Training Guide

Forest Land Use Planning Training Guide
Suggested Citation: 2011. Forest Land Use Planning Training Guide. Philippine Environmental Governance
Project, Pasig City, Philippines.
Published with assistance from the American people through the United States Agency for International
Developments (USAID) Philippine Environmental Governance Project (EcoGov).
Month and Year of Publication: First Printing: May 2011; Second Printing: September 2011.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Authors: Buenaventura Dolom, Ernesto S. Guiang, Rebecca R. Paz and Casimiro Olvida
Technical Contributors: Edwin Camacho, Mark Ramirez, Justino Briones, Rodolfo Aragon, and Forest Management
(FMB) and DENR Regional staff.
Editing: Ferdinand S. Esguerra
Design Supervision and Printing Production: Lume Inamac
Book Design: Randolf Gustaf P. Luna
Photo Credits: EcoGov Field Staff
The Philippine Environmental Governance Project (EcoGov) is an initiative of the Government of the Philippines
implemented in partnership with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of the
Interior and Local Government, local government units and other stakeholders, funded by the United States
Agency for International Development and managed by Development Alternatives, Inc. and its Philippine-based
subcontractors:
Cesar Virata and Associates

The Marine Environment and Resources Foundation, Inc.
Orient Integrated Development Consultants, Inc.
Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc.
iv
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................... viii
Using the Training Guide on Forest Land Use Planning................................................... xi
Module 1
Orientation on Governance-Oriented Forest Land Use Planning .................................. 1
Coverage .........................................................................................................................................................1
Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................2
Outputs............................................................................................................................................................2
Participants......................................................................................................................................................2
Process .............................................................................................................................................................3
Lecture Notes
1.1 The Forest Situation ......................................................................................................................6
1.2 Key Concepts: Governance-oriented FLUP as a tool to
improve management of forests and forest lands ...................................................................6
1.3 Governance-Oriented FLUP ........................................................................................................8
1.4 Why Should LGUs be Involved in Forest Land Use Planning ...............................................10
1.5 The Governance-Oriented FLUP Process ................................................................................11
1.6 Data and Map Requirements of FLUP ........................................................................................14
Module 2
Social Preparation, Profiling and Mapping......................................................................... 15
Coverage .........................................................................................................................................................15
Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................15
Outputs............................................................................................................................................................16
Participants......................................................................................................................................................17
Process .............................................................................................................................................................18
Lecture Notes
2.1 The Basics of Communication .....................................................................................................21
2.2 Message Formulation: Targeting Specific Audience ..................................................................21
2.3 How do we Deliver the Message................................................................................................21
2.4 Audience Analysis Matrix ..............................................................................................................22
2.5 Communications Plan Matrix.......................................................................................................22
2.6 FLUP Profiling through Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)................................................23
2.7 Profiling IP Communities ..............................................................................................................25
2.8 Mapping for Forest Land Use Planning ......................................................................................26
Module 3
Situational Analysis .............................................................................................................. 29
Coverage .........................................................................................................................................................29
Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................30
Outputs............................................................................................................................................................30
Participants......................................................................................................................................................30
Process .............................................................................................................................................................31
Lecture Notes
3.1 Conducting Situational Analysis for Forest Land Use Planning ............................................32
3.2 Map Overlay Analysis .....................................................................................................................33
3.3 Determining Extent of FFL Assets and Locations ...................................................................33
v
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
Zoning FFL into Production and Protection Areas .................................................................37

Comparative Analysis of Sub-Watersheds ................................................................................35
Stakeholders Analysis ....................................................................................................................40
Institutional Analysis .......................................................................................................................41
Module 4
Cross Visit and Exposure Trip .............................................................................................. 43
Coverage .........................................................................................................................................................43
Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................43
Outputs............................................................................................................................................................44
Participants......................................................................................................................................................44
Process .............................................................................................................................................................44
Lecture Notes ................................................................................................................................................46
Module 5
Participatory Process in Planning the Allocation of Forests
and Forest Lands and Prioritizing Sub-Watersheds ......................................................... 47
Coverage .........................................................................................................................................................47
Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................48
Outputs............................................................................................................................................................48
Participants......................................................................................................................................................48
Process .............................................................................................................................................................50
Lecture Notes
5.1 Categories of Allocation and Tenure Instruments in Forests and Forest Lands ...............50
5.2 Examples of Commonly Issued Allocation Instruments/
Management Agreements in FFL .................................................................................................51
5.3 Guide in Allocating Forests and Forest Lands ..........................................................................57
5.4 Prioritizing Sub-Watersheds for Investments ..........................................................................58
Module 6
Drafting, Legitimization and Approval of FLUP................................................................ 61
Coverage .........................................................................................................................................................61
Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................61
Outputs............................................................................................................................................................62
Participants......................................................................................................................................................62
Process .............................................................................................................................................................63
Lecture Notes
6.1 Guides for Writing the FLUP .......................................................................................................64
Annexes
A. Experience of some LGUs in Developing and Implementing FLUP .....................................................71
B. Forest Land Use Planning and Data Collection Guide.............................................................................85
C. Suggested Forest Land Use Plan Outline ...................................................................................................91
vi
LIST of TABLES
Table 1. Suggested Program for Module 1 ...............................................................................................2
Table 4. FFL Assets Guide ............................................................................................................................34
Table 5. Forest Cover Change Summary Table .......................................................................................36
Table 6. Criteria/Indicators for Prioritizing Sub-watersheds ...............................................................39
Table 7. Institutional Assessment Matrix ..................................................................................................41
LIST of FIGURES
Figure 1. Forest Land Use Planning Process ............................................................................................11
LIST of BOXES
Box 1. Checklist of Data Requirements ...................................................................................................14
Box 2. Checklist of Thematic Maps Needed for FLUP..........................................................................16
Box 3. Sample Indicators for Measuring Criteria ...................................................................................59
vii
List of Acronyms
A&D
BFAR
CADC
CADT
CALT
CBFM
CDA
CDMP
C/MARO
C/MDC
C/MENRO
DAO
DAR
DENR
DILG
DOST
DPWH
ECC
EcoGov
EO
FFL
FGD
FLUP
FTAP
GG
GIS
ICC
IEC
IEE
IEEC
IFMA
IP
IRA
JMC
LGU
LSP
MGB
MOA
MOE
MPDO
NAMRIA
NCIP
NGO
NIPAS
PACBRMA
PAMB
PENRO
PIS
POs
Alienable and Disposable

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Certicate of Ancestral Domain Claim
Certicate of Ancestral Domain Title
Certicate of Ancestral Land Title
Community-Based Forest Management
Cooperative Development Authority (CDA)
Comprehensive Development and Management Plan
City/Municipal Agrarian Reform Ofce
City/Municipal Development Council
City/Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Ofce
Department Administrative Order
Department of Agrarian Reform
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Department of the Interior and Local Government
Department of Science and Technology
Department of Public Works and Highways
Environmental Compliance Certicate
Philippine Environmental Governance Project
Executive Order
Forests and Forest Lands
Focus Group Discussion
Forest Land Use Plan/Planning
Functionality, Transparency, Accountability and Participatory
Good Governance
Geographic Information System
Indigenous cultural community
Information, Education and Communication
Initial Environmental Examination
Improved and Enhanced Environmental Conditions
Industrial Forest Management Agreement
Indigenous Peoples
Internal Revenue Allotment
Joint Memorandum Circular
Local Government Unit
Local Service Providers
Mines and Geosciences Bureau
Memorandum of Agreement
Maintenance and Operating Expenses
Municipal Planning and Development Ofce
National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
Non-Government Organization
National Integrated Protected Areas Systems
Protected Area Community-Based Resource Management Agreement
Protected Area Management Board
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Ofce
Performance Indicators based on Standards
Peoples Organizations
viii
PRA
RA
RED
SB
SEC
SIFMA
SW
TOP
TSRM
TWG
Usec
VMO
WFP
Participatory Rural Appraisal

Republic Act
Regional Executive Director
Sangguniang Bayan
Security and Exchange Commission
Socialized Industrial Forest Management Agreement
Sub-watershed
Technology of Participation
Technical Solutions to Resource Management
Technical Working Group
Undersecretary
Vision, Mission and Objectives
Work and Financial Plan
ix
x
Using the Training Guide on Forest Land Use Planning

This Training Guide on Forest Land Use Planning (FLUP) is designed essentially for local service providers (LSPs)
who are tasked to train local government units (LGUs) in developing a sound basis for managing their forests
and forest lands (FFL) assets. These LSPs may include people from DENR field offices, provincial governments,
non-government organizations, consulting firms, academic institutions and even individual professionals who
have previously been trained in FLUP, have been involved in forest management or watershed management
planning or at least have the necessary technical background on resource management planning.
Why LGUs need FLUPs
Forests and forest lands provide a good resource base for sustainable economic development. Once
degraded, forests and forest lands will be unable to provide environmental services, such as supplying the
water requirements of households, farmlands and industries; providing habitats for diverse flora and fauna and
preventing occurrence of destructive forces like flashfloods. Thus, it is to the best interest of the LGUs to have
their FFLs placed under effective management.
A key strategy to effective management is to establish the best uses of these lands and allocate them to
responsible resource managers under different forms of tenure. The resource manager can be an individual,
a group or an organization which can aptly preserve, rehabilitate and protect the area from illegal activities
and use the resources in a sustainable manner. The LGU itself, in partnership with DENR, can be a resource
manager. While allocation decisions (who will be assigned to manage an area) and management decisions for
strict protection areas reside with the State, LGUs can be involved in the process. The DENR and LGUs will
need a good basis to be able to make informed decisions thats what an FLUP provides.
Open access areas
An important step in FLUP is the identification of open access areas. Open access areas are FFLs that are
not covered by any tenure. In the absence of a tenure holder or resource manager, anybody can just come
in and use its resources -- in most cases, in an unsustainable manner. Areas covered by tenure but have been
abandoned or are without any management, are also considered open access.
Information provided in the FLUP is valuable in reaching a decision on who could be the best resource
manager for a particular area. With responsible and accountable resource managers in place, intrusions and
unauthorized use of resources in what were once open access areas will be minimized, if not stopped. It
must be emphasized that allocation of forest lands is not simply a process of dividing the land for the sole
purpose of handing them out to beneficiaries. Rather, it is a management tool for establishing accountabilities
and promoting responsible forest resource management. The end-goal is to harmonize uses of forest lands
and ensure that production activities in the uplands are in balance with forest protection and biodiversity
conservation. It is also to make sure that the upland-lowland relationship within a ridge-to-reef framework is
sustained. Ridge-to-reef framework is a planning approach that takes into consideration the interconnectedness
of ecosystems from the uplands, to the lowlands and down to the coastal areas. As everything that happens
in the uplands affects the lowlands and coastal areas, LGUs are encouraged to factor in the downstream
situation when formulating an FLUP.
FLUP and CLUP
Under Executive Order No. 3 18 (Promoting Sustainable Forest Management in the Philippines), LGUs are
mandated to incorporate FLUPs into their comprehensive land use plans (CLUP).The FLUP Training Guide will
help facilitate this. It will show LGUs how to map and assess their FFL assets that will complement the analysis
of the settlement and agricultural areas contained in a CLUP. It will help LGUs, DENR and other stakeholders
xi
agree on the approach to assign forest lands under various tenure, management or allocation arrangements
to close open access areas. It will guide them in determining priorities for protection and production that
considers the interdependencies between the uplands, lowlands and coastal areas.
The FLUP Training Guide helps incorporate good governance principles and practices in FFL management.
Highlighted in the modules are governance principles applied to promote functionality, transparency, informed
decision making, increased accountabilities and stakeholder participation.
Produced under the Philippine Environmental Governance Project (EcoGov), this FLUP Training Guide is
a product of various training modules and materials used and tested over the years by the Project in
collaboration with DENR, provincial governments and other partners.
This Training Guide has six modules, discussing in details the steps in FLUP.
Module 1: Orientation on Governance-Oriented Forest Land Use Planning This module provides
an overview of the FLUP process and discussion of good governance principles (functionality, transparency,
accountability and participatory decision-making) that needs to be integrated in the preparation and
implementation of the plan.
Module 2: Social Preparation, Profiling and Mapping In this module, participants are trained on primary
and secondary data collection, community mapping and field validation techniques to generate a profile of the
area. Training participants are encouraged to ensure stakeholders participation in these activities.
Module 3: Situational Analysis This part provides a step-by-step guide in evaluating the existing condition
of the LGUs FFL through map overlay analysis, simplified simulation techniques and other tools. This step
validates initial findings (based on data gathered during the previous module) with key stakeholders.
Module 4: Cross Visit and Exposure Trip Participants are encouraged to see firsthand successful forest
management initiatives and interact with LGUs implementing their FLUPs. This activity facilitates broader
understanding of the need for pro-active LGU engagement in forest lands management.
Module 5: Participatory Process in Planning the Allocation of Forests and Forest Lands and
Prioritizing Sub-watersheds An orientation on relevant policies and criteria for the allocation of FFL and
prioritizing sub-watersheds is provided in this module, with a simulation exercise to show prioritization and
allocation options.
Module 6: Drafting, Legitimization and Approval of Municipal Forest Land Use Plan This module
provides a venue for the joint preparation of the FLUP by the DENR and the LGU. It highlights the need to have
the FLUP legitimized by appropriate LGU bodies and an implementation memorandum of agreement signed
by the LGU and DENR (and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples in the case of ancestral lands) to
formalize respective commitments.
To ensure that training participants will get an appreciation of the concepts, policies, processes and tools
relevant to the modules, the training guide devotes a significant portion to the content of the technical inputs
given during the training. Lecture notes and discussion on the module topics are provided with presentation
materials used in previous training.
In addition, the training guide refers its users to guidelines, sourcebooks and other related materials that have
been developed by EcoGov such as the mapping guidebook and briefers on the co-management of forestlands.
These materials provide additional references for the design of training activities.
It should be noted that FLUP is used interchangeably in this document as both referring to the planning
process and to the Plan itself.
xii
Module 1
Orientation on
GovernanceOriented
Forest Land Use
Planning
Coverage
Local government units (LGUs) will have a better
appreciation of the planning process and be more
motivated to complete the Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP)
if they understand the context, concepts and principles
behind it and its relevance to local development
priorities.
Thus, it is necessary that LGUs recognize forests and
forest lands (FFL) as natural resource assets which
if properly managed can contribute significantly to
their development and promote the welfare of their
constituents. FFL management can also contribute
nationally and even globally to ensuring food security,
biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation.
Module 1 discusses the rationale, importance and
principles related to FLUP, and orients members of the
FLUP technical working group (TWG) on the overall
process. It explains the key concepts related to FLUP,
its objectives, methodologies, required assessment and
analysis and the importance of good governance principles
and practices (functionality, transparency, accountability
and participatory decision-making or FTAP) in planning
and managing FFL.
This module also discusses relevant government policies
on the management of FFL, and stresses the need for
community-validated forest land data and maps in planning.
Likewise, it briefly discusses the suggested FLUP outline
and the process for the legitimization and approval of
FLUPs.
1
Objectives
By the end of Module 1, participants should be able to:
1. Understand the relevant concepts and principles in FLUP;
2. Appreciate governance-oriented FLUP;
3. Understand the need for LGUs to be involved in FLUP; and
4. Organize TWG sub-teams.
Outputs
At the end of this training module, participants would have prepared an action plan for community orientation,
data collection, analysis and validation. The action plan will include:
1) Checklist of various data and maps to be collected with data sources;
2) Organization of the TWG sub-teams (such as the mapping and community profiling/IEC sub-teams)
and their respective tasks/responsibilities;
3) Schedule of activities; and
4) List of supplies and logistics requirements to accomplish the expected outputs and their sources.
Participants
This module is intended for members of FLUP-TWG. TWG members may include representatives from the
LGU (e.g., from the City/Municipal Planning and Development Office or C/MPDO, Environment and Natural
Resources Office, or ENRO, Sangguniang Panglungsod/Bayan, barangay, provincial government); other sectors
(e.g., NGOs, academe, community leaders); and DENR field offices. This module may be conducted for a
cluster of two or three LGUs.
Duration
This is a one-and-a-half day training course.
Suggested Program (Table 1)
Activity
Mechanics
Estimated Time
Allocation
Day 1
Preliminaries (opening program)
15 minutes
Leveling of Expectations/Overview of Training

Objectives and Schedule
Use of Technology of Participation method is

suggested
30 minutes
Walkthrough of Past Activities
Presentation of activities undertaken that led to

the signing of Memorandum of Agreement for the
preparation of FLUP
15 minutes
Discussion on National and Regional Forest Situation
Presentation (using powerpoint)
30 minutes
Workshop 1: Current Reality Dialogue
Group workshop focusing on the status of FFL

highlighting the extent, causes and effects of
deforestation in the LGU
30 minutes
Presentation of Workshop Outputs/Synthesis

Session on Relevant Concepts and Principles in FLUP
(FFL as natural resource asset, tenure holders rights in
FFL, FLUP as a tool to close open access areas and
for improving management of FFL)
30 minutes
Presentation (using powerpoint)
Open forum
2
1 hour
Activity
Mechanics
Estimated Time
Allocation
Discussion on Governance Oriented Forest Land Use

Planning
Interactive technical input with powerpoint

presentation
1 hour
Discussion/Lecture on the Need for LGUs To Be

Involved in FLUP
30 minutes
Lunch Break
The FLUP Outline - Data and Map requirements
Interactive technical Input with powerpoint

presentation and open forum
1.5 hours
Workshop 2: Data Needs Assessment
Assessment by the TWG of what data are needed in

FLUP formulation and identication of areas/ofces
where these data can be obtained
(NOTE: Workshop 2 outputs may be presented
together with the outputs of Workshop 3)
1 hour
Assessment by the TWG of the composition of its

members (whether it is enough or there is a need to
add members to ensure adequate participation from
different sectors).
1 hour
Day 2
Workshop 3: Action Planning for Module 2 and for
Entire FLUP Process
Preparation of action plan for collecting available

data and in reorganizing the TWG (working teams
and individual tasks are identied; schedules are also
indicated in the plan).
Plenary Presentation of Outputs
Presentation of workshop outputs in plenary

discussion
1 hour
Process
Day 1
1. After the opening program preliminaries, discuss participants expectations about this training. Inform
the participants during this session that five (5) more modules have to be undertaken and the whole
process will take from three (3) to six (6) months depending on the available resources and work pace
of the TWG. Emphasize that it is necessary for the LGU to allocate sufficient resources to all the
planned activities.
2. After the leveling of expectations, present an overview of the training objectives and the activity
schedule.
3. Remind the participants about the reasons of the LGU in deciding to formulate a FLUP and events
leading to the signing of agreement between DENR and the LGU to jointly develop the Plan. This is to
stress the commitment of both parties to support one another and complete the task.
4. Begin the next session with an orientation on the present forest situation in the country and the
region (discussion on provincial situation may be done if data are available) to put in proper context
the discussion on forest land use planning. The trainer starts by discussing the current forest cover in
the country, then in the region concerned (and/or province) and then comparing these with previous
forest cover data. The rate of forest cover decline especially of the natural forests is highlighted.
To demonstrate the disparity in forest resources, the regional/provincial natural forest data can be
compared with other regions. (See Lecture Notes 1.1)
3
5. To make the discussions more relevant to local situations,

