2010.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/Defense_Philippines/index.php?showtopic=5621

http://philforestforum.com/q_and_a/q_a.htm

http://www.illegal-logging.info/item_single.php?it_id=1384&it=news



http://www.mindanaoexaminer.com/news.php?news_id=20100121030011

http://cpj.org/2010/03/philippine-editor-vitug-receives-series-of-death-t.php

http://cpj.org/2010/03/philippine-editor-vitug-receives-series-of-death-t.php



Forest Management Bureau (2008). Country Memorandum on Peer Consultation Framework (PCF) and its Process”, Philippines. 7 July, 2008. ITTO (2003). Achieving the ITTO Objective 2000 and sustainable forest management in the Philip-pines. Executive Summary. ITTC (XXXV)/16, 10 October 2003. ITTC 35

th Session, Yokohama, Ja-

pan. ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005: Summary Report”. International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Yokohama, Japan, 2006. Pulhin, J.M. (2005). A country profile on community forestry. Report submitted to the Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and Pacific (RECOFTC). Bangkok, Thailand. Ross, M. L. (2001). Timber booms and institutional breakdown in Southeast Asia. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, UK. Tadem, E. (1990). Conflict over land-based natural resources in the ASEAN countries. In Conflict over natural resources in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Eds. Lim, T.G. and Valencia, M.J. United Nations University Press. Thang, H.C. (1991). Philippines Country Report. ASEAN Forest Resource Database, ASEAN Insti-tute of Forest Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, July 1991. Vitug, V. (1993).The politics of logging: Power from the forest. Center for investigative journalism, Philippines.



Annex 1: The Philippines—additional information of relevance on policies and legisla-tion

Background The Philippines is an archipelago of some 7,100 islands covering approximately 29.82 million hec-tares of land and 0.18 million hectares of inland water bodies, totalling 30 million hectares Except for the shallow sea to the south, the Philippines are separated from the Asiatic mainland by deep seas, including the Mindanao Trench which is over 10 km deep. The islands of the Philippines have arisen from the sea as a result of a very complex pattern of continental drift and volcanic activities. Nearly all the islands have rugged interior uplands rising usually to between 1,250 m and 2,500 m. Lowlands are scare and even in the largest islands the coastal plains are rarely as much as 15 km wide. There are also a large number of extinct and dormant volcanoes in the Philippines. Today, about a dozen are still active. The most famous of the active volcanoes are Mt Mayon, Taal Vulcano, Mt Pinatubo and Hibok-Hibok on Camiguin Island just north of Mindanao which erupted extremely violently in 1948 (Thang, H.C., 1991). Administratively, the country is divided into regions, provinces, municipalities, communities, and barangays (villages). There are altogether 16 regions, covering 79 provinces. The regions are Re-gions 1 to 12, the CARAGA or Region 13, the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), and the National Capital Region (NCR), with Region 4 subdivided into Region 4A and 4B. Policy and legislation The basis of the Philippine forestry regulations before the promulgation of the Presidential Decree (PD) 705 Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, as amended was the Forest Act of 1904 (Act 1148) which was passed by the US Congress when the country was under US rule. The basic for-est policy under this Act, which was reiterated in the revised Administrative Code of 1917 (Act 2711) stated that: “The public forests of the Philippines shall be held and administered for the pro-tection of the public interest, the utility and safety of the forest, and the perpetuation thereof in pro-ductive condition by wise use”. The main thrust of forestry regulations in the 1900s up to the middle of 1970s was primarily directed towards the use of the forest resources. In terms of reforestation and forest plantations where the first reforestation project in the Philippines was started as early as 1910, PD 705 of 1975, as amended has listed the areas to be reforested and planted with suitable tree species as follows: (i) bare and grass-covered tracts of forestland; (ii) brush lands or tracts of forestland generally covered with brush which need development; (iii) open tracts of forestland interspersed with patches of forest; (iv) denuded or inadequately timbered areas proclaimed by the President as forest reserves and

reservations as critical watersheds, national parks, game refuge, bird sanctuaries, national shrine, and national historic sites;

(v) inadequately stocked forestlands within forest concessions;



(vi) portions of area covered by pasture leases or permits needing immediate reforestation; and (vii) riverbanks, easements, road rights-of-way, deltas, swamps, former riverbeds, and beaches.

