UPLB Research and Extension News

Scientists should directly take an active role in improving government policies for the sustainable use of high-value products from the forest. Dr. Ramon A. Razal, former dean of the UPLB College of Forestry and Natural Resource expressed this view in his professorial lecture held at the Drilon Hall of SEARCA at the UPLB Campus last November 2008.

The forest expert revealed that there is a very big promise in store for stakeholders of the non-timber forest products-based industry. “But there are problems hindering the full development of the industry, and these should be solved by us,” he shared.

The promise of non-timber forest products

According to Dr. Razal, non-timber forest products (NTFPs) include resources “gathered or harvested from forestlands or related ecosystems without the benefit of intensive cultivation.” Rattan, nipa, bamboo, vines, and anahaw are examples of these products.

NTFPs are not just sources of native furniture and handicrafts, they are also consumed as food, resins, medicine and cosmetics. They are also used in construction and transportation purposes, as well as components of common house appliances.

“Green” products awaiting to be mainstreamed

NTFPs have a share in the cash economy, particularly in the trading and processing sectors. Indigenous peoples (IPs) and people’s organizations (POs) usually depend on these resources. They are the ones primarily benefitting from the increasing “fashionable” use of this “environment-friendly” resource. 

Based on statistics gathered by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in 1997, livelihood opportunities out of using NTFPs can be very viable. “Making paper from abaca, baskets from hinggiw and harvesting kaong for food, although labor intensive, still give a good return on investment,” he illustrated.  Dr. Razal added that “enterprises such as planting rattan, bamboo and lemongrass, and beekeeping, if successful, are very lucrative.”

There maybe a recent surge in interest in these products in the local and world market, but still there are several gaps in policy that greatly affect the value of NTFPs. “Appropriate and specific policies should be made in order to make the industry more attractive and productive,” he explained further.

Review the tax on NTFP use

Forest charge is collected from users of products from the public forest land to regulate the cutting and transportation of timber in the country. Those who gather forest products for personal use are not charged but they must first secure permits.  Forest charges on timber and other forest products were adjusted when Republic Act No. 7161 was enacted in 1991.

Forest charges collected from NTFPs contributed only P6.4 M to the overall revenue collection of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in 2007 amounting P980 B.  This was far way low hence, very insignificant compared to the money from timber. “It is therefore compelling to look at how we can improve the sustainable use of NTFPs” Dr. Razal proposed.

He further explained that “In my recent study, I have seen that small gatherers pay a sizeable amount in getting permits with very difficult requirements and entail a lot of follow-up work. Related studies have also shown that there is corruption going on within this system and that the tax being paid by the NTFP users has not actually gone to sustainability projects for which the money was intended.”

Dr. Razal opined that if charges on NTFPs are removed, the poor players in the industry will be benefitted and may make cost of raw materials more reasonable. According to him “with a more simplified system, farmers and organizations can dedicate more time to forest protection and development rather than going to offices to follow-up papers to secure permit.”

Bridge policy gaps through research

Policy researchers and science can help bridge the gaps by reviewing and improving NTFP policies during its formulation, evaluation and assessment.

“A lot of the policies on the use of NTFPs are somewhat flawed.  There isn’t even a policy document right now that could apply to all NTFPs. Some policies are inadequate, inconsistent and inefficient which make the whole NTFP-permitting process costly and unfair to stakeholders,” Razal contended.

According to him, researchers should bring themselves in the policy-making process in the DENR. “As a first step in meaningfully participating in the process, researchers should reflect on whether their research initiatives match the agenda set forth in the Revised Forestry Master Plan of 2003.”

“Researchers should conduct more activities related the inventory, valuation, value chain analysis, and efficient utilization and indigenous knowledge systems of NTFPs. Aside from that, we should look at the properties of NTFPs grown in large scale and also see how we can sustainably harvest them in small and large volumes,” he continued.

A need to overhaul the policy environment

“NTFPs provide a lot of benefits, but our enjoyment of these benefits is threatened. Science is needed to reform the industry. As agents of change, we must provide the benchmarks to assess the policies’ effectiveness,” Dr. Razal concluded.