It is important that synthesis of the outputs
the trainer facilitates a workshop (Workshop 1) where
of Workshop 1 be done well either by the
participants from the same areas are grouped together
trainer or facilitator. The synthesis connects
to discuss the forestry situation in their own localities.
the previous session to the next and will be
(NOTE: If there are two or more LGUs, divide the group by
used as reference during the discussion on
LGU; if there is only one LGU, divide it by barangay). Each
FLUP concepts and principles.
group discusses the forestry situation in their locality by
identifying areas that were previously forested but are
now degraded or deforested due to forest conversion
and illegal cutting (whenever possible, use a map to show the extent of forest destruction). The groups
also assess the condition of other natural resource assets such as grasslands, plantations and cultivated
lands. Discussions focus on the causes or factors that led to current conditions and the effects/impacts
of these conditions on the community and downstream areas.
6. Each group then reports the results of their discussions in the plenary and a synthesis shall be provided
by the facilitator/trainer that will lead into the next session.
7. The trainer discusses relevant concepts and principles involved in the FLUP process as a tool for addressing
forestry issues and concerns. (See Lecture Notes 1.2) The discussion includes important policies
mandating LGUs to co-manage FFL.To appreciate FLUP
better, it is necessary to understand how governanceThe facilitator/trainer should stress the
oriented forest land use planning addresses the
importance of the mapping and community
problems of forest destruction. The starting point is to
profiling/IEC teams, and putting the right
make the participants realize that the problem of illegal
persons in these teams. If needed, the teams
cutting and forest conversion results from the absence
may be augmented by other representatives
of responsible on-site managers. To drive this point,
from the DENR, LGU (such as personnel
the trainer shall refer to the synthesis of the causes of
from the City/Municipal Planning and
forest destruction as identified in the first workshop.
Development Office or C/MPDO, the LGU
The trainer requests each participant to write on a meta
Agrarian Reform Office) and other relevant
card one cause of forest destruction reported in the
agencies.
first workshop (e.g., kaingin). Together with the other
participants, the suggested causes are processed to end
Data gathering teams may also be
up with the realization that the absence of responsible
organized in selected barangays, particularly
forest managers in forest lands is the main reason or
in the uplands and in areas where there is
root cause why the forests are being destroyed. Illegal
significant interaction between the barangay
cutting, kaingin and migration into forest lands will not
residents and forest resources.The Barangay
happen if there are responsible/accountable managers
Development Council can be tapped as the
on site who will sustainably use, protect and guard the
data gathering team. Community leaders
forests. The trainer then proceeds with discussions on
and members of the TWG were to select
which portions of forest lands are most vulnerable to
the representatives, composed of 10-15
forest destruction.
members of both sexes, with young people
8. The next session then elaborates on the FLUP process
and adults, and a mix of IPs and migrants in
and associated FTAP practices. (See Lecture Notes 1.3)
heterogeneous communities.
The trainer should emphasize that FLUP encourages
participatory planning as upland, lowland and coastal
Each team agrees on the roles, responsibilities
resources and ecosystems are interconnected; thus,
and expected outputs of the group. At this
relevant stakeholders from all these sectors should be
point, accountable persons or groups for
actively involved in how FFLs are going to be allocated
particular tasks are identified. A detailed
and managed.
action plan is then prepared for the group.
9. This will be followed by a short lecture/discussion on
It is important that a group, such as the
why LGUs should be involved in FLUP, emphasizing that
C/MPDO of local governments, is assigned
FFL are resources and assets that should be properly
for proper coordination, communication and
managed as they help spur economic development in
collation of information.
the countryside. (See Lecture Notes 1.4)
4
10. The next session provides a brief overview of the FLUP outline and discusses maps and other
requirements. (See Lecture Notes 1.5)
11. Workshop 2 is devoted to the inventory of available data and maps and identification of organizations,
offices or agencies where the information could be obtained. (See Lecture Notes 1.6)
Day 2
1. Workshop 3 focuses on assessing the composition of the TWG -- respective expertise of members and
whether the team is representative of key stakeholders that will be involved in the FLUP formulation.
This will also help determine whether additional people (representing offices or groups relevant to
FLUP development) would be needed.
An action plan is prepared for activities to be undertaken before the next training session. The action
plan may include the organization of the TWG into sub-teams. At the minimum, at least two sub-teams
should be created: a) mapping team; and b) community profiling/IEC team. Expected outputs, functions
and resource requirements will also have to be defined.
2. The action plan is then presented in the plenary discussion.
Lecture Notes
Extent of Forest Cover Loss in the last 100 years

Source: Environmental Science for Social Change, 1999
5
1.1 The Forestry Situation

The country has substantially lost its forest cover during the last 100 years. In the 1900s, the Philippines
forest cover was estimated at 70 percent; this went down to 60 percent in the 1920s, 40 percent in the
1960s, 34 percent in the 1970s, 23.7 percent in 1987 and to 18.3 percent in 19999.
Unregulated and illegal logging and conversion of our forests into other uses (such as for agricultural
use) have been identified as among the main causes of forest degradation. This national trend is
reflective of what is going on at the regional and provincial levels.
(NOTE: This session includes discussion on the forest cover situation at the regional -- and if data are
available, the provincial level. See accompanying CD for sample powerpoint material on this topic.
This powerpoint presentation may be revised/enhanced to suit local situation)
1.2 Key Concepts: Governance-oriented FLUP as a tool to improve management of forests

and forest lands
There are several key concepts that participants should understand to better appreciate the need for
an FLUP. These include:
Open Access Areas
Open-access areas, which refer to parts of forest lands which have not been allocated under any
tenure arrangements, are most vulnerable to destruction. Since there are assigned managers, people
can easily get in and out of these areas resulting in uncontrolled use and destruction of the remaining
forest resources. Tenured forest lands which are abandoned or not managed in accordance with
agreed uses and approved management plans by the current holders of tenure instruments are also
considered open access. These tenure holders do not feel responsible for these areas because they
have no accountability to the public and their performance is not monitored and evaluated properly.
Thus, the proper allocation and selection of responsible forest managers or tenure holders is critical
to the protection and development of forest lands. The allocation process should be participatory
and transparent to ensure accountability of tenure holders. A governance-oriented forest land use
planning is the first crucial step in the allocation process of FFL to responsible tenure holders.
Forests and Forest Lands as Natural Resource Assets
The proper allocation and management of FFL requires an understanding of its unique characteristics
as a resource and the corresponding property rights arrangements.
FFL can be seen as natural resource assets which, if not properly managed, can adversely affect the
overall welfare of the LGUs constituents.
FFL provide multiple products and services which relate to food, fiber and water security, biodiversity
conservation and climate change mitigation.
Because of its multiple services and uses, FFL benefits not only those within the immediate area (onsite impact) but also those outside forest lands (off-site impacts). They affect not only the present
generation but future generations as well.
6
Allocation Rights in Forests and Forest

Lands
Since FFL have inter-generational impacts, the

State is designated as owner and guardian of
this resource. This is embodied in the Regalian
Doctrine and adopted by the Philippine
Constitution, which provides that All natural
resources, forests, forest lands, grazing lands,
minerals, etcare owned by the State.
Hence the management, development,
protection and use of FFL are placed under the
responsibility of the State through its various
agencies such as the DENR (Executive Order
192), the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples or NCIP (Indigenous Peoples Rights
Act of 1997 or RA 8371), local governments
(RA 7160) and other instrumentalities.
For effective management, the State allocates
FFL to resource managers or tenure holders
who are to manage the allocated lands in
accordance with a management plan approved
by the agencies of the State. In effect, tenure
holders manage the allocated FFL in behalf of
the State. In return, they derive benefits from
the use of the resource.
Other relevant concepts in forest land
use planning
Allocation confers certain rights to tenure

holders. Ideally, these rights include:
o
o
o
o
Use right - right to use and derive benefits

(social, economic) from an asset;
Management right - right to decide on
how the asset is to be managed, who shall
be permitted to use the asset and under
which conditions;
Income right - right to derive income
from the use of the resource;
Capital right right to invest in, consume
and transform the asset to make it
productive;
Transfer right right to transfer
management of the asset to an equally
responsible manager; and
Tenure right right to occupy, use and
manage the asset for a specific period of
time.
If these rights are sufficiently recognized, protected

and supported by the State, responsible resource
managers will be encouraged to invest to make
the asset more productive. FFL allocation can be
the ultimate enforcement mechanism as resource
managers will protect these resources as they
exercise their rights over them.
Otherwise, tenure holders will turn their back

The FLUP emphasizes the urgency of closing
on their responsibility or exploit the resource to
open access areas and putting portions of
derive maximum benefits within the short-term.
these areas into some form of ownership.
This is deemed to enhance accountability,
management and development of these
areas and control illegal cutting and forest
conversion. Responsible tenure holders will exercise their right to develop, manage and derive benefits
together with their responsibility to protect these areas,
The goal of forest land use planning is to formulate an allocation plan acceptable to all stakeholders to
ensure sustainable forest management, soil, water and biodiversity conservation and attain food and
water security.
The FLUP process is also to be guided by the principles of multiple use forestry, social equity, integrated
watershed planning, and participatory planning.
7
Multiple use forestry FFL have multiple and complementary uses and functions. While they may
be designed primarily for use as protection, some areas may be used for agriculture, wood production,
settlements and recreation among others. The various land uses within forest lands must complement
each other to promote balance between ecological and economic concerns to optimize benefits.
Social equity FLUPs should be sensitive to the needs, aspirations and culture of upland and indigenous
communities. The potential impacts of the planning options on the upland and indigenous peoples (IP)
communities within the watershed should be carefully studied to ensure they are not displaced and have
equal access to securing tenure in FFL.
Integrated watershed planning The uses of FFL have impacts on its immediate environment (on-site)
and downstream areas (offsite). Conversely developments downstream (e.g. agricultural expansion and
road development) have effects on adjacent forests and forest lands. The uses of FFL therefore cannot be
planned in isolation. Forest land use planning must recognize the interactions among the uplands, lowlands
and coastal ecosystems. FLUP uses the ridge to reef planning framework to integrate upland, lowland and
coastal interactions within a watershed.
1.3 Governance-Oriented FLUP
Considering the nature of FFL assets (i.e. multiple uses/users with on-site/off-site and temporal impacts),
it is important that its allocation process through FLUP is integrated with governance.The environment
and its resources can best be protected, managed, sustained and utilized if guided and motivated
by governance principles, such as participatory decision-making at the planning and implementation
stages.
FLUP considers the needs and concerns of local communities and LGUs and should be consistent
with the national governments policies and sound resource management frameworks. The approach
provides for democratic consultations, negotiations and conflict resolution among various stakeholders
so that results are socially acceptable, technically feasible and ecologically sound. The rationale behind
this is that when various stakeholders are involved in the planning, they will own the plan and will
likely be active participants in implementation.
What is Governance-Oriented Forest Land Use Planning?
It is a transparent, iterative and participatory process in planning the allocation, management, monitoring
and investments in FFL within each LGU resulting in a vision of the future of FFL.
It is a vision anchored on analysis of situation, expression of interests and ideals of stakeholders, responses
to challenges and opportunities, and clear understanding of the different roles and responsibilities of
various stakeholders.
Why Governance-Oriented FLUP?
FFL has numerous stakeholders with varying interests. Hence, decisions on its allocation and use
cannot be unilateral. Such decisions should be based on sound environmental governance meaning
transparent and participatory so that stakeholders have a sense of accountability to ensure that the
agreed actions are implemented and monitored properly.
8
Importance of Governance-Oriented FLUP
It serves as a road map that provides clear and common direction to the LGU, DENR and other
stakeholders and guides them on how to organize, mobilize, and use their resources (money, human
resource, network/linkages) to achieve objectives;
It identifies the major management zones (production, protection and multiple use zones) within
forest lands, which can be used to delineate investment areas for production and conservation.
It provides the basis in assessing FFL improvements over time based on key performance indicators as
agreed and demanded by key stakeholders.
Functionality,Transparency, Accountability and Participation
as Indicators of Good Environmental Governance
Environmental governance is the process by which powers and authorities are exercised by
mandated government institutions, together with non-government stakeholders, in the management
of environment and natural resources to achieve shared social, economic, ecological and institutional
objectives.
If expressed in terms of formula, its components are: Technical Solutions to Resource Management
(TSRM) + Good Governance (GG) + Performance Indicators based on Standards (PIS) = Improved
and Enhanced Environmental Conditions (IEEC).
To illustrate, reforestation is a technical solution to improve the conditions of degraded forest lands.
If local stakeholders are not involved in analyzing local situations and in making decisions to reforest
certain portions of forest lands (i.e. absence of GG), it will be very difficult to get their commitment to
support the activity. With the absence of a system for monitoring performance, this activity is unlikely
to succeed.
9
Functionality is the extent to which management systems (e.g., rules, processes, procedures and created
body, group or office) are achieving their intended purpose. Examples include:
o formation and mobilization of FLUP TWG provided with official mandate and budget for its
activities
o enforcement of environmental laws by trained and deputized enforcers with adequate budget and
other logistic support
Transparency is the extent to which the general public has current, complete and reliable information
about decisions and actions taken by the government.
Examples of transparency in practice include:
o posting of plans/zoning maps, ordinances, and proceedings in public bulletin boards;
o periodic publication of performance audit reports, financial statements, reports on license/permit
issuances, results of transactions/bidding; and
o local legislations made public through various media.
Accountability is the degree to which the officials and staff of a government unit or of an agency is held
responsible for their decisions and actions and for the performance of their staff and offices. It refers to
the answerability by state officials, public employees, and private sector to their constituents for policies,
actions and use of funds. Examples of accountability in practice are:
o Clearly articulated roles and responsibilities of stakeholders as indicated in plans and policies;
o Holding of periodic public expenditures review;
o Clear sanctions and incentives;
o Periodic conduct of performance audit; and
o Periodic assessment of policies.
Participation is the degree that the general public, especially key stakeholders and marginalized groups
have access and opportunities to influence the decision or action of a government unit or public agency.
Examples of participatory decision-making in action include:
o Consensus-building; establishment of conflict resolution mechanisms
o Public consultations/hearings prior to decision-making/legitimization of plans/issuance of
ordinances
o Multi-sectoral representation in committees, working groups, management councils, enforcement
groups
o Participatory monitoring and evaluation with community feedback system.
1.4 Why Should LGUs be Involved in Forest Land Use Planning?

LGUs should be made to realize that it is to their advantage to properly manage FFLs as a large part of
land resources of most LGUs are classified as forest lands. The development of these natural resource
assets can significantly contribute to the overall development of cities, municipalities and provinces.
LGUs and local stakeholders can best put these assets into sustainable management since they are
physically present where the resources are.
The upland-lowland interaction in rural communities necessitates that LGUs and their constituents
have a voice on and stake in how forest lands will be managed. It is the role of the LGUs to mediate
so that upland activities do not adversely impact on its lowland constituents and vice versa.
10
LGUs (at all levels) can best plan, direct and realign their public investments so that FFL management
will complement its short-, medium- and long-term development objectives.
There are various reasons LGUs should be involved in FLUP. Annex A cites some of EcoGov LGU
partners reasons as well as experience in developing and implementing FLUP.
1.5 The Governance-Oriented FLUP Process
The governance-oriented FLUP process as shown in Figure 1 demonstrates that forest land use planning
is anchored on multi-sectoral analysis of community situation to generate consensus on FFL allocation.
The analysis is not only based on technical data and maps but also on socio-economic, cultural and
institutional information.
Figure 1. Forest Land Use Planning Process
Data and Map Collection
Reliable data and maps are important in forest land use planning as basis for sound and informed
decision making. Using community profiling methods, thematic mapping and community mapping,
the multi-sectoral city/municipal TWG collects data and maps relating to the status of FFL assets and
their uses, the users of FFL (or the stakeholders), the existing institutional arrangements in managing
FFL assets, identified threats to resource assets, and opportunities for their development. These
information are important to establish the current condition of FFL assets and the trends in its uses as
influenced by activities of the different stakeholders and the way it is managed by resource institutions.
From these, problems, threats and opportunities could be identified and used as basis in developing
strategies for effective FFL management. It should be emphasized that participation of key forest
stakeholders is necessary in data collection, mapping and in validating related data as it promotes
transparent decision-making.
11
Situational Analysis
The situational analysis phase identifies issues and opportunities. It also generates preliminary
recommendations based on analyzed data. Through map overlay analysis, simplified simulation
techniques and other tools, the TWG evaluates the overall picture of current conditions and recent
trends in FFL and identifies conflicting/complementing interests, claims and use among stakeholders. It
identifies the extent of open access forest lands, improperly managed allocated areas, and institutional
gaps in the management of FFL. Watersheds are used as the unit of analysis to demonstrate the
relationships of FFL with respect to the other ecosystems following the ridge-to-reef framework.
Results of the analysis are used during the planning phase where stakeholders generate consensus on
zones, allocations, watershed prioritization and other technical, organizational and financial strategies.
Participatory Prioritization of Sub-Watersheds and Allocation of FFL
Key findings in the situational analysis are discussed by the TWG highlighting illegal cutting, forest
lands conversion, boundary and resource use conflicts and trends in losses of forest cover, among
other issues. The TWG formulates the LGUs vision, mission, goals and objectives for managing the
FFL taking in consideration the issues and opportunities identified and the needs of the municipality.
Strategies are then developed which include zoning the FFL to identify production and protection
zones, allocation of open access areas and sub-watershed prioritization. The TWG initially agrees
on a set of criteria for zoning and allocating FFL and in prioritizing sub-watersheds. Based on these
agreed sets of criteria, preliminary zoning and allocation plan and prioritization of sub-watersheds are
developed.
Plan Preparation
Results of the previous phases of the FLUP process are integrated by organizing a writeshop. Following
the suggested FLUP outline, TWG members are divided into groups where each group is assigned a
FLUP section to write on. The outputs of each group are presented in plenary to the municipal TWG
and consolidated by a LSP or by an integration team, incorporating the comments/suggestions during
the plenary presentation. The consolidated draft FLUP is then presented to different stakeholders
in a meeting to validate and generate consensus on the visions, FFL allocation, prioritization of subwatersheds and other recommendations. The draft FLUP, which is actually a 10-year plan, also includes
a 5-year and 1-year budget and implementation work plan.
Legitimization
The draft FLUP will have to be legitimized by the Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan (SP/B) so it becomes
part of the annual investment plan of the LGU (and subsequently of the CLUP and city/municipal
development plan). Prior to legitimization, the draft is presented to the City/Municipal Development
Council (C/MDC) for endorsement to the SP/B. In some cases, it may be useful to hold a separate
presentation to the SP/B Chairs of the Environment and Finance Committees so they will fully
understand the significances of the FLUP and the level of funding that will be needed.
A technical presentation of the draft plan is also made by the TWG to the DENR-Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), the DENR-Provincial Environment and Natural
Resources Office (PENRO) and the DENR-Region. The TWG, after integrating C/MDCs and the
DENRs comments into the draft plan, shall submit a copy to the SP/B for approval and endorsement
through a resolution -- to the DENR-Regional Executive Director (RED). The resolution shall also
contain an authority for the mayor to sign an FLUP implementation agreement with the RED. The
SP/B-approved version of the Plan is then sent to the DENR RED through the DENR-CENRO and/or
DENR-PENRO.
12
FLUP Implementation Agreement
The approval of the FLUP by the RED will be based on the DENR-CENRO/PENRO endorsement.
The RED then signs the joint FLUP implementation MOA with the LGU. This MOA emphasizes
the respective roles and responsibilities of the LGU and the DENR, including resources sharing and
complementation in FLUP implementation.
FLUP Implementation
The LGU and the DENR proceed to implement the FLUP. Among the activities that may require
immediate attention are facilitating co-management of open access areas, issuance of tenure instruments,
resource management planning, recognition of individual property rights, investment promotion,
formation and training of multi-sector forest protection teams/committee, and regular monitoring of
on-site management of tenure holders.
Both the process and outputs of FLUP demonstrate good governance through FTAP:
o
o
o
Functionality of bodies, offices or organizations created supported with manpower and

budget
Transparency in the allocation of FFL and issuance of resource use rights; equal access to
information relating to FFL; and informed decision-making.
Accountability of holders of tenure/allocation instruments based on their commitments,
agreements, plans in the management of the areas they are responsible for; and accountability
of the DENR and LGU to support forest/upland development and for their resource allocation
decisions.
Participation of stakeholders in the analysis, planning and land allocation process, and in forest
management and policy advocacy. To ensure that the concerns of all stakeholders are addressed,
women, youth, IPs and disadvantaged groups should be represented in the planning team.
13
1.6 Data and Map Requirements of FLUP