In addition, the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines and the NIPAS Act (RA 7586 of 1992) have defined protected areas as portions of the land and water set aside by reason of their unique physical and biological significance that are managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against destructive human exploitation. These protected areas include:

(i) areas within critical watersheds (watersheds supporting infrastructure like multi-purpose

dams, irrigation systems, hydropower generation plants, domestic water supply systems);

(ii) areas above 1,000 m above sea level; (iii) areas with slope of more than 50%; (iv) rocky areas; (v) mossy forests; (vi) old growth forests or virgin forests; (vii) areas within 20 m of perennial streams and public roads; and (viii) proclaimed natural reserves and natural parks, watershed reserves, forest reserves, wildlife

refuge and sanctuaries, and all proclaimed NIPAS areas. The Philippines has also declared a policy that watersheds shall be deemed as ecosystem man-agement units and shall be managed in accordance with SFM principles through EO 318. Cur-rently, there are about 126 proclaimed watershed reservations for protecting and improving their water quality, quantity and security. In addition, there are about 140 priority (critical) watersheds supporting national irrigation systems. This EO also provides for the delineation and demarcation of the State forestlands. It also promotes the proper valuation and pricing of forest resources and to provide incentives for private investments in forest development such as establishment of commer-cial forest plantations. The watersheds if managed well will assist to maintain the ecological bal-ance, minimize the occurrence of floods and droughts, and mitigate the effects of adverse climate change. To enhance the Philippine commitment to international conventions on protection of biological di-versity and safeguard its national interest, the Philippines has enacted the RA 9147 of 2001, or the Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act which aims to conserve and protect wildlife species and their habitats; promote ecological balance and enhance biological diversity; and to regulate the col-lection and trade of wildlife. In this context, the NIPAS Act also prohibits the following activities from being undertaken: (i) hunting, destroying, disturbing or mere possession of any plants and animals and products

there from; (ii) dumping of wastes detrimental to the protected areas or to plants and animals therein;



(iii) using any motorized equipment (including chainsaw) without a permit from the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB);

(iv) mutilating, defacing or destroying objects of natural beauty, or objects of interest to cultural

communities; (v) damaging and leaving roads and rails in a damaged condition; (vi) squatting, mineral locating, or otherwise occupying any land; (vii) constructing or maintaining any kind of structure, fence or enclosures, and conducting any

business without a permit; (viii) leaving in exposed or unsanitary conditions refuse or debris, or depositing in the ground or in

bodies of water; and (ix) altering, removing, destroying or defacing boundary marks or signs. The Biofuels Act (RA 9367 of 2006) has led to the government to target for the establishment of about 2 million hectares of jatropha (Jatropha curcas) plantations in the uplands for the production of biodiesel and the DENR has thus far identified about 375,000 hectares of forestlands for this purpose. The major functions of legal instruments in the Philippine forestry sector include: (i) safeguarding the integrity of the forest estate and its boundary delineation; (ii) clarity and protection of tenure security; (iii) protection of national forest wealth/regimes; (iv) equitable regulation of externalities involving social costs/benefits; (v) upstream/downstream interaction; (vi) role of conservation; (vii) rights and privileges of forest dependent communities; and (viii) inter-generational equity.



Annex 2: List of Key Stakeholders in the Philippines

No. Stakeholder Category Contact Name

Mailing Address

Contact Number

1. Planning and Policy, Department of Envi-ronment and Natural Resources (DENR)

Governmental Organization

Mr. Eri-berto Ar-gete Director

DENR, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

+632-9251184

2. Forest Management Bureau (FMB), DENR


Mr. Marlo D. Men-doza Director

FMB, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

+632 927.4788

3. Board of Investment (BOI)


Mr. Jo-seph Macero Director

Industry & Investment Bldg., Buendia, Pasong Tamo, Makati City

+632-895-3707

4. Philippine Council for Sustainable De-velopment (NEDA)


Mr. Feliz-ardo Vir-tucio Director

Neda Bldg., #12 St. Josemaria Escriba Drive, Orti-gas, Pasig City

+632-631-3745

5. Bureau of Customs (BOC)


Mr. Roz-zano Rufino B. Biazon Commis-sioner

Port Area, Manila

+632-527-4537

6.

