Past and present forestry support programs in the Philippines, and lessons for the future

A variety of government programs have been implemented to support smallholder forestry for production and conservation purposes in the Philippines. This paper briefly outlines the arrangements of the past and current programs, notes how they have evolved over time, and provides some comments on their performance. Over about 30 years, as weaknesses have been identified in programs, the program designs have been modified. For most of this time, there has been an increasing emphasis on community involvement as distinct from industrial or individual farmer forestry. However, some of the intractable constraints on community planting have led to recent interest in individual property rights

Progress and prospects of community forestry in developing and developed countries

The original publication can be found at www.springerlink.comCommunity forestry is practiced in various countries throughout the world, with respect to both native forests and plantations, for livelihood and forest protection purposes and also for urban amenity values. While forests have been managed to some extent by communities for thousands of years, modern models of community forestry have been practiced widely for only about 30 years. Community forestry takes many forms; there is no unique definition or categorisation, although a number of characteristics are frequently present. There is in general, involvement of a local community in forest planning as well as management, for a form of forestry which is usually relatively small-scale, motivated by multiple objectives, and receiving some financial support and organisational assistance by government and non-government organisations. Where plantations are established, these may be managed as common property, individual property rights may apply, or there may be a combination of both. Analysis of the specific research studies included in this issue reveals that community forestry systems have been refined over time as experience is gained in program designs, and notable successes have been achieved. However, ‘the jury is still out’ on whether community forestry has lived up to the optimistic expectations of its proponents.Steve Harrison and Jungho Su