Checklist of Specific Data
The checklist below (Box 1) will guide data gathering. The team can enhance the list as they find new,
relevant data while gathering information.
Box 1. Checklist of Data Requirements

Background information
o Brief history of the municipality
o Location, area and accessibility
o Relation to a larger watershed
o Previous logging operations in the area
o Climate
o Strategic importance of the municipality
o Topography and slope
o Land cover
The FFL assets: Current status, uses, related programs being managed, threats and opportunities
o Land Resources
- Total area and land classication
Alienable and disposable lands
Forest lands
- Tenure allocation (protected areas, Certicate of Ancestral Domain Title or CADT, mineral lands)
- Physical limitations (slope, elevation, geologic hazards, soil)
- Uses (Agriculture/cultivated, built-up, grasslands/brushlands)
o Natural Forests (area of closed canopy, open canopy, marginal forests and mangroves for at least two time periods)
o Plantations and Orchards
o Water Bodies and Watersheds (rivers and uses; watersheds/micro watersheds and service areas)
o Biodiversity (protected areas, rare/endemic, endangered species)
o Resources related to nature tourism (caves, waterfalls, lakes, etc.)
o Minerals
The Stakeholders:
o Barangay Residents (upland/lowland barangays)
- Demographic situations (population for two periods, migration, ethnic composition, male-female ratio)
- Prole of IPs
- Income and income sources (economic activities, including specic livelihoods aimed at improving womens
economic status)
- Social services and infrastructures
- Dependence on forest lands for food, water, wood, etc.
o Tenure holders and forest occupants assessment of on-site management and resource management practices
o Water users (irrigators, water districts, domestic water consumers)
o Forest-based industries (furniture makers, wood processors, etc.)
The institutional arrangements and how they participate and work together in managing the FFL.
o Barangay, municipal and provincial LGUs (Internal Revenue Allotment or IRA, manpower/Municipal Environment and
Natural resources Ofce or MENRO, budget, projects, etc.)
o DENR (manpower, budget, projects, etc.)
o NCIP (manpower, budget, projects, etc.)
o Other institutions working in or dependent on the forest lands such as non-government organizations (NGOs), furniture
makers associations, womens associations
(NOTE: Powerpoint presentations may be used to show the sample thematic maps and the data that can be
generated from them, presented in tabular form.)
14
Module 2
Social
Preparation,
Profiling and
Mapping
Coverage
In formulating an FLUP, having reliable baseline data is
important for informed decision-making.The participation
of key forest stakeholders allows the use of local
knowledge to enrich and validate the data that will be
used in profiling the area.
Module 2 initiates the FLUP teams field activity. It is
critical that roles and responsibilities of the FLUP team
members are reviewed and further clarified before they
are deployed to the field.
Module 2 focuses on gathering the required data and
maps for the assessment of present socio-economic and
cultural conditions as well as the status of forests and
forest lands. It covers the content as well as the techniques
in data collection, mapping and site validation including the
conduct of the initial community information, education
and communication (IEC). Profiling indigenous peoples is
included in areas where they exist.
15
Objectives
By the end of this module, the participants should be able to:
1) Learn the basics of communications to enable them to develop a simple IEC plan and conduct initial
community information/education/communication (IEC) with various FLUP stakeholders;
2) Understand how to collect and consolidate required socio-economic and cultural data for the FLUP
using various profiling techniques;
3) Do thematic mapping and map overlay analysis;
4) Learn how to validate key socio-economic, cultural data and completed thematic maps with concerned
communities, groups and other stakeholders; and
5) Update data and thematic maps after field validation, reconnaissance surveys or selected community
mapping activities.
Outputs
Community IEC Plan

Draft Community Profile (containing updated and validated socio-economic and cultural information
on the concerned LGU)
Corrected thematic maps (See Box 2)
Box 2. Checklist of Thematic Maps Needed for FLUP

NO.
THEMATIC MAPS
DESCRIPTION
SOURCE
Land Classication Map
Shows the location of timberland, alienable and

disposable areas
NAMRIA-DENR
Watershed and Drainage

Map
Shows the watershed divide; Shows the rivers and

creeks and the amount of water coming out of the
rivers/ creek
Topographic Map
Vegetative Cover Map
Old-growth forest (virgin forest); Second-growth

forest (open and closed canopy forests), plantation,
agricultural areas, etc.
DENR, to be updated from

community mapping
Slope Map
<18%
18-30
30-50
>50%
To be computed from 1:50,000

topographic map, DENR
Elevation Map
<500 masl
500-1,000
>1,000 masl
To be derived from the topographic

map, DENR
Tenure & Allocation Map
Shows the areas with CSCs, CBFMA, land grant,

protected area, special agreements and other tenure
instruments
DENR, DAR, DA-BFAR, MGB
Land Use Map
Shows agro-forestry, built up, cultivation areas, etc.
Comprehensive Land Use Plans,

eld validation, DA-BFAR, NAMRIA
Infrastructure Map
Shows the bridges, roads, communal irrigation

LGU, DPWH, NIA, DA
system, power distribution systems, schools, hospital,
ports, dams and other infrastructures
Settlement/Barangay Map
Show the population density/ distribution by

barangay, and areas of settlements; location of sitios
LGU, barangays concerned, to be

updated from community mapping
10
Political/Administrative
Map
Shows the location of barangays and sitios
LGU, DENR
16
Box 2. Checklist of Thematic Maps Needed for FLUP

11
Geologic Hazard & Risk

Map
Location of geologic hazards, e.g. volcanoes, faults,

MGB, DOST
land slips, areas of liquefaction, highly erodable areas
12
Conicts/Issues Map
Shows the location of existing and emerging conicts

in land use allocation plus other issues and concerns
related to forest management (.e.g. overlapping
tenures/claim, identied boundary conicts, location
of new and old kaingin, location of cutting areas)
To be generated from map overlay

analysis and community mapping,
DA-BFAR
13
Forestry Projects Map
Show forestry operation by various agencies, e.g.

reforestation projects
Project documents
14
Mineral Map, if any
Shows location of Mineral Production Sharing

Agreement,
exploration permits, Financial or Technical
Assistance Agreements, mining claims
DENR-MGB, LGU
Note:These maps are discussed in details in the Mapping Guidebook.
Participants
Those involved in the conduct of this module are members of the mapping and the community profiling/IEC
sub-teams, which may include members of the TWG and representatives from the DENR and other LGU
units (for the data gathering teams at the municipal level); and possibly members of the barangay development
council (for the barangay level data gathering teams).
Duration
This is a two-day training course. The actual data gathering, however, may last for a month or two.
Activity
Mechanics
Estimated Time
Allocation
Day 1
15 minutes
Leveling of expectations/Overview of training objectives Use of Technology of Participation method suggested 30 minutes
and schedule
Walkthrough of Past Activities
Presentation of past activities in Module 1
15 minutes
Technical Input: Developing a Simple IEC Plan

(Discussion on: Basics of Communication, Targeting
Specic Audience, How to Deliver Messages, Audience
Analysis)
Interactive technical input with powerpoint

presentation and open forum
45 minutes
Workshop on Completing Audience Analysis Matrix
Participants will be divided into groups and asked to

complete the matrix per target audience
45 minutes
Presentation of workshop outputs
Group presentation of completed matrix
30 minutes
Technical Input: Brief Discussion on Completing IEC

Plan Matrix
Plenary
20 minutes
Workshop on Completing IEC Plan Matrix (per target

audience)
Group work (same grouping as in Workshop in

Completing Audience Analysis Matrix)
45 minutes
Plenary
30 minutes
Workshop on preparation of FLUP IEC materials
Participants will be divided and each group will

design IEC materials for the community IEC
4 hours
17
Activity
Mechanics
Estimated Time
Allocation
Group presentation of draft IEC materials
1 hour
Technical Input: FLUP proling thru participatory rural

appraisal (PRA)
Interactive Technical Input with powerpoint

presentation
1 hour
Workshop: Community mapping simulation
Map out the following: a) drainage system; b) roads;

c) settlements; d) existing claims; and e) existing
land uses
1 hour
Proling IP communities
Interactive discussion on key information for IP

proling
1 hour
Technical Input: Basic mapping for FLUP
Interactive Technical Input with powerpoint

presentation
1.5 hours
Workshop on watershed delineation
Participants delineate watershed divide in

topographic map
1 hour
Workshop: Inventory of FLUP data
Each LGU prepares an inventory matrix of the

availability of FLUP data and maps
1 hour
Action planning for eld activities
Each LGU team adjusts the schedule of activities

previously prepared in Module 1
30 minutes
Day 2
Process
Day 1
1. After the opening program preliminaries, the facilitator/trainer conducts leveling of expectations and
later discusses training objectives and schedule. A walkthrough of past activities in Module 1 follows,
giving emphasis on agreements made and creation of teams, especially the mapping and the community
profiling/IEC sub-teams.
2. The module starts with a discussion on preparing a simple IEC plan for FLUP. Explain that before any
field data gathering activity is initiated, the community profiling/IEC sub-team conducts IEC about
FLUP and related activities so that stakeholders will appreciate what it is all about. Emphasize to the
participants that they should be able to communicate the importance of FLUP in promoting effective
forest management and the role of various stakeholders in the formulation and implementation
of the FLUP. In this session, the Basics of Communication is explained (see Lecture Notes 2.1)
with emphasis on the importance of listening or knowing your target audience. A discussion on
Message Formulation: Targeting Specific Audience follows (see Lecture Notes 2.2), after which, the
various ways of delivering messages are explained (see Lecture Notes 2.3).
3. After the lectures, Audience Analysis is discussed
and a matrix shown (either written on a whiteboard, a
Manila paper or shown on screen) to the participants
(see Audience Analysis Matrix, Lecture Notes 2.4).
For the first column of the matrix (Target Audience),
ask the participants to identify at least three primary
stakeholders that will be consulted or whose support
is needed for FLUP data gathering and related activities
18
The trainer/facilitator should emphasize that

it is important to come up with SPECIFIC
target audience as later on, the participants
will be asked to identify specific desired
behavior and to develop particular message
concepts for each audience segment.
(possible answers: barangay officials, IPs, farmers, irrigators, mayor. If the participants say community
leaders and members, ask them to be specific: Is it IP leaders, upland farmers or barangay
officials?). These primary stakeholders will be the major audience segments that will be targeted by
the IEC activities. List them down in the first column of the matrix.
4. Still at plenary, choose one specific target audience identified by the participants and use it as an
example on how to fill out the matrix. Encourage the participants to get involved in completing
the information required in the matrix -- Target Audience, Desired Action, Facilitating and Hindering
Factors that may Affect Decision, perceived Benefits to target audience and Message Concepts (see
Lecture Notes 2.4 again). After completing the example, divide the participants into at least two
groups and ask them to complete the matrix per target audience assigned to them. Each group will be
asked to present their outputs later.
5. After the presentation, it is time to develop the simple
IEC plan using the Communications Plan Matrix (see
Lecture Notes 2.5). The participants may be divided
again (per target audience assigned in the earlier
workshop) to complete the matrix. The outputs will
be presented in plenary. The outputs of the groups will
then be consolidated into one IEC or communication
plan.
6.
For the session on preparing FLUP IEC

materials, the trainer/facilitator should
be able to provide the participants with
necessary supplies, such as crayons,
pentel pens of various colors and Manila
paper. If these are not readily available,
participants may be asked to use their
laptops in developing a poster, a leaflet or a
presentation using powerpoint.
As development of FLUP IEC materials will certainly

come out as one of the major activities in the plan, the
next workshop will focus on materials development.
Again, divide the participants into groups (same groups as in the previous workshops is suggested)
and ask each to develop a material (presentation, poster, etc.) for the target audience assigned to
them using the audience analysis matrix they have completed as reference for desired behavior and
message concepts to be employed. The outputs are later presented in plenary for critiquing.
Day 2
1. On Day 2, the first session discusses the procedure
on FLUP profiling, using Participatory Rural Appraisal
(PRA) as an approach. In this portion, the FLUP process
is reviewed. Then the rationale for community profiling
is discussed, and the PRA is described as well as the
steps involved. Techniques in data gathering, such as key
informant interview and focus group discussion are
also explained (see Lecture Notes 2.6). Importance
of having the data (socio-economic-cultural data and
thematic maps) updated and validated in consultation
with concerned stakeholders is emphasized.
3. An exercise/workshop is conducted after the lecture
to demonstrate community mapping, Technology of
Participation (TOP) in FLUP, watershed delineation and
map overlay analysis. Mapping out of the following is
simulated in the exercise/workshop: a) drainage system;
b) roads; c) settlements; d) existing claims; and e) existing
land uses.
While conducting community IEC on

FLUP, gathering of secondary data can
be undertaken by some members of
the IEC and Profiling team. Basic socioeconomic and cultural data are collected
in appropriate offices of the LGU and
other national agencies, such as population
and migration at two time periods, ethnic
composition, economic activities, resources
and resource uses, agricultural production,
forest-based economic activities, community
facilities and infrastructures, stakeholders
and community problems, issues, constraints
and opportunities. The team may refer to
the FLUP data collection guide in Annex
B to assist them in the community profiling
activities
19
4. An interactive discussion on key information on IP Profiling follows. This session concentrates on

gathering information about IPs who should be mobilized to participate in the formulation of the FLUP.
It details the step-by-step process required in profiling IPs (see Lecture Notes 2.7).
5. The next session discusses Basic Mapping for FLUP. Specifically, the discussion touches on the definition,
function, characteristics, classification and elements of maps; and the different thematic maps needed in
FLUP. A lecture on topographic maps, its characteristics and how to delineate watersheds cap off the
discussion (see Lecture Notes 2.8).
6. Workshop on Watershed Delineation follows, with participants asked to delineate watershed divide in
topographic map.
7. Another workshop, Inventory of FLUP Data, is conducted with participants from each LGU being
asked to prepare an inventory matrix of the availability of FLUP data and maps.
8. The last session is Action Planning for Field Activities. This will require adjusting the action plan and
schedule prepared in Module 1 to include the additional activities discussed in Module 2.
20
LECTURE Notes
2.1 The Basics of Communication
This is a review of basic communication process and concepts.
It includes a brief discussion of the elements of communication
(sender, message, channel, receiver, feedback and feed forward),
with emphasis given on the Feed forward that allows the one
to listen or know the audience (which is actually audience
analysis) first before communicating with him/her. Also discussed
are the different elements (policy, technology, information) that
could influence behavior change, emphasizing that in most cases,
these three elements have to be present for behavior change
to take place -- as well as the process (e process) that one
follows in developing a simple IEC plan or planning for an IEC
activity. Discussion also includes the Hierarchy of Effects in
communication, stressing that increasing awareness alone does
not necessarily result in behavior change (see IEC powerpoint
presentation,The Basics of Communication).
2.2 Message Formulation: Targeting Specific Audience

Developing the right message starts with identifying
the specific target audience you want to communicate
with.
For one to be able to deliver a specific

message, he/she should first know who to
communicate with, so that the message can
be formulated to suit the audiences needs
Reminders in message formulation:
Message is the heart and soul of every communication effort

Message should appeal to the hearts and minds of specific audience you want to reach
Message should first be very clear to YOU (what you would like to convey and what actions
you want the audience to do in response)
Message should be crafted in such a way that your audience can easily identify with it
A simple exercise could be done by showing slides of commercial ads to the participants and asking
them to identify the specific audience each ad is targeting as well as the message being relayed (see
IEC powerpoint presentation, Message Formulation: Targeting Specific Audience).
2.3 How do we deliver the message
There are many ways to deliver a particular message. Some of these are: targeting the emotion (which
appeals to the feelings/heart of the target audience); using the peso power (citing economic benefits
of FLUP), making a promise (explaining to target audience what the future holds for them if FLUP is
implemented), using scare tactics (showing negative scenario resulting from unmanaged forest areas)
and making LGU leaders commit (suggesting to IEC team to make LGU leaders support FLUP in public
as this puts pressure on them to make good their commitment). See IEC powerpoint presentation,
How Do we Deliver the Message.
21
2.4 Audience Analysis Matrix