Forest Products Re-search Development Institute


Dr. Felix B. Tamo-lang Assistant Director

UPLB-CFNR Campus, College La-guna

+632-049-536-7281

7. Philippine Construc-tors Association

Business Or-ganization

Mr. Justo Manalo

Saturn St., Pasig

+632-641-4388



(PCA)

President Greenland Village, Rosario, Pasig City

8.

Philippine Lumber Merchants Associa-tion (PLMA)


Mr. Jose Lee President

710, Detenio St., Intramuros, Manila

+632-527-3787

9. Export Development Corporation (EDC)


Ms. Emmarita Z. Mejares Deputy Executive Director

3rd

Floor, DTI, 375 Sen Gil Puyat Ave-nue, Makati City

+632-897-7608

10. Philippine Wood Producers Associa-tion (PWPA)


Mr. Anto-nio C. Olizon President

3rd

Flr, LTA Bldg., Re-nea St, Legaspi Vil-lage, Makati City

+632-817-6751

11. Chamber of Furni-ture Industries of the Philippines (CPIP)


Ms. Josefina Cancio National President

Suite H. Strata 100, Don F. Or-tigas, Jr. Road, Orti-gas Center, Pasig City

+632-637-9450

12. Philippine Chamber of Handicraft Indus-tries, Inc. (PCHI)


Mr. Albert De Vera

#238, Sta. Monica Street, Bo. Kapitolyo, Pasig City

+632 747-1865

13.

College of Forestry and Natural Re-sources, University of the Philippines (UPLB-CFNR)

Academia Dr. Rex Victor Cruz Dean

UPLB, Col-lege of For-estry & Natural Re-sources, Los Banos, Laguna

049-536-3996

14. Forestry Develop-ment Center (FDC)

Academia Mr. Anto-nio Ca-randang Director

FDC, UPLB, Col-lege La-guna

+632- 0919-4952570

15. Philippine Working Non- Ms. Ninia c/o Envi- -



Group for Commu-nity Resource Man-agement (PWG)

governmental Organization (NGO)

Magsino Officer

ronmental Science for Social Change, Inc., 1/F, Manila Ob-servatory Bldg., Ateneo University Campus, Loyola Heights, Diliman, Quezon City

16. Asia Forest Network (AFN)

NGO Mr. Peter Walpole Executive Director

Rizal Street, Sa-cred Heart Village, Tagbilaran City, Bohol

+63 38-501 8947

17. Philippine Federa-tion for Environ-mental Concern (PFEC)

NGO Ms. Florena B. Samiano PFEC Network-ing & Ad-vocacy Officer

(B) 2-AA, Gizamas St, Cor. Candazo St, Concep-tion, Ma-rikina

+632-942-0481

18. Upland NGO Assis-tance Committee (UNAC)

NGO Mr. Ramon Derige Executive Officer

Partnership Center, # 59 C, Sal-vador St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City

+632-436-0706

19. Society of Filipino Foresters (SFF)

Professional Organization

Mr. Rene De Rueda President

c/o FMB, DENR, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

+632-092-09472966



Annex 3: Figures of Philippines imports of wood-based products from 2000-2009, in million m

3 RWE

Figure 4: Philippines imports of VPA core products by supplying countries from 2000-2009, in mil-

lion m3 RWE


Figure 5: Philippines imports of other timber sector products by supplying countries from 2000-

2009, in million m3 RWE




Figure 6: Philippines imports of logs by country from 2000-2009, in million m3 RWE

Source: Tradeline Philippines, UN Comtrade Figure 7: Philippines imports of sawn timber by country from 2000-2009, in million m

3 RWE




Figure 8: Philippines imports of veneer by country from 2000-2009, in million m3 RWE

Source: Tradeline Philippines, UN Comtrade Figure 9: Philippines imports of plywood by country from 2000-2009, in million m

3 RWE




Figure 10: Philippines imports of mouldings and joinery by country from 2000-2009, in million m

3

RWE

Source: Tradeline Philippines, UN Comtrade Figure 11: Philippines imports of wooden furniture by country from 2000-2009, in million tonnes




Figure 12: Philippines imports of pulp by country from 2000-2009, in million tonnes

Source: Tradeline Philippines, UN Comtrade Figure 13: Philippines imports of paper by country from 2000-2009, in million tonnes




Annex 4: Philippines export of wood-based products by destination countries from 2000-2009 in million m

3 RWE

Figure 14: Philippines exports of VPA core products by destination country from 2000-2009 in

million m3 RWE

Source: Tradeline Philippines, UN Comtrade Figure 15: Philippines exports of other timber sector products by destination country from 2000-

2009 in million m3 RWE




Figure 16: Philippines exports of sawn timber by destination country from 2000-2009 in million m3

RWE

Source: Tradeline Philippines, UN Comtrade Figure 17: Philippines exports of plywood by destination country from 2000-2009 in million m

3

RWE




Figure 18: Philippines exports of mouldings and joinery by destination country from 2000-2009 in million m

3 RWE

Source: Tradeline Philippines, UN Comtrade Figure 19: Philippines exports of wooden furniture by destination country from 2000-2009 in mil-

lion tonnes




Figure 20: Philippines exports of paper by destination country from 2000-2009 in million tonnes




Annex 5: Tables of Philippines imports and exports of timber products, 2000 - 2009 in mil-lion m

3 RWE

Table 1: Philippines imports of timber products from selected destinations, including the EU, 2000 -

2009 in million m3 RWE

Product group Estimated roundwood equivalent volume

(million cubic metres)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Imports from all countries

Total 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.4

Timber sector: 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8

Logs 0.58 0.55 0.43 0.36 0.18 0.16 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.03

Sawn timber 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2

Veneer 0.23 0.22 0.15 0.18 0.11 0.13 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04

Plywood 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.11 0.10 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.11

Other panels 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.11

Mouldings & joinery 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05

Furniture 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.18

Other wood 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03

Paper sector: 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.6

Chips & joinery 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Wood-based pulp 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.34 0.22 0.30

Paper 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.3

Imports from all 27 EU member states

Total 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4

VPA core products 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.03

Timber sector: 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04

Logs 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sawn timber 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.03

Veneer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Plywood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Other panels 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mouldings & joinery 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Other wood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paper sector: 0.39 0.34 0.41 0.49 0.53 0.38 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.36

Chips & joinery 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Wood-based pulp 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01

Paper 0.36 0.32 0.36 0.45 0.52 0.35 0.48 0.43 0.46 0.35




Table 2: Philippine exports of timber products, 2000-2009, in million m3 RWE to selected

destinations

Destina-tion

Estimated roundwood equivalent volume

(million cubic metres)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Brunei 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

East Timor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Indonesia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Malaysia 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01

Philippines - - - - - - - - - -

Singapore 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 Other Asia:

China 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.20 0.27 0.46

Japan 0.27 0.13 0.21 0.23 0.19 0.26 0.81 0.92 1.02 0.89 South Ko-

rea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01

Taiwan 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.18 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.09 0.06

Thailand 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vietnam 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other destina-tions:

Australia 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 New Zea-

land 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Canada 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

USA 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.03 Middle

East 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 European

Union 0.24 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01

of which:

Belgium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

Denmark 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

France 0.21 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Germany 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Italy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nether-

lands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

UK 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00

World 0.67 0.46 0.55 0.63 0.70 0.73 1.35 1.44 1.58 1.51




Annex 6: List of stakeholders participants at the meeting of 19 January 2012 in Manila

Consultation Meeting on the draft Report Baseline Information for Forest Law En-forcement, Governance and Trade in the Philippines