Identifying who the target audience is and knowing what exact behavior or action he/she will be asked
to do and the benefits he/she will derive from such action are necessary information to enable one to
develop the right message concepts. For this interactive discussion, the trainer asks the participants
to identify at least three primary FLUP stakeholders that will be targeted by the IEC activities. These
primary stakeholders are listed as the target audience. To provide an example, the trainer completes
the matrix using one target audience (in this case, the mayor) with the help of the participants. It
should be emphasized that the IEC Team should take advantage of the Facilitating Factors and be able
to address the Hindering Factors (if, for example, the hindering factor is Mayor always busy in the
office, the IEC Team should find an opportunity to meet the mayor outside the office and get the help
of the person closest to the mayor such as the administrator to set up the appointment. If another
Hindering Factor is that the mayor dislikes the CENRO, the CENRO need not be there in the meeting
or, if CENRO has to be there, the administrator should accompany the IEC Team). Desired Action of
the mayor and the Benefits of FLUP need to be very clear so that the right message concept could be
formulated (DESIRED ACTION + BENEFITS = MESSAGE CONCEPT).
TARGET
AUDIENCE
Desired Action
Factors that may affect decision

F
Benets to Target Message concepts

Audience
Irrigators
POs in the uplands
Barangay ofcials
MAYOR
Provide funds for

FLUP activities
Developmentminded; funds
available
Time (always busy); Prevention of

doesnt like CENRO conicts in the
uplands, proper
allocation of lands,
protection of critical
watersheds, ensure
sustainable supply
of water
Providing funds to
support FLUP leads
in development of a
forest management
plan that can
help resolve
conicts in uplands
thus, lessening
the mayors
headaches; FLUP
can help identify
critical watersheds
and suggests plan
of actions to protect
them to ensure
sustainable water
supply
F Facilitating; H - Hindering
The rest of the matrix will be filled out by the participants themselves during the workshop.
2.5 Communications Plan Matrix
Developing the IEC or Communication Plan shouldnt be as difficult as key information required
has already been identified during the previous workshop. In formulation the Objectives By Target
Audience, simply add the target audience and the desired behavior (see sample below). The key
message concept could be taken from the audience analysis matrix.
22
Objectives
by target
audience
Encourage
mayor to
provide funds
for FLUP
activities
Activities
(to include
Channels)
Meeting with
& brief FLUP
orientation
Key message
concept
Time table
Responsible
person
Resources
Needed
Supporting FLUP
leads to better forest
management that
can resolve conicts
in uplands
(Put the week

or exact dates)
Who among
the IEC team
members is
accountable for
this activity to
happen
This may
include a short
presentation for
the mayor
Budget
2.6 FLUP Profiling through Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
Review of the FLUP Process
Rationale for community profiling: Planners and implementers need reliable information in FLUP
formulation
Types of information collected in community profiling:

1. What natural and human resources are available
2. How are these used and managed by what groups
3. Resource management mechanisms
4. Nature of relationships between resource users, resources and markets
5. Problems and opportunities
What is PRA? - A technique in data collection designed to encourage maximum community participation
in data gathering, analysis and use. Data gathering activities are viewed as opportunities for awareness
raising and community mobilization
Characteristics of PRA
1. Done in a short period of time 3 to 6 weeks
2. Multi-disciplinary involves forester, social scientist, agriculturist, business, etc.
3. Uses participatory techniques in gathering data key informant interview, focus group
discussion, community mapping
Some guiding principles in PRA

1. Type of information used in decision making must be prioritized
2. Local knowledge constitutes a valuable development resource. This must be accessed by
gathering data as close to the source as possible
3. The city/municipality must be viewed as an integral part of a micro-watershed
4. The planning area encompasses both the land, the social groups using or depending on the land
and the forest resources thereon
Stages in PRA
1. Preparatory and secondary data gathering - Secure maps, review records & documents, contact
GO/NGO workers w/ experience in the site, make data checklist, schedule fieldwork, arrange
field accommodation, transport, and other logistics, administrative arrangements
2. Primary data gathering - Courtesy call on barangay officials, finalize field schedules, walkthrough,
sketch/ community mapping, transect mapping, identify key informants, semi-structured
interviewing, focus group discussion note taking, copying records, organizing/consolidating data,
check data gaps, feed backing
3. Report writing - Finalize maps, charts, and other conceptual aids, formulate preliminary
recommendations, draft report, review/ validate report, report revision
23
Primary data gathering techniques: Key

informant interview and focus group
discussion
1. Key informant interview (KII)
a. Key informants - Persons who
either have a broad knowledge of
the community & its concerns or
has more specialized knowledge on
a subject than others
b. Uses of KII
- To gain more insights on
specific subject or highly
complex subject matter
- Identification of issues for
community survey
- Identification of sectors that
should be involved in planning
- Evaluation
of
proposed
solutions
to
community
problems
c. Advantages of KII
- Quick insights on specific
subject or highly complex
subject matters
- Need for highly sensitive data
or when peer pressure may
influence respondents answer
in a group
- Relatively inexpensive
Validation/Updating of Socio-Economic-Cultural
Data and Thematic
The collected data and maps are reviewed and
consolidated by the TWG members to identify data gaps
and those information which need field validation. Field
validation and gathering of data gaps uses participatory
community profiling tools like participatory rural appraisal
(PRA), key informant interview, focus group discussion
(FGD), transect and community mapping.
Aside from field validation through key informant
interviews, FGDs, reconnaissance surveys and community
mapping, the FLUP-TWG presents the consolidated data
and maps in a general meeting attended by barangay
officials or representatives, DENR, peoples organizations
(POs), NGOs and the LGU. This provides an opportunity
for stakeholders to review and update the collected data
and maps and provide additional information which may
be relevant in forest land use planning.
d. Disadvantages of KII - KIIs may

represent only personal and local
interests and not of the general
population
e.
Interviewing with key informants

- One-on-one Interview
- Use of topic guide and open ended questionnaire
- Use of probing technique
2. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) - A data gathering technique where a group of participants are
asked to meet to discuss specific topics
a. Group composition/ selection
- Socio-economic class, consider:
- Type of resource user (fisher folk, farmers, hunters)
- Level of expertise
- Cultural/ ethnic differences
24
b. Advantages of FGD
- Group dynamics stimulate richer responses and allow new information to emerge
- Can be done separately/ repeatedly where there is felt difference among the various
groups
- Can be completed more quickly and
- Generally less expensive
c. Disadvantages of using FGD
- Requires high level of skills in managing groups
- Generally difficult and time consuming task (transcription, reorganization, compilation,
evaluation, and data analysis
d. Uses of FGD
- For gathering sectoral information
- Assessing potential impacts of a development/ activity on specific sector
- Evaluating community program
- Identification of different groups to be involved in planning
e. Conducting FGD
- Selection of participants requires that diverse views be represented
- Participants are asked to meet and discuss specific topics
- Use of topic guides and open-ended questionnaire
- Use of probing technique
2.7 Profiling IP Communities

Unlike other communities, those areas inhabited by IPs must be dealt with in a different manner. Hence,
this module devotes a portion of the discussion on how to prepare a profile of IP communities.
Purpose of IP Profiling
- To identify those variables that will need careful consideration during the situational analysis
- To enable the FLUP TWG to identify and gather the information necessary to understand the
indigenous people in an EcoGov project site
Sources of information:
- Ethnographies and other
secondary data
- Ethnolinguistic Maps
- LGU profiles
- Site visits
- Liaison with NCIP and
relevant local organizations
- Liaison with anthropologists
and NGOs who have done
work in the area
25
Contents of the Profile

A. Location and Identification of IPs To locate and identify IPs, the following are needed:
1. Ethnolinguistic maps indicating the location and distribution of IPs
a. Philippine Culture and Ecosystems Map (1998) produced by Environmental Science
for Social Change (ESSC).
b. Map by the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) and the Peoples
Action for Cultural Ties (PACT) (1983).
c. Language map published by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (1999).
2. Ethnographies of indigenous peoples
3. Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) and Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) maps
at the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples office (NCIP).
4. In the absence of CADC, CALC, CADT & CALT maps, the IPs should be asked to delineate
their ancestral domains
B. Demographic data IP population, households, population density, age-sex distribution and
rate of growth.
Sources of data are:
1. NSO
2. NCIP
3. ADSDPP of CADC/CADT holders
4. NGOs and researchers working in areas occupied by IPs.
5. Donor agencies/ funding agencies
6. Anthropological researchers
7. LGU records
C. Social structure, land and resource uses - patterns of social and political organization including
the forms of family, kinship and marriage, traditional leaders, IP organizations
Sources of data are:
1. Case studies
2. Participatory Rapid Appraisal (key informant, FGDs, questionnaires, observations)
3. Thematic mapping /Community mapping
4. Surveys
5. Other reports from government and non-government agencies
2.8 Mapping for Forest Land Use Planning

The mapping team initially collects available thematic maps at the offices of the DENR, LGU, NCIP and
other agencies. Thematic maps include administrative maps of barangays, drainage, slope, elevation,
vegetative cover, location of infrastructures, land classification, tenure, settlements and other maps as
identified in Box 2.
Since in most cases the maps are in different scales, they should first be converted into uniform scale
of 1:50,000 so that the team can perform map overlay analysis. Subsequently, community mapping is
undertaken especially in the upland barangays to validate and update the prepared thematic maps and
to develop other thematic maps such as issues and hotspots map,
The community mapping team composed of barangay representatives and facilitators then conducts
reconnaissance survey of the area to be mapped. Selected areas in the community are observed at
26
this point. A discussion is held to contextualize the community mapping exercise. Details on farm,
environment, farm practices and perception about their land, daily routines, livelihood and problems
encountered are the foci of discussion. It is important that stakeholders are made aware of existing
forest/environmental degradation in the municipality.
The actual mapping exercise begins with a base map preparation. A base map is a rough sketch of the
permanent community features such as roads, rivers, creeks, mountain, ridges, peaks, springs, etc. It
guides the community in generating community thematic maps. Consolidation and manual contorting
of community maps are then conducted to come-up with the technical maps. FLUP teams are expected
to produce the following from community mapping: base map; settlement and infrastructure maps;
community resource map; existing land and resource use maps; issue map; and proposed allocation
map.
The mapping team can refer to the Mapping Guidebook, a supplementary material for the Training
Guide on FLUP, for details of mapping procedures and standards.
27
28
Module 3
Situational
Analysis
Coverage
Analysis of data and maps gathered as baseline information
is the next critical step in forest planning. This will
determine the succeeding course of action in coming up
with a FLUP.
This module introduces the participants to the essence
of conducting situational analysis, a tool in generating
preliminary recommendations and identifying issues. It is
considered a transition step to the planning phase where
various stakeholders use the processed data as basis
for decision-making. It provides the step-by-step guide
in evaluating the existing condition of the municipalitys
FFL through map overlay analysis, simplified simulation
techniques and other tools. The analysis is based on the
validated socio-economic and cultural information and
corrected/updated thematic maps. A primary objective of
the module is the sharing and validation of initial findings
with key stakeholders, particularly the C/MDC and SP/B
members, selected community and IP groups.
29
Objectives
By the end of Module 3, participants should be able to:
1) Understand the overall purpose, direction and use of situational analysis using updated socio-economic,
cultural information and revised thematic maps;
2) Generate applicable, relevant and composite maps through overlay analysis;
3) Appreciate the overall picture of current conditions and recent trends in forests and forest lands;
4) Provide a more detailed analysis of forests and forest lands using watershed as a planning unit;
5) Generate data to be used in participatory allocation of sub-watersheds and sub-watersheds
prioritization;
6) Identify stakeholders who should be involved in allocation and sub-watershed prioritization decisionmaking and plan implementation;
7) Identify conflicting interests and claims among stakeholders and facilitate conflict resolution;
8) Provide inputs to the IEC/advocacy and capability building components of the FLUP;
9) Identify capability building interventions for the effective implementation of FLUP;
10) Provide inputs to the development of the implementation support plan; and
11) Prepare a situational analysis of municipal FFL and validate/disseminate the initial findings with key
stakeholders.
Outputs
By the end of the module, a draft situational analysis should have been completed using the updated socioeconomic and cultural information, map overlays and consultations/validations with stakeholders.Tables, charts,
thematic maps, derived and composite maps as well as documentation of formal session, coaching workshop
and validation activities are also included in the report.
Participants
This module is intended for members of the FLUP TWG (including members of the Mapping and Community
Profiling/IEC teams).
Duration
The module involves a three-day formal lecture with coaching workshop and field validation exercises. Including
the generation of composite maps, analytical tables, graphs and drafting of the situational analysis report, the
practicum will last for about a month.

Activity
Mechanics
Estimated Time Allocation
Day 1
15 minutes
Leveling of expectations/Overview of
training objectives and schedule
Use of Technology of Participation method suggested
30 minutes
Walkthrough of past activities
Presentation of activities undertaken by the TWG

under Module 2
30 minutes
30
Activity
Mechanics
Discussion on general guidelines in

conducting situational analysis in forest
land use planning
Powerpoint discussion on how to organize and

present FLUP data to show trends/patterns
1 hour
Discussion on Tool of Analysis: Map

overlaying
Demonstrate through powerpoint presentation how to

do map overlay
1 hour
Workshop: Determining conditions of

FFL assets, threats and its causes, and
opportunities for development
Participants to be grouped by LGUs and to examine

data and maps to determine trends in natural forests
and threats and opportunities
4 hours
Workshop: Zoning the FFL into production

and protection areas

data and maps to classify FFL into production and
protection areas
2 hours
Workshop: Analyzing sub-watersheds

data and maps to analyze sub-watersheds
4 hours
Workshop: Stakeholders analysis
Participants to be grouped by LGUs and to analyze

different stakeholders of FFL assets
3 hours
Workshop: Institutional Analysis
Participants to be grouped by LGU and assess the

institutional capabilities of the DENR/LGU
2 hours
Plenary presentation of workshop outputs
Each group present the workshop outputs
3 hours
Workshop: Action planning
Each group prepares an action plan for completing

the situational analysis report and schedules for the
next module.
1 hour
Action planning (Plenary)
Presentation and discussion of action plan with

dened roles and responsibilities
1 hour
Day 2
Day 3
Process
Day 1
later discusses training objectives and schedule. A walkthrough of past activities in Module 2 follows.
2. The trainer/facilitator explains that this training session provides a venue for the participants to be
assisted in the analysis of the socio-economicdemographic-institutional environment. The objectives
of conducting situational analysis are discussed with the participants before stakeholders are oriented
on the expected outputs and on how to organize and present FLUP data to show trends/patterns. (see
Lecture Notes 3.1).
3. Map overlaying as tool of analysis is discussed (see Lecture Notes 3.2). A demonstration and handson exercise on map overlay analysis using actual maps are facilitated to familiarize the participants
with the process and enable them to carry out practicum tasks. A guide on criteria to be used,
maps to overlay, result interpretation and derived and composite map variables is distributed to the
participants followed by a session on manual map overlay and socio-economic data analyses. Initial
findings, issues and data gaps are synthesized, followed by issue prioritization and detailing of proposed
recommendations.
4. Workshop on determining conditions of FFL assets, threats and its causes as well as opportunities
for development follows. Participants are grouped by LGUs and asked to examine data and maps to
determine trends in natural forests as well as threats and opportunities (see Lecture Notes 3.3, 3.3.a,
3.3.b, 3.3.c). This session allows the LSPs, TWG and technical experts in refining their data analysis
and addressing data gaps identified.The manual map overlay analysis is completed using the criteria and
procedures agreed upon in the session.
31
5. It is expected that the preceding workshop will come up with data tables, charts and derived or
composite maps that will describe current situation of LGUs forest lands (e.g., settlements, extent
of open areas, allocated areas which are improperly managed, resource-use conflict areas and other
conflict areas). An Uplands Specialist and a GIS (Geographic Information System) Associate should
check the correctness of procedures used and the quality of data and maps produced. The results of
the analysis are then synthesized. The summary is to highlight the key features of each sub-watershed
within the LGU territory and the boundary and resource use conflicts (per watershed).
Day 2
1. A workshop on Zoning FFL into Production and Protection Areas is conducted. Participants are
grouped by LGUs and asked to examine data and maps to be able to do the zoning (see Lecture
Notes 3.4).
2. A workshop on Analyzing Watersheds follows. Again the participants are grouped by LGUs (see
Lecture Notes 3.5).
3. The Stakeholders Analysis Workshop is then conducted, with participants grouped again by LGUs (see
Lecture Notes 3.6).
Day 3
1. A workshop on Institutional Analysis is conducted; participants are grouped by LGUs (see Lecture
Notes 3.7).
2. In plenary, workshop outputs are presented per LGU.
3. Action planning (per LGU) follows and action plans presented in plenary.
Lecture Notes
3.1 Conducting Situational Analysis for Forest Land Use Planning
Objectives of Situational analysis include assessing current situations and determine threats and
opportunities for development of FFLs. It is also done to identify current and planned developments
in the LGU that would impact on forest resources and affect stakeholders. The capabilities of the LGU
and DENR in carrying out forest lands management
are examined. Sub-watersheds are used as the unit
Outputs of a situational analysis:
of analysis so that impacts on other ecosystems
following the ridge to reef framework are taken into
(1) Brief city/municipal profile,including
consideration.
its bio-physical, socio-economic and
cultural characteristics
The focus is on organizing collected data and maps to
(2) General trends and conditions of
determine significant characteristics, patterns or trends,
the LGUs FFL resources including
whether spatial, temporal or flow patterns.
their extent, locations, uses and
changes over time
Data presentation to show trends and patterns may
(3) Identified problems, issues, threats
be: textual (written in paragraph form, uses statistical
and opportunities for management
parameters such as means, range, percentages, and
and development of FFL
frequency to highlight trends); tabular (data are
(4) Comparative
sub-watershed
presented in rows and columns); graphical or visual
analysis
(uses graphs, charts, maps, diagrams). In general, a
(5) Stakeholders
analysis
and
combination of textual, tabular and visual presentation
institutional capability assessment
is used in FLUP.
32
3.2 Map Overlay Analysis
Map overlay analysis is an important tool in conducting situational

analysis for FLUP. It allows the determination of what resources
are there, how much of these resources are available and where
these resources are located.
Demonstration and exercises in map overlaying is to be conducted,
particularly on the identification and characteristics of open access
areas.
Procedures for map overlay (define your objectives, prepare
necessary thematic maps, eliminate themes which are not needed,
delineate needed themes and finalize derived maps
The different maps to be derived in forest land use planning and
the thematic maps needed for generating the derived maps and
their uses are discussed.
3.3 Determining Extent of FFL Assets and Locations
Map overlay analysis is laying

one thematic map over the other to
see the relationships of various data.
The procedures involved are: defining
your objectives; preparing necessary
thematic maps; eliminating themes
that are not needed; delineating
needed themes; and finalizing
derived maps.
Forest land use planning looks at FFL as assets which the LGU
can develop to enhance its economic growth. The first step in
analyzing FFL assets is to identify what LGU assets have to be
protected, conserved and developed.
Some thematic maps show specific FFL resource assets. For
instance, vegetative cover map shows how much of each type
of natural forests, plantations, grasslands and cultivated lands are
available in an LGU. Nature-based tourism map identifies the
type and number of existing and potential tourism sites
while infrastructure map shows the type and number of
Biodiversity assets can be derived by
water infrastructures, roads, bridges, etc. Drainage map
overlaying tenure map with vegetative
indicates the water bodies and mineral map locates
cover and habitat map of endangered
the areas where mineral resources are found. Others
species, if available. In here, proclaimed
such as biodiversity resources, water production micro
protected areas, closed canopy forests,
catchments, can be identified by overlaying two or more
mangrove forests and the known
thematic maps.
habitat areas of endangered species are
To determine the locations of these FFL assets in the
delineated to compose the biodiversity
sub-watersheds, the corresponding thematic/derived
resource assets of an LGU.
resource maps are overlaid with the sub-watershed
map and their areas (in hectares)/numbers are
Water production micro-catchments can
measured/counted. Their specific barangay locations
be identified by delineating the watershed
can be identified further by overlaying the barangay
catchments of water infrastructures in a
administrative map. Results of the analysis of FFL assets
topographic map.
may be summarized and presented using the FFL assets
summary table (Table 4).
33
Table 4. FFL Assets Guide

FFL Assets
Number/Area per
sub-watershed (SW) &
barangays covered
SW1
SW2
Total
area
Maps for overlaying
SWn
Total Land Area

- Forest lands
Land classication + SW map
- A&D lands
Land classication + SW map
Water bodies and sub-watersheds

- Rivers and creeks (km)
Drainage + SW map
- Area of sub- watersheds (ha)
Sub-watershed map
Natural Forests
- Closed canopy
Vegetative cover + SW map
- Open canopy
- Marginal forests
- Mangroves
Plantations
Water production catchments (ha)
Water infra + topo + SW map
Water infrastructures
- irrigation (no.)
Water infra + SW map
- domestic water reservoirs (no.)
- hydro power (no.)
Biodiversity assets
Tenure + vegetative cover + habitat map
- proclaimed protected areas (ha)
Tenure + SW map
- known habitats of endangered species

(ha or no)
Habitat map if available + SW map or

local accounts
- closed canopy forests (ha)
- mangrove forests (ha)
- identied endangered species (no &

names)
Local accounts or scientic studies
Nature-based tourism assets

- number of caves
Nature based tourism map + SW map
- number of waterfalls
- number of lakes
- other assets
Grasslands & brushlands
Cultivated forest lands
Mineral lands
Mineral map + SW map
Other FFL assets
34
3.3.a Trends/Changes in Key FFL Assets
Changes in FFL assets based on vegetative cover can be determined by comparing vegetative cover
maps in two time periods e.g. CY 1987 vs 2003.
Loss or gain in natural forests, plantations, grasslands/brushlands, cultivated lands, forest cover
(natural forests + plantations) in water production catchments, and natural forests in biodiversity
areas are to be noted.
To estimate the forest cover change in water production areas and the natural forest cover change
in biodiversity areas, the TWG will have to prepare a forest cover change map by overlaying the
2003 or any recent cover map with the 1987 or any older cover map. The areas where natural
forests and plantations are lost or gained are delineated in a map identified as a forest cover
change map.
By overlaying the forest cover change map with the water production catchment and sub-watershed
map, the area of forest cover lost or gained in water production catchments per sub-watershed
can be measured.
By overlaying the forest cover change map with the biodiversity resource map and the subwatershed map, the area of natural forests lost or gained in biodiversity areas per sub-watershed
can be computed.
To have an indication of whether natural forests are effectively managed and protected, the annual
rate of loss of natural forests is computed by dividing the total loss in natural forests in between
two time periods by the number of years elapsed. The TWG can then compute the number of
years existing natural forests would last by dividing the remaining natural forests by the annual rate
of loss, assuming existing conditions remain.
The forest cover change in FFL assets is summarized in Table 5. The summary table shows which
sub-watershed lost the most natural forest areas, and allows the TWG to track how such areas
are now being used.
35
Table 5. Forest Cover Change Summary Table

Vegetative cover change per sub-watershed (ha)
SW1
FFL Assets
1987
SW2
2003
loss/ gain 1987
SWn
2003
loss/ gain 1987
2003
loss/ gain
Natural Forests
- Closed canopy
- Open canopy
- Marginal forests
- Mangroves
Plantations
Forest cover in water production
catchments
Natural forests in biodiversity areas
Grasslands & brushlands
Cultivated lands
- in forest lands
- in A&D lands
Other FFL assets
3.3.b Threats to FFL Assets

Threats on FFL assets can be
Average Annual population growth rate (R)
identified by relating certain factors
can be computed by:
to changes in vegetative cover
R = (P2-P1/ P1) 100 / (Y2-Y1), where:
and by noting local accounts on
R is the average annual population growth
some practices harmful to the
rate
environment.
P2 is the recent population (say 2007)
Population pressure is generally
P1 is the base year population (say 2000)
considered as one of the threats.
Y2 is the recent year (say 2007)
As population increases, demand
Y1 is the base year (say 2000)
for forest products, services
and resources increases as well.
Demand for land for cultivation
may also increase with population growth, especially if employment opportunities downstream
are limited. The more common indicators of population pressure include average annual
population growth rate and population density. 1 Depending on availability of information,
migration rate can also be computed.
Livelihood sources of local population can pose as threat. Dependence on upland agriculture
for livelihood could encourage forest clearing to free more lands for cultivation. Thus an
examination of the expansion of cultivated lands would indicate the potential threat to natural
forests.
Barangay population density is computed by dividing the most recent barangay population by the land area of the barangay.
36
The opening up of roads could trigger migration into forest lands and lead to illegal cutting. By
overlaying existing and proposed road system with forest cover change map one could relate
the impact of accessibility on FFL assets.
Other causes of threats can also be explored during the barangay FGD and key informant
interviews. For instance, forest/grass fires could significantly reduce forest cover and increase
the areas of grasslands.
Open access forest lands are more vulnerable to destruction since nobody is guarding these
areas and anybody could enter and exploit the resources. Overlaying the open access map
with the forest cover change map could indicate possible relationship between these two
parameters.
3.3.c Opportunities for Improved Forest Management

The situational analysis including results of key informant interviews and FGD could point
out certain opportunities for improving management of FFL in an LGU. Expanding plantation
areas and crops grown would indicate what types of plantations could be promoted and are
acceptable to local communities.
Open, grasslands, brushlands and cultivated areas within production zones would indicate how
much areas are available for development into plantations where private sectors could invest.
Other opportunities would include potential for institutionalizing payment for ecosystem
services, existing and proposed industries (that may require raw materials from the forests),
interested private investors and external funding agencies.
3.4 Zoning FFL into Production and Protection Areas
To effectively direct government and private investments in forest lands, it is necessary to
identify which areas are suited for production and protection purposes. This way, government
can focus its limited funds to the protection of critical resources while the private sector can
channel its investments in the production and multiple use areas.
The first step in zoning FFL is for the TWG to agree on the criteria for production and
protection zones. Forest lands for protection purposes include those areas above 50% in
slope, more than 1,000 meters in elevation, part of riparian zones, with close canopy forests
and mangroves, within proclaimed protected areas, habitats of endangered and threatened
wildlife species, and identified micro-catchments which are sources of water for irrigation and
37
domestic use. Forest lands outside the identified protection areas comprise the production
areas. The TWG may agree on additional criteria for classifying FFL into production or
protection areas.
Zoning of FFL is done through map overlay. The land classification map is overlaid with the
slope map, elevation map, vegetative cover map, tenure map, water production catchment map,
community map or habitats map of endangered species from existing studies. All forest lands
covered by the criteria for protection areas are delineated and classified as protection zone.
Protection areas may be categorized further into two management zones consistent with
Department Administrative Order (DAO) 2008- 26: strict protection zone and multiple-use
zone.
Strict protection zone includes natural areas with high biodiversity value. They are closed to
all human activities, except for scientific studies and/or ceremonial or religious use by the
ICCs/IPs.
Multiple-use zones comprise portions of protection areas where the following may be allowed
consistent with the protected area management plan: settlement, traditional/sustainable land
use including agriculture, agro-forestry and other income-generating/livelihood activities. It
shall also include areas of recreational, tourism, educational or environmental awareness values
and those with existing installation of national significance such as development of renewable
energy sources, telecommunication facilities and power lines.
3.5 Comparative Analysis of Sub-Watersheds

The sub-watershed analysis is an opportunity to integrate LGU
development concerns into the forest land use planning process.
The objectives are to generate data to be used in sub-watershed
prioritization, identifying priority investment areas in each watershed
(i.e., what investments would be most appropriate) and determining
relative priority of the various sub-watersheds for investment
purposes (i.e. which should be given priority if the LGU is to invest in
forest management).
In analyzing sub-watersheds, the TWG must first agree on the set
of criteria to be used for prioritizing sub-watersheds. The following
criteria may be used for analyzing their sub-watersheds: biodiversity,
water production value, economic value, tourism, protection to lives
and properties and protection to key infrastructures.
Once the criteria are agreed on, the indicators for measuring those
criteria must be defined. The following are some indicators used by
LGUs to measure the above identified criteria:
1. Biodiversity value area of natural forests in protection zone;
number of endangered wildlife species;
2. Water production value irrigation service areas in hectares, within and outside the municipality;
number of irrigation and domestic water infrastructures; number of households benefited by
irrigation and domestic water infrastructure facilities; number of sites planned to be developed for
water supply & power generation;
3. Economic value area of alienable and disposable (A&D) lands; total area of production zone; area
of residual forests in A&D lands and production zone; plantations in A&D lands and production
zone; cultivated areas within forest lands;
4. Tourism value number of nature-based tourism sites (existing/potential);
5. Protection to lives and properties frequently flooded areas; landslide prone areas; estimated
population affected by flooding and landslide; total population per sub-watershed; settlement
density; and
6. Protection to infrastructures road density and the number of bridges and length of roads that
may be damaged by flooding or landslide.
38
To generate the required information for each indicator, it is necessary to overlay the sub-watershed
map with appropriate thematic maps and measure the indicator in each sub-watershed. Table 6 below
lists the suggested criteria/indicators for prioritizing sub-watersheds that needed to be filled-up.
Table 6. Criteria/Indicators for Prioritizing Sub-watersheds

Criteria/Indicators
Unit
SW1 SW2 SWn
Data source
Sub-watershed area
hectares
sub-watershed map
hectares
Overlay sub-watershed map with protectionproduction map and delineate protection

areas per sub-watershed. Then overlay latest
vegetative cover map & measure area of
natural forests within the protection zone per
sub-watershed
A. Biodiversity value
1. Total natural forests within protection
zone
Close canopy
hectares
Open canopy
hectares
Mangrove
hectares
Sub-marginal
hectares
2. Presence of endangered species of

wildlife
number
Based on existing studies and on local

accounts, locate sightings of endangered
wildlife species in the sub-watershed &
drainage map
B. Water Production value

1. Irrigation service areas
Within the LGU
hectares
Outside the LGU
hectares
2. Number of households beneted

By Irrigation facilities
number
By domestic water infra
number
3. Number of irrigation, power &

domestic water infrastructure
number
Overlay water infrastructure map with subwatershed map & count number of irrigation,
power & domestic water infrastructure in
each sub-watershed. For each infrastructure,
determine the service areas (in hectares),
and number of households beneted through
key informant interview w/ NIA/ MAO/ LGU
ofcials & local community members. Identify
areas planned to be developed for irrigation,
power & domestic water supply
4. Areas planned to be developed for

number
irrigation, power & domestic water supply
C. Economic Production value
1. Total A&D lands
hectares
Overlay land classication map with subwatershed map
2. Total production areas within forest

lands
hectares
Overlay production- protection map w/ subwatershed map
3. Residual forests in A&D lands and

production zones
hectares
4. Plantations in A&D lands and

production zones
hectares
Overlay latest cover map w/ LC, subwatershed and production-protection zone

map & delineate areas within A&D lands and
production forest lands covered with residual
forests and plantations
5. Cultivated areas within forest lands
hectares
Overlay latest cover map w/ LC, & subwatershed map & delineate cultivated areas
within forest lands per sub-watershed
39
Criteria/Indicators
Unit
SW1 SW2 SWn
Data source
D. Nature-based tourism value

1. Number of nature-based tourism sites
Existing
number
Potential
number
Overlay nature-based tourism map w/

sub-watershed map and count the number
of existing & potential tourism sites per subwatershed
E. Protection to lives and properties

1. Frequently ooded areas
hectares
Overlay hazard map w/ sub-watershed map

& measure total area of ood prone and
landslide prone sites per sub-watershed.
Identify the barangays within the ood
and landslide prone sites and estimate the
population likely to be affected
2. Landslide prone areas
hectares
3. Estimated population affected by

ooding and landslide
number
4. Total population
number
Overlay barangay admin map & subwatershed map & identify barangays within
each sub-watershed. Add the barangay
populations for each sub-watershed
5. Settlement density
No./ha.
Add the number of households of all

barangays within each sub-watershed and
divide by the sub-watershed area
1. Number of bridges which may be

damaged by ooding or landslide
number
Overlay infrastructure map with subwatershed map & count the number of
bridges per sub-watershed
2. Road density
Kms/ha.
Overlay road network map with subwatershed map and add total length of roads
within each sub-watershed divided by the
sub-watershed area
F. Protection to infrastructures
3. Other infrastructure which may be

damaged
G. Other criteria
3.6 Stakeholders Analysis

Stakeholders analysis is a systematic process of identifying the key groups, individuals, institutions,2
organizations or sectors that have legitimate interests in specific forest lands areas or may be affected
by decisions on the use of FFL. This analysis is important to better understand the interests towards
forest lands, their relationships, actual and potential conflicts among them and develop strategies to
gain their support in FLUP implementation.
The steps in conducting stakeholders analysis3 are:
1. Identify the stakeholders
2. Identify the specific interests and mandates of the stakeholders
3. Assess the stakeholders importance to the success of FLUP
The legal mandates of institutions and agencies related to FFL management can be determined by examining the legislative and executive issuances
creating them and assessing their roles.
2
The stakeholders analysis can be summarized in a stakeholders matrix.
40
4. Assess their strengths, weaknesses, constraints and conflicts with other stakeholders that may
affect their involvement in FFM
5. Identify what can be done to gain their support and reduce conflicts
6. Summarize the analysis in a stakeholders matrix
The stakeholders will have to be prioritized based on their importance to FLUP formulation and
implementation.The strengths, weaknesses and constraints of stakeholders must be evaluated to assess
their capability to participate in FLUP implementation (e.g. Do they have the financial resources and
adequate understanding of FFL related issues or conflict with other stakeholders? What is the nature
of conflict? Do they have linkages with other groups and institutions? Are they potential supporter or
opposition to FLUP implementation?).
The TWG will agree among themselves on the importance criteria and decide who among the
identified stakeholders will be given priority consideration in designing the IEC strategy. The importance
criteria may include their role in budget allocation, approval of work plans, deployment of personnel,
policy formulation and enforcement, sustaining on site activities, direct impact on their livelihood, etc.
Based on the assessment, the TWG will have to identify IEC and technical strategies to gain support
from the stakeholders and reduce opposition on FLUP implementation. This may include production of
information materials, conducting consultations to identify appropriate technical strategies and multistakeholder monitoring and evaluation. The analysis will be a basis for the TWG to ensure all relevant
stakeholders are involved in the validation and consensus building on FFL allocation and sub-watershed
prioritization.
3.7 Institutional Analysis

The institutional analysis gives an indication of the existing capabilities of the DENR and the municipal/
city LGU for joint FFL management. The TWG examines the DENR and LGU organizational structure
in relation to FFM, the existing staff, their FFM related skills, budget, linkages with other institutions,
forest law enforcement arrangements and existing and proposed FFM programs/projects.
Objectives of the analysis are to: (i) assess current capability to implement the FLUP; (ii) identify
capability building interventions for the effective FLUP implementation; (iii) provide inputs to the
development of the implementation support and organizational management component of the plan.
The organizational analysis is conducted by members of the TWG using the institutional assessment
matrix found below.
Table 7. Institutional Assessment Matrix
Parameters
DENR
Municipal LGU
Existing FFM Unit (specify name of unit if present, indicate N if none)

FFM staff (no.)
FFM skills (check if skill is present and cross if not available)
- resource management planning
- facilitating recognition of individual property rights
- farm planning
- forest protection and enforcement
- agroforestry
- tree plantation establishment
- community organizing
- monitoring and evaluation
- investment proling
41
Parameters
Current Annual FFM budget (in Philippine pesos)
If there is no current FFM allocation, how much can the LGU allocate
Existing linkages with other agencies (names of agencies & nature of linkages)
Past, existing and proposed projects related to FFM
Describe existing FFM, forest law enforcement and M&E bodies and arrangements.
- are they effective?
- problems encountered
Other considerations (e.g. local ordinances passed related to FFM)
42
DENR
Municipal LGU
Module 4
Cross Visit and
Exposure Trip
Coverage
First-hand observations of successful forest management
activities are useful in increasing appreciation of relevant
and doable courses of actions, and demonstrate the
importance of good governance processes in planning,
allocating and managing FFL. From the observed
experiences of other LGUs which have formulated,
validated, implemented and legitimized FLUP, participants
may come up with ideas of their own on how to
incorporate the FTAP processes in the development and
implementation of the FLUP.
Objectives
By the end of the cross visit/exposure trip, participants
should be able to have:
1) A broader understanding of the need for proactive engagement of LGUs in forest lands
management.
2) Explored positive implications of planning and
implementing
co-management
agreements
between and among the DENR, LGUs and
communities.
3) Observed and learned lessons on best practices
in forest and watershed management from this
module are used as inputs to subsequent FLUP
activities.
43
Outputs
The participants are required to come up with a documentation report containing all lessons learned. The
report may contain photos of the sites visited and the teams recommendations (if there are any that the team
has formulated right after the cross visit). The participants should prepare re-entry/activity plans to effect the
echoing of the lessons learned from the activity.
Duration
Seven days are allotted for the cross visits and exposure trips. Observations and learning should be recorded
to serve as reference for future decision-making.
Participants
Local officials from the mayors office, local policymakers, other local government unit heads (such as the C/
MPDC, Budget Officer, environment officer), the DENR and staff and members of the multi-sector city/municipal
TWG are given the opportunity to participate in an exposure trip to various LGU-led good environmental
management initiatives and practices.
Process
This module provides opportunity for LGUs to observe and learn from other LGUs that have initiated and
championed the campaign for good environmental management.
1. Prior to the actual trip, preparatory activities must be carried out. It is very important that the following
are not missed in the activity: Site selection, sending prior notice, making arrangements to host agencies
and follow through activities.
2. During the exposure trip, the host LGU/Project Management provides an orientation and overview
of their environmental project particularly on its rationale, FTAP processes followed, public/private
investments, project status, management organization, M&E system and key lessons learned in project
implementation. Cordial exchanges of ideas, experiences and observations of the participants and
hosts follow the presentation. The use of audio-visual and printed materials to enhance the learning
process is encouraged.
3. This is supplemented by an actual visit to the project sites so that the participants will have an
opportunity to directly observe field activities, interact with local communities and synthesize learning
that may work in their respective municipalities. Before leaving the site visited, participants are given
orientation/ briefing and forms for documentation and other training materials.
4. Small groups are formed to facilitate group management responsibility and accountability. Group
leaders and documenters/rapporteurs are selected to manage the small groups activities. Reflection
sessions and group observations synthesis are organized before the end of the day.
5. In this activity, the participants are given time to share their observations and the lessons learned
from every site visited. The rapporteurs documentation is collected after each reflection sessions for
synthesis.
6. A post-training evaluation session is facilitated after all the sites had been visited to synthesize all
lessons learned into one document to be distributed among the LGUs concerned. The post-training
evaluation is administered to gather information that can be used by the facilitator to identify areas for
improvement in conducting similar activity in the future.
44
Site selection
Basically, the site selection process is done ahead of time to weigh the merits each site has in relation to
the needs of visiting participants. This way, the transfer of learning process becomes facilitative. The site
selection process also considers the relevance of the environmental projects to be visited and whether it
can be replicated. These considerations will encourage the visiting LGUs to replicate good environmental
governance practices in the management of their FFL. Similarity of site characteristics can motivate the
LGUs to respond and act in the call for environmental development, management and protection.
Prior notice and arrangements