19 January 2012, FMB Conference Rm. Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

1 Name Olive M. Melendrez

Position/Designation REDD-Plus Network Coordinator

Office Address Non-Timber Forest Products-Task Force

92 Masikap Ext. Brgy. Central, Q.C.

Tel. No. 920-4201/426-2757

Mobile No. 9091159830

Email Add. [email protected]

2 Name Ines G. Casas

Position/Designation Office Manager

Office Address Unit H, 9/F, Strata 100 Bldg. Don F. Ortigas Rd.,

Ortigas Complex, Pasig City

Tel. No. 6312834/6329007

Mobile No. 91716060212

Email Add. [email protected] /[email protected]

3 Name Roberto M. Mallonga

Position/Designation Senior Forest Management Specialist

Office Address FMB-Reforestation Division

Tel. No. 9282891

Mobile No. 9124983238

Email Add. Robertomallonga @yahoo.com

4 Name Roberto A. Oliveros

Position/Designation Supervising Forest Management Specialist

Office Address Office of the Undersecretary for Field Operations

DENR 6th Floor, Visayas Ave., Diliman, Q.C.

Tel. No. 9202213

Mobile No. 9179087222


5 Name Juan S. Odanga


Office Address FMB-Forest Land Uses Division (ITP-IFMA Section)

Tel. No. 9291324

mailto:[email protected]



Mobile No. 9199201255

6 Name Nestor A. Bambalan


Office Address FMB-Natural Forest Management Division

Tel. No. 9252135

Mobile No. 9298772182


7 Name Roger Z. Guzman

Position/Designation Executive Director

Office Address Phil. Federation for Environmental Concern (PFEC)

Marikina City

Tel. No. 9420481

Mobile No. 9198934909


8 Name Nicanor E. Iscala, Jr.

Position/Designation Supervising Forest Management Specialist/Section Chief PSS

Office Address FMB, Community Based Forest Management Division,

Visayas Ave., Diliman, Q.C.

Tel. No. 9277278


9 Name Fe C. Oliveros

Position/Designation Head Executive Assistant/Senior Forest Mgt. Specialist

Office Address Office of the Director, Forest Management Bureau

Tel. No. (632) 9274788/9289313


10 Name Melchor U. Tamayo


Office Address FMB, Reforestation Division

Tel. No. 9282891

11 Name Ma. Dolores M. Legarda


Office Address FMB-Forest Land Uses Division

Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Q.C.

Tel. No. 9291324

Mobile No. 9192446108


12 Name Nicomedes P.Enad








Position/Designation Chief, Environmental Protection Unit

Office Address ESS, Bureau of Custom, Dept. of Finance, Port Area, Manla

Tel. No. 527-46-43

Mobile No. 9195959719


13 Name Rene S. Siapno

Position/Designation Senior Forest Mgt. Specialist

Office Address FMB-Natural Forest Management Division

Visayas Avenue, Dil. Q.C.

Tel. No. 9276229

Mobile No. 9178340046

14 Name Nonie M. Tamayo

Position/Designation OIC, Assistant Director, FMB

Office Address FMB, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

Tel. No. (632) 9274784

Mobile No. 9178431532


15 Name Atty. Wilfrido S. Pollisco

Position/Designation Senior Foresters’ Group/SFFI

16 Name Raul M. Briz

Position/Designation Senior Forest Mgt. Specialist/In-Charge, Silviculture Section

Office Address Forest Management Bureau

Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

Tel. No. (02) 9276229

Mobile No. 9498458944






This Action is funded by the European Union and the governments of Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union. www.euflegt.efi.int

This document has been produced with the financial assis-tance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can

in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the Euro-pean Union.

www.efi.int/portal/projects/flegt/flegt_asia/

www.euflegt.efi.int

http://www.efi.int/portal/projects/flegt/flegt_asia/

Philippines: Scoping Baseline Information for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance, and Trade

Documents

goal of flegt asia

flegt asia regional

eu flegt action plan

trade flegt action plan

efis eu flegt facility

eus flegt action plan

regional support programme

european union