Advance notice provide the host teams prior information on the interests of the visiting teams. This way,
the host teams can make necessary preparations ahead of time and could ensure smooth flow of activities
within the site, while visiting groups can have a better idea of what to expect and what to prepare in
respect to the site conditions and the host teams. Responsibility-sharing is mutually arranged between the
visiting and the host teams in this activity.
Process documentation
Aside from the documentation undertaken by the facilitator, a documentation report is also required from
the group. Each small group is required to submit their synthesized documentation reports (documentation
from the first day up to the last day of the activity). If the LGU has several groups, all groups are required
to submit the integrated synthesized documentation report.
Photo documentation, briefing materials, and other informative materials related to the sites visited are
requested from host teams whenever available. Forms for documentation are also distributed among the
participants.
45
Lecture Notes
While the training does not necessarily require lecture notes, it is important that the participants are provided
with a copy of the activity design and a briefing kit of the areas to be visited. The briefing kit must contain the
information that provides guidance to the participants on the following:
1. Daily schedule of activities
2. List of project sites to be visited with brief information on the peculiar characteristics of the project
sites (if available)
3. List of contact persons
4. Forms for documentation and other training kit
5. Other travel guidelines
To facilitate the reflection sessions, the participants are guided with a site documentation form to be filled
up while doing the observations and having discussions with the host agencies/groups. This is also used in the
synthesis of the groups learning and observations from each project site.
46
Module 5
Participatory
Process in
Planning the
Allocation of
Forests and
Forest Lands
and
Prioritizing
Sub-Watersheds
Coverage
The participatory approach in the planning process
cannot be understated. Increasing involvement of
key stakeholders is one concrete application of good
governance in sustainable forestry management since it
creates an equitable environment where various interests
of different stakeholders are considered in maximizing
benefits from use of forest areas.
Module 5 is designed as a training and simulation exercise
for the city/municipal FLUP team. Primarily, the module
orients the TWG on policies and relevant criteria for
allocating FFL and prioritizing sub-watersheds. It laysout actual consensus-building activities and planning
for the allocation of FFL. It assists LGUs on identifying
and agreeing on quantitative and qualitative criteria for
allocating and prioritizing sub-watersheds within the
municipality.
The module exercises facilitate generation of preliminary
recommendations for the allocation of FFL. Furthermore,
it walks the participants through potential problem
analysis that equips them in forecasting and acting on
issues and concerns that may arise.
Finally, the module is directed at developing a plan and
strategy for validation of the modules outputs.
47
Objectives
By the end of this module, the participants should have:
1) Discussed the results of the situational analysis including actual and emerging issues/conflicts in the FFL
management;
2) Formulated stakeholders vision for FFL to be later discussed with barangays, SB members, the DENR,
NGOs, community leaders, private sector, religious groups, etc.;
3) Conducted a preliminary prioritization of sub-watersheds based on agreed criteria;
4) Examined various options/strategies that may be adopted by the DENR, LGUs, communities and other
stakeholders in closing open access FFL and to come-up with preliminary forest lands allocation;
5) Identified and discussed potential strategies on how to protect, develop and manage priority subwatersheds, and open access FFL; and
6) Developed an action plan in carrying-out validation of the situation analysis, issues, vision, prioritized
sub-watersheds, options for closing open access and, protecting and managing sub-watersheds.
Outputs
1) A set of criteria for generating preliminary but recommendatory FFL allocation and management
plan;
2) A set of criteria for prioritizing sub-watersheds; and
3) Initial allocation plan for FFL and prioritization of sub-watersheds based on the agreed sets of
criteria.
Participants
Participants to the module include LGUs TWG members and representatives from indigenous groups, the
NCIP, the private sector and the DENR, PENRO and CENRO.
Duration
The module involves a three-day formal lecture with coaching sessions; field work follows after this training.
Activity
Mechanics
Estimated Time
Allocation
Day 1
15 minutes
Leveling of expectations/Overview of training

objectives and schedule
Use of Technology of Participation method is suggested
30 minutes
Presentation of activities undertaken by the TWG in

previous module
30 minutes
Technical input: Categories of allocation and

tenure instruments
Lecture using powerpoint presentation
30 minutes
Technical input: Examples of commonly

issued allocation instruments
Discussion of specic types of tenure instruments issued 1 hour

to communities, private investors and LGUs
Technical Input: Guides in allocating FFL
Powerpoint presentation on key steps
48
1 hour
Activity
Mechanics
Estimated Time
Allocation
Workshop: Determining allocation decision

areas
Participants (group by LGU) dene criteria for zoning

FFL and overlay maps to derive management zones
4 hours
Workshop: Determining allocations of open

access areas
Participants (group by LGU) dene criteria for allocation

and overlay maps to come up with preliminary allocation
4 hours
Each group presents the workshop outputs in plenary

discussion
2 hours
Technical Input on Prioritization of SubWatersheds
Lecture using powerpoint or other means of presentation 1 hour
Day 2
Workshop on Prioritization of Sub-Watersheds Participants (group by LGU) dene criteria for

prioritization and decide on priority watersheds
1 hour
Day 3
Workshop on Prioritization of Sub-Watersheds Participants (group by LGU) dene criteria for
(Continuation)
prioritization and decide on priority watersheds
4 hours
2 hours
Action planning for completing Module 5 and

schedules for Module 6
Each group presents the workshop outputs in plenary

discussion
1 hour
49
Process
Day 1
later discusses training objectives and schedule. A walkthrough of past activities follows, where focus
is given on identifying FTAP mechanisms used in the process. Key findings in the situational analysis
are presented with highlights on illegal cutting, forest land conversion, boundary and resource conflicts
and other problems determined in the situational analysis. A visioning exercise using the TOP method
is then facilitated.
2. Next, discussions center on categories of allocation and tenure instruments in forest and forest lands
(see Lecture Notes 5.1). Emphasis is given on policy considerations in the allocation of FFL.
3. Commonly issued allocation instruments are then discussed (see Lecture Notes 5.2) covering
examples of management agreements given to communities, private investors and LGUs
4. The next session focuses on discussion of guide in allocating FFL (see Lecture Notes 5.3) using a
powerpoint presentation.
5. A workshop is then conducted, with participants grouped by LGUs, to determine allocation decisions
on (a) allocating forest lands with existing/conflicting claims; (b) allocating forest lands with one claimant;
(c) allocating unallocated forest lands without claims; and (d) allocating tenured forest lands without
effective management. Workshop discussions include defining criteria for zoning FFL and overlay maps
to derive management zones.
Day 2
1. Another workshop is conducted to determine allocation of open access areas.. The participants are
again grouped by LGUs and asked to agree on a set of allocation criteria and overlay maps to come up
with preliminary allocation. Workshop outputs are later presented in plenary.
2. Discussion on prioritization of sub-watersheds follows with participants being oriented on the rationale
for prioritization, how to prioritize and the criteria used (see Lecture Notes 5.4).
3. After the lecture, a workshop is conducted, with participants grouped by LGUs, to define criteria for
prioritization and decide on priority watersheds.
Day 3
1. Workshop on prioritization of sub-watersheds continues, followed by presentation of outputs in
plenary.
2. The activity ends with tasking or action planning on the drafting of the city/municipal FLUP and the
conduct of multi-sectoral and expanded stakeholders consultation and advocacy work.
Lecture Notes
5.1 Categories of Allocation and Tenure Instruments in Forests and Forest Lands
The lecture begins with a review of previous discussions, particularly on the key FLUP concepts,
governance of FFL as assets4, and responsibilities of stakeholders.
The basis of the State in protecting and managing FFL assets through stakeholders is again explained.
The existing national policies for the allocation and management of forests to achieve different
objectives are reviewed. Among these include the conservation of biodiversity and the capacity to
Allocation is said to be the heart and soul of governance in the forestry sector.
50
provide environmental services; production of food, forest and agro-forestry products; protection
of prior rights and cultural heritage via ancestral domains; economic justice and poverty alleviation;
research/academic; ecotourism, industrial use; and settlements/poverty/equity. Other considerations
are also discussed, such as occupancy and indigenous claims; bio-physical considerations; organizational
and institutional capacity; and other external factors that could affect FFL allocation.
Allocation is always a socio-eco-political decision thus, should be anchored on accurate and equally
accessible information, participatory processes, transparency, accountability, and sound technical
analysis. The allocation of FFL provides the ultimate enforcement mechanism as resource managers
exercise rights and privileges over FFL assigned to them.
Key concepts involved in the allocation and management of FFL is discussed. The different categories
of forest lands allocation and management are differentiated. Also included in the lecture are the topics
on existing forest lands allocations at the national level by accountability center, and the total economic
value of selected tenure arrangements in the Philippines.
5.2 Examples of Commonly Issued Allocation Instruments/Management agreements in FFL
Various allocation instruments/management agreements are available, depending on whether the

involvement is by the communities, investors or LGUs. FFL can also be allocated through legislations and
Presidential Proclamations to government agencies for specific purposes (e.g. educational purposes)
and to meet public goods and services (e.g. biodiversity, water or energy).
Allocation instruments/management agreements available for communities are: Community-Based
Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA); Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT); and
Protected Area Community-Based Resource Management Agreement (PACBRMA).
A. Community-Based Forest Management Agreement
Governing policy:
Took effect through Executive Order (EO) No. 263 issued on

July 1995; DAO 29 Series of 1996 (Implementing Rules and
Regulations)
Period of tenure:
25 years, renewable for another 25 years
Who can participate:
A group of at least 10 local Filipino citizens (or an existing

PO) residing inside or near forest lands
General Application Requirements:
A group of local residents may submit its application

together with the required endorsements from the barangay
and municipal/city councils to CENRO. After a series of
meetings and consultations, a CBFM area will be selected
by the community, CENRO and the LGU. Applicants
should form an organization (if one has not been formed
yet) and have it registered with the Security and Exchange
Commission (SEC) or the Cooperative Development
Authority (CDA)
Issuing Authority:
PENRO - up to 5,000 ha; RED - 5,000-15,000 ha;

Undersecretary for Operations - more than 15,000 to 30,000
ha; Secretary - more than 30,000 ha
51
Rights, Privileges of Tenure Holder:
Tenure holder may occupy/use/develop forest lands within

designated area; allocate to members and enforce rights
to use and sustainably manage forest land resources; be
exempted from paying land rent and forest charges on
timber and non-timber products harvested from plantations;
be consulted on all government projects in the area, be
given preferential access to all available assistance in the
development of the area; receive income/proceeds from use
of forest resources within the area; enter into contracts with
private/government entities, allocate/endorse areas to be
placed under Certicate of Stewardship Contract
Example of Allowable activities:
Forest protection, reforestation, agro-forestry, harvesting of

non-timber and timber forest products
General Roles, Responsibilities:
Tenure Holder:
Prepare/implement plans, including resource use plans;

promote transparent and participatory management; pay
forest charges (other than those for timber/non-timber
products harvested from plantation areas)
LGU:
Together with the DENR, monitor implementation in the area;

provide technical and other assistance
Issuing authority:
Together with the LGU, monitor implementation in the area;

provide technical and other assistance
B. Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles

Governing policy:
RA No. 8371, issued in 1997
Period of tenure:
Tenure is perpetual
Indigenous cultural communities (ICCs)/indigenous people. Non-members may

be allowed under special circumstances
General Application
Requirements:
Proofs that include the testimony of elders or community under oath.

Other documents directly or indirectly attesting to the possession or
occupation of the area since time immemorial, namely:
o written accounts of the ICCs/IPs customs, traditions, political
structure and institutions;
o photos showing long-term occupation such as those of old
improvements, burial grounds, sacred places and old villages;
o historical accounts including agreements and pacts concerning
boundaries entered into by the ICCs/IPs concerned with other ICCs/
IPs;
survey plans and sketch maps
anthropological data and genealogical surveys
pictures and descriptive histories of traditional communal forests and
hunting grounds
pictures and descriptive histories of traditional landmarks such as
mountains, rivers, creeks, ridges, hills, terraces and the like
write-ups of names and places derived from the native dialect of the
community
52
Issuing Authority:
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
Rights, Privileges of Tenure

Holder:
The ICCs/IPs shall have the priority rights in the harvesting, extraction,
development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral
domains.
Example of Allowable Activities:
Forest protection, reforestation, agro-forestry; harvesting of non-timber and

timber products
General Roles, Responsibilities
Tenure Holder:
Develop, control and use lands/territories traditionally occupied, owned, or

used; manage and conserve natural resources within the territories; maintain
ecological balance; restore denuded areas and observe laws
Issuing authority:
With the consent and involvement of the ICC/IP, initiate delineation of ancestral
domain, preparation of perimeter maps, publication of preliminary census and
report of investigation on the area covered, issuance and registration of CADT
C. Protected Area Community-Based Resource Management Agreement

Governing policy:
DAO 2002-02 which repealed DAO 2000-44
Period of tenure:
25 years renewable for another 25 years
Duly organized tenured migrant communities (including interested IPs) who

have been actually and continuously occupying a portion of the protected
area for at least 5 years (in accordance with the National Integrated
Protected Areas Systems or NIPAS Law) and solely dependent therein for
subsistence
General Application
Requirements:
For tenured migrant communities
accomplished application form
certicate of registration
list of ofcers and members (including address and name of spouse if

any) certied by the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) and
resolution from the PO allowing the ling of the application.
For interested IPs
accomplished form
NCIP certication
list of council of elders and names of IPs
proof of consent from the council of elders to apply for a PACBRMA.
Issuing Authority:
DENR (the RED shall approve the instrument upon endorsement by the
PAMB for areas not exceeding 15,000 ha; the DENR Secretary is the
approving authority for areas more than 15,000 ha)

Holder:
Allocate the entire or portion of the area without creating any vested right
therein; develop the area allocated; receive income and proceeds from
the development of areas; be informed and consulted on projects to be
implemented in the area
53
Allowable activities:
Reforestation, protection, sustainable use of forest products inside multipleuse and buffer zones, except any form of logging or timber cutting involving
the natural forest
General Roles, Responsibilities:

Tenure Holder:
Formulate a Community Resource Management Plan, which should be

consistent with the Protected Area Management Plan, specifying activities
pertinent to the management, development, use, conservation and
protection of the resources in the coverage area
LGU:
Be an active part of the PAMB which endorses the application; inform DENR
of the LGUs action on the tenure application in view of the recently-issued
DENR-DILG (Department of the Interior and Local Government) Joint
Memorandum Circular (JMC) 2003-01; and provide technical and other
assistance
Issuing authority:
Protected Area and Wildlife Bureau and the regional ofce shall undertake
periodic monitoring and evaluation of the Community-based program. The
PAMB in coordination with CENRO, shall monitor compliance with the terms
and conditions of the PACBRMA holder
Arrangement options are varied for investors. These include the Integrated Forest Management
Agreement (IFMA) and Socialized Industrial Forest Management Agreement (SIFMA).
A.
Integrated Forest Management Agreement
Governing policy:
DAO 99-53, issued in 1999
Period of tenure:
Filipino citizens of legal age who are technically and nancially capable;
partnerships, cooperatives or corporations which are either 100% Filipino
owned or 60% owned by Filipinos and 40% owned by foreigners, duly
registered under Philippine laws
General Application
Requirements:
Accomplished application form with ling fee of P0.50/ha and survey fee of
P50/ha; for corporations, partnerships or cooperatives corporation papers
certied by SEC or the CDA, Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws certied
by the Board Secretary; audited nancial statements, proof of nancial and
technical capability, board resolution authorizing any of the ofcers to le the
application in behalf of the corporation, cooperative and/or partnership duly
certied by the Board Secretary
Issuing Authority:
The DENR Secretary, upon the recommendation of the Forest Management

Bureau or FMB, shall approve (or disapprove) the IFMA, after which the
notice of approval shall be sent to the applicant, copy furnished the FMB,
RED, PENRO, CENRO and the LGUs concerned

Holder:
Develop, manage, protect and use a specied area of forest land and its
resource; harvest, sell and use planted trees and crops consistent with the
principle of sustainable development
54
Reforestation, forest protection, harvesting of non-timber and timber

products
Tenure Holder:
Conduct delineation and marking on the ground of the perimeter boundaries

of the IFMA area, including conduct of timber inventory; submit within one
year from the date the IFMA was awarded a Comprehensive Development
and Management Plan (CDMP) and an Initial Environmental Examination
(IEE) for issuance of an Environmental Compliance Certicate (ECC); submit
within one year (and every ve years thereafter) up-to-date aerial photos of
the entire IFMA area
LGU:
Assist in consultation sessions with communities about the delineation of the

area for IFMA purposes; endorse delineated areas
Issuing authority:
Make available to IFMA applicant existing information on the status of

the land, resources and dependent communities within or adjacent to the
IFMA areas; ensure that IFMA holder complies with the conditions agreed
upon; assist the IFMA holder and host communities in the development and
implementation of mutually benecial agreements
B. Socialized Industrial Forest Management Agreement

Governing policy:
DAO 96-24, issued in August 1996
Period of tenure:
Individuals or families who are Filipino citizens, of legal age and preferably
residents of the municipality where SIFMA area is located; government
employees with consent of their respective heads of agency; and
cooperatives and associations whose members are Filipino citizens and
residents of the province where the SIFMA site is located
General Application
Requirements:
Individuals, cooperatives and associations may le their application for

a SIFMA with CENRO, paying the appropriate ling fees (depending
on the land area applied for). For individuals/families, community tax
certicates are needed; for cooperatives or associations, certied true copy
of the Certicate of Registration with the CDA or SEC; list of duly elected
ofcers and members and their addresses and resolution (certied by the
Board Secretary), indicating the cooperatives or associations interest in
participating in the program
Issuing Authority:
PENRO (from 1 to 10 ha); RED (more than 10 to 500 ha)

Holder:
Harvest, sell and use planted trees and crops except those retained for
environmental purposes; export logs, lumber and other forest products (as
long as they area allowed by the government) harvested from SIFMA area;
be exempt from forest charges of all plantation products
Reforestation, forest protection, harvesting of timber and non-timber

products from plantations
55
Tenure Holder:
Rehabilitate open and denuded areas; protect existing natural forest

vegetation; plant forest tree species, which may include rubber or non-timber
species like rattan, bamboo, etc. in not less than 90% of the planting area
(the remaining areas shall be devoted to permanent agricultural purposes)
LGU:
Together with the DENR, endorse validated SIFMA sites and conduct an
information campaign about the program
Issuing authority:
RED approves applications; issues cancellation orders and approves

transfers of SIFMA areas that are more than 10 ha up to 500 ha. PENRO
shall do the same for areas of up to 10 ha. PENRO shall maintain a
database of all SIFMAs in the province and evaluate reports submitted
by CENRO, which is directly responsible for implementing SIFMA within
its jurisdiction (together with concerned government and non-government
units). The CENRO shall also be responsible for site identication,
processing of SIFMA applications, and monitoring and evaluation of the
program implementation
Local governments can also be involved in the allocation of FFL by entering into a co-management
agreement. 5
Governing policy:
RA 7160 mandates that LGUs shall share with the national government the
responsibility in the management and maintenance of ecological balance
within their territorial jurisdiction. Under DENR-DILG JMC 2003-01 and
DENR-DILG JMC 98-01, LGUs can enter into co-management agreement
with the DENR
Period of tenure:
25 years, subject for renewal
Individual LGU or cluster of LGUs
General Application
Requirements:
LGUs should signify their interest in co-managing FFL (such as establishing

community watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, reforestation and other comanagement areas) to CENRO. Once everything has been agreed upon, a
MOA shall be executed signed by the DENR and LGU and witnessed by a
DILG representative
Issuing Authority:
Based on the size of the area to be co-managed, the DENR ofcers

authorized to enter into a MOA are:
CENRO forest areas up to 1,000 ha;
PENRO more than 1,000 up to 5,000 ha;
RED more than 5,000 up to 15,000 ha;
Undersecretary for Operations more than 15,000 up to 30,000 ha; and
Secretary more than 30,000 ha
A more detailed discussion on co-management could be found in EcoGovs Frequently Asked Questions: DENR-DILG-LGU Partnership in Forest
Management Primer.
56

Holder:
The MOA denes the tenure holders rights/privileges; they may include
developing, managing, protecting and using a specied area of forest land
and its resource; harvest, sell and use planted trees and crops consistent
with the principle of sustainable development. Under JMC 2003-01, the LGU
has to be consulted by the DENR when it comes to any tenure application in
FFL under the LGUs jurisdiction
Allowable activities are specied in the MOA, which may include

reforestation, forest protection, harvesting of non-timber and timber products,
agro-forestry
General Roles, Responsibilities: MOA between the DENR and LGU species each others roles and
responsibilities
LGU:
Provide the necessary funds to make the devolution, partnership and comanagement work; approve the FLUP and enact it as ordinance; inform
the DENR of the action taken by the LGU within 15 days from the date of
receipt of document from the DENR regarding any tenure application within
its jurisdiction
Issuing authority:
Initiate coordination meetings with the DILG and the LGU, provide technical
assistance to the LGU, approve LGUs FLUPs; deputize LGU ofcials as
environmental and natural resources ofcers
5.3 Guide in Allocating Forests and Forest Lands

Since different types of tenure instruments have varied purposes and uses, it is necessary to classify
FFL first into production or protection areas. The zoning map derived during the situational analysis
will be used as one of the basis in allocating FFL.
There are four major steps in allocating FFL. First is to define critical allocation decision areas in
forest lands and indicate their location in maps. Second, examine the decision areas, describe the
problem, identify and evaluate options and make recommendations. The discussions and agreed
recommendations are to be documented. Third, evaluate the preliminary land allocation based on
environmental, legal, equity, economic and political considerations. The final step is to validate, refine
and finalize the recommended allocations, along with the map.
There are four allocation decision areas that should be examined, namely:
1. Unallocated FFL with conflicting claims
2. Unallocated FFL with one claimant
3. Unallocated forest lands without claims
4. Tenured forest lands without effective management
Each allocation decision area as reflected in the map should be examined separately. For tenured but
unmanaged forest lands, for example, some of the questions that should be discussed are:
o What is the existing tenure, who is the current tenure holder, when is existing tenure instrument
expiring?
o Why is the area considered unmanaged?
o What are options to put the area under effective management? What are advantages and
disadvantages of each option?
o What measures should be taken to ensure effective area management?
57
For unallocated but with one or more conflicting claims, the TWG can examine:
o Who are the claimants? Basis and the status of their claims?
o What are the options to resolve conflicting claims? (allocate to claimant, or other stakeholders,
joint management, other tenure arrangements)
o What are the applicable tenure instruments based on existing policies, bio-physical conditions,
current uses, and capabilities of potential tenure holder,
o Reflect preliminary allocation in the map
In evaluating preliminary land allocations, the following should be considered:
o Is it consistent with existing policies?
o Is it equitably allocated?
o Is it environmentally sound?
o Can the proposed tenure holder invest in managing the area?
o Is it acceptable to all stakeholders including the political leaders?
5.4 Prioritizing Sub-Watersheds for Investments

Discussion on this portion jumps off by answering why there is a need to prioritize sub-watersheds.
Prioritizing sub-watersheds will be done through the use of the Delphi approach, a process of reaching
a consensus through democratic or participatory process (the pros and cons and the implications of
criteria are discussed). This means that as soon as a consensus is reached, members of the group are
held accountable on what they have decided on.
The first step in watershed prioritization is to determine and decide on the criteria and indicators to
be used. Possible criteria and indicators include: biodiversity value, water production value, economic
value, tourism value, protection to lives and properties and protection to infrastructures.
58
Box 3. Sample Indicators for Measuring Criteria

(1) Biodiversity value of a sub-watershed, may consist of the extent of natural forest cover by sub-watershed
and the presence of rare/threatened species
(2) Water production value can be measured by the irrigation service areas (hectares) by sub-watershed
(within and outside the municipality), number and density of irrigation and domestic water infrastructures by
sub-watershed, number of families beneted by irrigation and domestic water facilities per watershed, and
potential for irrigation/power generation
(3) Economic value can refer to the extent of agricultural areas per sub-watershed, area of A&D by subwatershed, extent of residual forests in production areas, and existing and potential production areas per
sub-watershed
(4) Protection potential to infrastructures refers to the number and density of each infrastructure per watershed
(5) Protection of lives and properties referring to the population and density by sub-watershed and settlement
density per watershed
(6) Eco-tourism or aesthetic value accounts for the number of existing and potential sites for tourism and
nature-based attraction by sub-watershed.
The second step is to agree on indicators to measure each criterion.

The third step is to agree on weights. This is done with each participant (all major stakeholder
groups should be represented) determining the weights or measure of degree of importance for
each criterion (not to exceed 100 points for all criteria); determine the acceptable weights of each
criterion using average or any democratic process after each participant has expressed the reason
for his/her weights; determine available information that can be used to measure or estimate the
actual weights or degree of importance of the criterion; and getting the average or consensus of
weights for all criteria from all participants.
The final step is to assign priority number to each sub-watershed per criterion based on existing data
sets.
For example, given 8 watersheds, a value from 1 to 8 is to be assigned where 8 is the highest priority. Then the
points for each sub-watershed per criterion is computed using the formula below:
Point rank per criteria for the subwatershed = (X/8) x % weight of that criteria
where: X= 1 to 8 with 8 the highest.
The points for each sub-watershed are added and their rankings are determined. The results are then
reviewed, and if necessary, the distribution of weights is refined.
59
60
Module 6
Drafting,
Legitimization
and Approval of
FLUP
Coverage
In Module 6, the LGU and the DENR jointly prepare the
draft FLUP through a writeshop integrating the inputs
generated in the previous modules. Module 6 intends to
ready the plan for presentation to appropriate bodies
and prepare final draft for its legitimization at the LGU
level and approval by the DENR. The IEC and advocacy
components are included as major inputs of the module
to facilitate the process of legitimization and approval.
Moreover, the module is designed for drafting and
facilitating the MOA signing between the DENR and the
LGU.
Objectives
By the end of this module, the participants shall have:
1) Drafted the FLUP for presentation to, and review
of, appropriate agencies/offices/bodies;
2) Prepared a final draft, incorporating all the
comments during the presentation/review, to be
submitted for legitimization to the SB; and
3) Facilitated the signing of an FLUP implementation
MOA between the LGU and DENR.
61
Outputs
1) Final FLUP document with thematic maps, derived and composite maps and other annexes specified in
the plan outline;
2) Documentation of plan presentation to C/MDC, SP/SB and DENR en banc review (to determine the
technical integrity of the data and the recommendations);
3) SP/SB resolution adopting the plan; and
4) Signed LGU-DENR (or NCIP) implementation MOA that spells out duties and responsibilities of the
DENR and the LGU, including joint partnership and resources sharing and complementation for FLUP
implementation.
Participants
Participants to the module are TWG members, LSPs, C/MDC and the legislative council of concerned city/
municipality.
Duration
This is a three-day writeshop; a period of 1-2 months is allotted for completion of the expected outputs of
the module: writing of drafts by TWG-LSP sub-teams (2-3 weeks); mentoring and preparation of presentation
materials, actual presentation to SB, C/MDC and DENR, and revision (4 weeks).

Activity
Mechanics
Day 1
15 minutes
Leveling of expectations/Overview of training

objectives and schedule
Use of Technology of Participation method

suggested
30 minutes
Presentation of activities undertaken by the TWG

in the previous module
30 minutes
Technical Input: Presentation of the FLUP

outline and general guidelines in drafting the
FLUP
Lecture using powerpoint presentation
1 hour
Technical Input: Guide in drafting Chapters

1-4
Lecture discussion on Chapters 1-4 (Background;

LGU Vision, Mission & Objectives; Scope & Limit
of FLUP; FLUP Process & Methodology)
1 hour
Workshop: Dening the LGUs vision,

mission, goals and objectives in FFL
management
Participants group by LGU and agree on their

vision, mission, goals and objectives
4 hours
Technical Input: Guide in drafting Chapters

5-9
Lecture discussion on writing Chapters 5-9

(Findings, Recommendation & Strategies;
Institutional Arrangement; Monitoring &
Evaluation; Budget Requirements)
1 hour
62
Activity
Mechanics
Participants group by LGU and draft Chapter 5

(Findings)
8 hours
Workshop on Drafting FLUP Chapters 6-9
Participants grouped by LGU and draft Chapters

6-9 (Recommendation & Strategies; Institutional
Arrangement; Monitoring & Evaluation; Budget
Requirements)
3 hours
Each group presents all their workshop outputs
2 hours
Action planning for completion of draft and

schedules for legitimization and approval
Individual group workshops
1 hour
Day 2
Workshop on Drafting FLUP Chapter 5
Day 3
Action plan presentation
1 hour
Process
Day 1
Reminder to participants
1. After the opening program preliminaries, the

facilitator/trainer conducts leveling of expectations
and later discusses training objectives and schedule.
A walkthrough of past activities in previous module
follows.
2. Lecture is then conducted on presentation of FLUP
outline and general guidelines in drafting the FLUP (see
Annex C and Lecture Notes 6.1).
3. This will be followed by another discussion on drafting
Chapters 1-4 that include the Background (see Lecture
Notes 6.1.1), which serves as introduction that contains
the rationale for doing the FLUP; Vision, Mission, Goals
and Objectives (see Lecture Notes 6.1.2); Scope and
Limit of the FLUP (see Lecture Notes 6.1.3); and FLUP
Process and Methodology (see Lecture Notes 6.1.4).
4. A workshop is then conducted and the participants
grouped by LGUs to define their individual LGUs vision,
mission, goals and objectives in FFL management.
5. Lecture-discussion on drafting Chapter 5-9 is then
conducted (Findings, see Lecture Notes 6.1.5;
Recommendations and Strategies, see Lecture
Notes 6.1.6; Institutional Arrangement, see Lecture
Notes 6.1.7; Monitoring and Evaluation of FLUP
Implementation,
see Lecture Notes 6.1.8; and
Budgetary Requirements or Work and Financial Plan,
see Lecture Notes 6.1.9)
Prior to legitimization by the SP/SB, a public

hearing is conducted where the draft plan
is presented to stakeholders for consensus
on the visions, allocation, prioritization of
watersheds and other recommendations in
the FLUP.
A series of small presentations and
informal discussions with legislative council
or head/members of the environment
committee will help increase understanding
and appreciation of the plan to facilitate
legitimization.
Revision and finalization will be done by
the TWG and the LSP in case additional
issues and recommendations are discussed
during the presentation. Another meeting of
1-2 days to review the recommendations
and inputting them to the final write-up
is conducted. After the finalization of the
plan, the group prepares a draft resolution
legitimizing and endorsing FLUP to the
DENR.
Day 2
1. Participants devote the day writing Chapter 5 (Findings). Coaching is provided by the trainer and/or
resource person. Participants are reminded to identify data gaps and issues as they write the FLUP
sections.
63
Day 3
1. Participants are grouped by LGUs again, with each LGU assigning a member/s to write a specific
section. They are tasked to prepare a detailed outline of their assigned section.
2. This is followed by presentation of all workshop outputs for critiquing.
3. Action planning (per LGU) is conducted that will reflect schedules for completing draft, legitimization
and approval process. Action plans are later presented.
Lecture Notes
6.1 Guides for Writing the FLUP
The FLUP is a plan that: (a) provides clear
The FLUP serves as a road map for the allocation
and common direction (vision, mission,
and management of investments in FFL within the
goals, objectives, strategies) to the LGU
municipality. It gives a mental image of the FFL future
with the assistance of the DENR, and other
in a city or municipality based on situational analysis,
stakeholders in protecting and managing FFL
expressions of stakeholders, responses to challenges and
within its political jurisdiction; (b) provides
opportunities, and clear understanding of the different
how the LGU will organize, mobilize, and use
roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders.
resources (budget, staff, network/linkages)
The executive summary is a synopsis of the plan
to achieve defined FFL governance and
(FLUP). It gives the reader an idea of what is contained in
management objectives; and (c) provides
the FLUP.6 The executive summary should emphasize
how the LGU and DENR will monitor
the key points of the plan and should be written in such
improvements of FFL assets over time based
a manner that prompts the reader to act on the forest
on key performance indicators.
management issues identified. It should be one to two
pages long and should be written after the entire FLUP
is completed. Specifically, the summary would briefly
discuss the following:
o Key targets and closure of open access FFL;
o Key targets and putting effective management on allocated FFL;
o Resolving or reducing conflicts in FFL;
o Support systems, incentives, financing;
o IEC, advocacy and formation of multi-sector organizations;
o Enforcement of forestry rules and regulations;
o Implementing structure and operational strategy;
o Capacity building for the implementing and supporting organizations;
o Collaboration and complementation of support systems;
o M&E including participation of civil society groups in annual assessment;
o 5-year total costs, sources and uses of funds for implementing the FLUP; and
o Priority sub-watersheds for increasing/improving forest cover investments in rehabilitation,
protection, enforcement, tenure processing and support systems.
An FLUP would have the following parts: (1) background; (2) LGUs vision, mission and objectives with
respect to its FFL (10-year plan); (3) scope and limit; (4) process and methodology; (5) key findings
which include the city/municipal profile, conditions of FFL assets, stakeholders, institutional assessment
and summary of key issues, threats and opportunities; (6) recommended strategies; (7) institutional
arrangement; (8) monitoring and evaluation and (9) budgetary requirements (5-year) and first year
work and financial plan.
The summary could include visual presentations showing the current status and envisioned FFL after 5 or 10 years.
64
6.1.1 Background
The first part of the FLUP, the background is usually 1-2 pages and tells the plans rationale
written in the context of protecting existing forests and improving management of FFL at the
LGU level. This part answers the question why the LGU is doing the FLUP and why it should
play an active role in managing its FFL. It also gives an account of the historical, socio-economic,
biophysical, life support systems (watershed), agricultural, industrial and political importance of
FFL.
The background explains how the FLUP and its implementation would respond to current
problems, issues, needs and opportunities in the local governments FFL.
FLUP is also discussed in the context of the present and future consumption, production of
food, fiber and water, and freedom from flooding, in relation to the location and area of FFL in
the LGU and its adjoining landscapes.
6.1.2 LGUs Vision, Mission and Objectives with respect to its FFL
Planning period for the vision, mission and objectives (VMO) is 10 years. This step requires
creating a mental picture (visualization) of a desired future state of FFL in the city/municipality.
The VMO tells about the condition that does not presently exist and never existed before FFL
in the context of present socioeconomic and biophysical developments. This is written from
the perspective of local stakeholders as expressed during consultation meetings, discussions
and FGDs; as being revealed from the LGU history, profiling and analysis, thematic mapping and
overlays; and as agreed and endorsed by the LGU leadership.
The mission and goal of the FLUP should be able to capture what will be done, for whom are
these efforts, and how it will be carried out. It may be rationalized, for example, by saying that
it will be supportive of the development goal of the LGU and its overall goal in protecting,
developing and managing its forest lands.
In formulating the FLUP five-year goals and objectives, it must answer the question how will
it achieve the LGUs vision and mission (when approved and implemented). In other words,
what should the LGU, in collaboration with the DENR and local stakeholders, do to allocate,
protect and manage FFL resources based on key biophysical, socio-economic, legal and political
criteria? Whenever possible, the set objectives should be quantifiable or can have numerical
values.
The objectives may be production of goods and services, conservation, protection of
infrastructures and lives and public safety, biodiversity, research or aesthetic values. Example
of an objective on the protection of infrastructure is Protect communities, public and
private investments from environmental hazards such as damages from sudden floods and
landslides.
6.1.3 Scope and Limit of the FLUP
This portion should be written in the context of the comprehensive land use plan (CLUP)
of a city, municipality or province. Examples may include an illustration that is applicable only
within forest land or some maps may be used for FLUP only and not for CLUP. It has to be
communicated that the FLUP is not about land use but instead contain recommendations on
how best to allocate and manage FFL.
6.1.4 The FLUP Process and Methodology
An orientation is first given on the FTAP-enhanced FLUP process, formation of the FLUP
team and on action planning. It is followed with a discussion on the MOA between the DENR
and the LGU, and the ordinance or resolution from the MDC and SB that would enact the
agreement between the two parties. The sources of information for maps, socioeconomic and
biophysical aspects are then explained.
65
The mapping process ensues next.The maps would have to be prepared, validated and revised,
both thematic and composite maps. Overlaying follows, along with analysis and consultations
with various stakeholders (communities, private sector, civil society, LGUs, SBs and C/MDCs).
The criteria are then explained for prioritizing sub-watersheds and for allocating open access
(unallocated and unmanaged) FFL.
The succeeding activities would not be confined to lectures and discussions. Cross visits
will be conducted. Lessons learned and observations from these visits would be recorded
and discussed. The visit would be followed by community mapping and field validation of
recommendations for the allocation and management of FFL.
The next step is the finalization of the FLUP.This entails visioning, drafting and revising the final
FLUP. This would include stakeholders analysis.
The FLUP would become a legal document once the C/MDC and SB passed ordinances or
resolutions ordering its approval and adoption. Civil society groups or POs may also pass
resolutions signaling their recognition of the FLUP.This would be followed by an endorsement
and approval by the mayor/local chief executive and the DENR.
The MOA would then be prepared, validated and signed. The MOA provisions would specify
how the FLUP would be implemented by the parties concerned. It would also indicate the
investments in infrastructure, extension services, tenure application and processing, community
organizing, preparation of resource management plans, IEC/advocacy, and creation of C/
MENRO, among others.
6.1.5 Findings
Findings refer to the results of data gathering, consultations, validations, site visits and analyses.
It captures the municipal level analysis of the FFL as assets, local stakeholders, key variables
that may impact FFL governance and management, priority issues, needs, and constraints that
require immediate actions and decisions.
This section should provide a clear picture of the extent of the remaining forest cover (natural
and man-made), how the forest is being protected and managed, potential of expanding forest
cover, role of stakeholders in FFL protection and management, among others. Some of the
guide questions to be answered in this section are listed in the next page.
The findings list down the FFL assets that can be found in the LGU, their location or distribution,
and whether these assets are allocated or unallocated. It is in this portion that the following
are presented:
66
o
o
What FFL assets are in the LGU?

What are the types and extent of forest cover? How many hectares are covered with natural forests?
Plantation? Perennial tree crops?
How many hectares are open and denuded areas? Grasslands? Cultivated areas?
How many sub-watersheds? Extent of sub-watersheds? Existing or potential functions? Conditions?
Where are the different kinds of FFL assets located or distributed?
Allocated?
Unallocated?
Where are the protection and production forests?
In allocated or unallocated FFL?
In what tenure or allocation instruments are they located or distributed?
How is the protection forest managed under each allocation category?
How are the allocated FFL assets protected, managed or developed?
What is the current status of various tenure/allocation instruments? How many are active, inactive,
expiring, suspended, etc.? Overlaps?
Are the tenured/allocated areas covered with approved resource management plans and budget?
Are there on-site protection and development activities in these areas? How are Communal/Individual
Property Rights being addressed?
How many of these tenure holders are capable, functional or active on the ground? What is your
assessment/analysis about the tenure holder or other concerned institution?
Who are the on-site and off-site stakeholders in FFL? DENR, LGUs, communities (on-site protection,
management, utilization, upland farming?), private sector (nanciers, processing, marketing, forest
plantations, etc.), civil society organizations (advocacy, on-site management, monitoring, etc.), other
government agencies (extension support, nancing, monitoring, etc.)
In both allocated and unallocated FFL?
What are their stakes?
What are their capabilities? Needs? Constraints?
How do they participate? In what decisions and action? Who determines their participation?
What are their nancial investments or in-kind contribution in the FFL protection and management?
What and where are the current and emerging conicts in the use and allocation of FFL resources?
Impacts of these conicts?
How are these conicts being resolved?
Who is and should do the mediation of these conicts?
What are the key issues, constraints, problems in the protection and management of FFL? At the LGU
level? Tenure holder level? DENR level? Occupants/claim level?
What are the FFL products that are being produced, harvested, processed and marketed?
Legal? Illegal?
Volumes of forest products that are being marketed?
Existing and potential markets?
Constraints and issues in forest products production and marketing?
6.1.6 Recommendations and Strategies

This portion looks into the aspect of how the vision can be translated into reality. These
are stated in support of a clearly defined strategy for achieving vision and mission, goals and
objectives.
Also discussed are the most appropriate technical strategies to achieve the LGUs vision and
mission and meet the goals and objectives of FLUP. The proposed strategies can be divided
into the general and specific technical strategies. Financial and organizational strategies will be
discussed in separate sections. The strategies should consider questions such as:
o What internal and external opportunities and strengths are being responded to by the
technical recommendations? What problems, issues and needs are being responded
to?
o How do these technical recommendations deal with present and future constraints
and weaknesses, inadequacies or shortcomings of various stakeholders?
67
o
o
o
o
o
What should the LGU

and DENR do to
protect or conserve
the remaining natural
forests, develop forest
lands that have potential
for high value crops
and plantations, protect
biodiversity,
enhance
ecotourism
areas,
rehabilitate and manage
priority sub-watersheds
which supply surface or
ground water, recognize
and help indigenous
cultures,
resolve
conflicts, etc?
What are the critical investments to effect protection, conservation or rehabilitation
of areas under natural forests? In degraded but occupied/cultivated forest lands?
What kind of extension support systems should be in place? Livelihood and microenterprise support system? Infrastructure support? Others?
What incentive systems should be in place in order for different tenure/allocation
holders invest their own resources? Those that can be acted by the LGU? Those
outside the LGU system?
What specific investments in priority sub-watersheds will produce the highest net
positive environmental impacts? And protect on- and off-site communities and public
infrastructures?
Based on findings, what should be the most appropriate mix of tenure/allocation
instruments that could address protection and management of FFL assets? IFMA?
CBFMA? Co-Management? Declared protected areas? (For what? community
watershed?, local park?, biodiversity?, etc.)
What should be done to ensure on-site protection, development, and management of
FFL assets under existing tenure/allocation instruments? individual property rights?
Priority in employment opportunities, if any? Extension system?
What are the proposed recommendations to address current and future conflicts in
the use and allocation of FFL resources?
How will each of the stakeholders be involved in the protection and management of
FFL resources at the LGU level? Participate in delivery of extension and other support
system to tenure/allocation holder? Provide financing or other in-kind support?
68
6.1.7 Institutional Arrangement

This section includes proposed actions on how the LGU will organize, mobilize and internally
monitor its FLUP implementation with the assistance and collaboration of the DENR and the
local stakeholders.
Proposed actions are to be written with the following in view: that the LGU is in the drivers
seat; the DENR is the main source of technical standards, policy and technical support; and
the market players (including civil society groups) as the ones who have the demands for
environmental goods and services from FFL. The following questions maybe used as a guide:
A. What are the most suitable structure and organizational arrangement to implement the
FLUP and monitor its progress and impacts over time? Who (among the stakeholders)
should be involved in the annual work and financial planning, implementation,
monitoring? What capabilities need to be developed?
B. What kind of technical and support staff will this structure or organization need?
Where will they come from?
C. What kind of collaborative arrangement should be done to implement the FLUP and
leverage non-LGU resources and expertise?
D. How can the institutional structure and/or arrangement be formalized or become
legally functional?
E. Will the creation of a C/MENRO facilitate implementation? How will the C/MENRO
be organized, structured or funded? How will it coordinate plans and activities?
F. What kind of ordinances or legislative policy actions will strengthen the authority of
the implementing organization?
G. How can the leagues affirm or assist the organization in advocacy, networking,
leveraging, monitoring and holding other partners accountable?
H. What will be the major tasks and responsibilities of the implementing organization or
a responsible organization in the FLUP implementation?
6.1.8 Monitoring and Evaluation of FLUP Implementation
This section discusses how the LGU and DENR will jointly monitor and evaluate implementation
of the FLUP.
Participation of other stakeholders in monitoring implementation of FLUP should also be
discussed.
What are the key performance indicators that should be periodically monitored and assessed
by the LGU and the local DENR to track FFL asset improvement over time (open access areas
placed under tenure, improvement in forest cover)? Who will be involved in this process?
Who will finance the process? How will results be reported? How will accountability be
carried out?
6.1.9 Budgetary Requirements
The budget required would cover a five-year period.
This portion would feature a Gantt chart showing the strategic FLUP implementation activities
and their respective durations by year. It is to present estimated costs and sources of funds,
whether in kind or in cash contributions from other partners.
The financial resources available at the LGU level are to be identified, along with the short,
medium and long term funding sources that may be tapped. It is to be ascertained as well
if LGU, rentals, taxes, grants, DENR and other government agencies counterpart funding,
income from joint venture agreements, financing facilities, civil society groups, NGOs and
private sector investments be enough to fund FLUP implementation.
69
The total cost of implementing the technical recommendations and the institutional
arrangements in the FLUP is to be determined as well. Also to be computed are: personnel,
maintenance and operating expenses, and capital outlay for the first, two and five years; and
the total cost that can be shouldered by the LGU, DENR, NGA, civil society groups and the
private sector.
Direct investments need to be identified like nursery, rehabilitation or reforestation,
establishment of tree farms or plantations, roads, bridges, and social services for FFL protection
and management, along with the support that could be expected from the LGU, DENR,
communities, private sector and civil society groups.
The possible sources of funds would be determined. Strategies for financing the total cost
of FLUP implementation would be identified as well as the organization which will carry out
these strategies.
A detailed first year work and financial plan will be included in the budgetary requirements.
Following the same format as the above, this portion is different only because the timeline or
duration will be in quarters and the activities will be done within the year.
In this portion, the priority activities that should be carried out during the first year of FLUP
implementation are identified and the quarter(s) when they would be implemented.
70
Annex A
Experience of
Some LGUs in
Developing and
Implementing
FLUP
Protecting watersheds to ensure sustainable supply of

water; preventing occurrence of flash floods; providing
livelihood opportunities for communities to engage in
eco-friendly upland farming and conserving mangrove
forests to support fisheries are some of the reasons
LGUs in EcoGov-assisted areas decided to develop and
implement FLUPs.
The following pages contain stories of LGUs all assisted
by EcoGov located in Northern Luzon, Central
Visayas and South-Central Mindanao that supported
FLUP initiatives and succeeding activities for reasons that
will ultimately benefit the LGUs themselves and their
respective communities.
71
BAYAWANS EXPERIENCE IN RESTORING ITS DENUDED WATERSHEDS

Bayawans strong will to take charge of protecting its watersheds is understandable. A relatively young city, it
is expected to attract agro-industrial business and migrants that would compete for water use; thus, Bayawan
has to conserve/rehabilitate its sources of water.
Adversely denuded and marginalized. This aptly depicts the condition of Bayawan forests and forestlands,
due to decades of destructive logging followed by encroachment and erosive agriculture. Notable reversal
of this trend has, however, emerged starting 2004 when the City LGU, DENR, the Environment and Natural
Resources Division of the Province of Negros Oriental, the local community and other stakeholders joined
forces in a concerted effort to protect and rehabilitate these barren uplands through the co-management
scheme.
Past Neglect and Consequences
The onslaught on Bayawans forest and forestlands is
considered to have worsened in 1979 when the government
stopped all commercial logging operations in Negros
Oriental. When the loggers left, they left behind a network
of logging roads. These facilitated slash and burn activities
of displaced forest workers and the incursion of settlers. By
1987, practically all of Bayawans dipterocarp forests were
gone.
As the upland settlements grew, the local and provincial
governments renovated old and muddy logging roads.
Eventually, in 1994, the completion of the BayawanKabankalan Highway which cuts through Bayawan forest
lands, and intended to facilitate commerce between Negros
Oriental and Negros Occidental has also facilitated the
complete population and agriculturalization of Bayawans
forest lands.
A denuded mountain of Bayawan City

(Photo by Bayawan City LGU)
Today, out of Bayawans total forest land of 20,245 has,

82 % or 16,781 has have been transformed into farm
lands. Only 15% or 2,937 has are left as forest cover that
are combination of natural forest, agroforestry and tree
plantations. The remaining 3% or 527 hectares is grassland.
Finding Cure
Forest denudation resulted in flashfloods during the rainy season, and drying of springs during summer
months. To address the problem, the Bayawan City government availed of technical assistance from USAIDs
Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Project, implemented with the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), in the
preparation of a Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP). MOA was signed with DENR and EcoGov on March 20, 2003.
To support the implementation of the FLUP, the city entered into an agreement with the DENR to co-mange
all of the citys 14,434 hectares of untenured open access forestlands. This gave the city direct responsibility
to manage its unallocated forestlands as well as oversee the proper management of 5,811 hectares tenured
72
forestlands as outlined in its FLUP. Bayawans commitment to supporting and achieving the goals and
objective of their FLUP is clearly seen with the regular appropriations made to environment and natural
resources services. Over the last six years, Bayawan poured a total of P168.5 million for these services or an
annual average of P28 million starting 2004.
Being part of the overall development plan of the city, The Bayawan FLUP has been linked and integrated
with its other component plans including their Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), SWM Plan, CRM Plan,
Disaster and Sanitation/Drainage Management Plan, Infrastructure Development Plan and Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation Plan.
Benefits and Impacts
Bayawans efforts to implement its co-management agreement have produced a number of results that
benefit the environment, the people and the city as a whole. These include:
Forest Line Delineated. This has helped in the resolution of land disputes and helped strengthen
the enforcement of forest laws. Financed by the city LGU, the forest line delineation survey (targeting
230 km forest line, of which 215 completed) involved the partnership of the CLGU, DENR and the
community.
Illegal activities reduced. Twenty-four upland barangays of Bayawan City have organized their forest
law enforcement units, all in all with a total of 96 barangay environment and natural resources officers
(BENROs) deputized by the DENR. They are at the forefront in the surveillance and apprehension
of illegal loggers as well controlling kaingin. In addition, the Bayawan Multisectoral Forest Protection
Council (MFPC) has been formed and mobilized to effect citywide vigilance, planning and network for
the reporting and apprehension of forest law violators.
Upland dwellers given security of tenure making them active partners of forest
management. Under the forestland co-management program, the LGU, in partnership with the
DENR have devised an innovative scheme for stabilizing and making more secure the ownership of the
forestland occupied and cultivated for years by families. Such lands have been declared as agroforestry
zone and made available for application of legal occupancy and use through a system of individual
property right (IPR) issuance. Actual occupants and tillers of such lands are the top priority for the
awarding of the IPR which goes with a legal document called Agroforestry Management Agreement
(AMA). More than 300 families in the uplands are to be awarded this IPR.
Before
Now
73
Bayawan Riverbank rehabilitated to address erosion/ siltation. Of the six major watersheds
of Bayawan, the Bayawan River Watershed emerged as the most important because it is the biggest,
consisting of 57% of the total land area of the City, it hosts the biggest area of the citys forest land,
and also has the biggest proportion of open access forest lands, implying the need for utmost attention
for rehabilitation and conservation. Hence, this focus on Bayawan riverbank rehabilitation. Started in
2004, the target is to stabilize around 170 km of the riverbank encompassing an area of about 38,990
has. To date, Bayawan, with the involvement of upland families, have established 134,000 lineal meters
of riverbank protection lines.
Water Production Areas developed. The scheme requires barangay LGUs to identify their
priority water production area (WPA) and package a project proposal for submission to the City LGU
for approval and funding. To date, 19 of the targeted 21 upland Barangays are implementing their own
WPA projects, with aggregate fund release of P4,470,139. So far, they have already planted an aggregate
total of 237 hectares of identified WPA areas with around 284,100 assorted seedlings of fruit and
forest trees including jatropha and rubber trees.
Industrial Tree Crops: adding forest cover and providing alternative livelihood. The
establishment of agroforestry plantations with industrial tree crops is being carried out by Bayawan
City as a strategy for increasing vegetative cover and at the same time providing alternative source
of income for upland farmers. This approach is in line with the Citys plan of expanding investments
in permanent crops not only in support of environmental goals but also to improve the general
appearance of the city. Along this line, the city has been actively promoting the planting of rubber,
coffee, coconut and jatropha curcas (tubang bakod) both in their agricultural and forest lands especially
for their potential in spawning industrial activities in the countryside.
74
TRIGGERING PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIP

FOR ECO-FRIENDLY INVESTMENTS IN KIAMBA FORESTLANDS
What does it take to attract investors and bring
them up to the forestlands? How can other sectors
be rallied to support such big stride? This appeared
at first as a gargantuan challenge for Kiamba LGU in
Sarangani Province, but when they considered the
ways and buckled down to work, they realized that
it can be done. Now, their efforts benefit poor Tboli
tribal communities and associated migrants and helping
rehabilitate degraded uplands.
Irony: Rich,Yet Poor
Endowed with abundant natural resources, the Tboli tribe and associated migrants who live in the 32,072
hectares forest land of Kiamba are rich. Located at the foot of Mt Busa, one of key biodiversity areas in
Mindanao, the area hosts important flora (dipterocarps, almaciga, orchids, ferns, vines) and fauna (wild pigs, deer,
bats, varied birds, Philippine Eagle) suitable for various uses including shelter, food, fiber, medicine and others.
These forest lands which consist 74% of Kiambas total land area of 43,209 also nestle a good number of scenic
spots, including six water falls that are frequented by local and international tourists.
Yet, in terms of income to purchase other basic necessities, such communities are poor.This is because the two
major livelihood crops (coffee and abaca) that they have focused on for many years now have been met with
some perennial chronic problems and limitations. Problems that they had from the start include poor access
to market due to poor road infrastructure, low production and processing technologies and oppressive pricing
scheme.
Exploring and Carving Solutions
In 2002, with assistance from the USAID-funded Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Project and
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), a team composed of local experts formulated
Kiambas Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP) that looked into the best allocation and use of Kiambas forestlands and
watersheds given limited resources and appropriate strategies for development. Such was the impact of FLUP
that by 2004, the local government unit (LGU) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
placed the entire forest and forestland under a co-management agreement which recognized the LGU and
the local communities as land managers. In fact, three peoples organizations, which were issued earlier with
Community Based Forest Management Agreements (CBFMAs) with an aggregate total area of 9,121 hectares,
were strengthened as part of the FLUP process. These CBFMA holders, one of which is the Tboli of Falel
Community Association, have the capacity to work with prospective investors, under the guidance of the LGU
and the local DENR.
The Project Management Team, composed of representatives from PLGU, MLGU, DENR and FIDA, assisted
the communities in developing their community resource management frameworks (CRMF) and resource
use plans. Along with this, the POs were assisted in organizational strengthening, identification of livelihood
activities, establishing linkages for livelihood and enterprise development. As a result of various meetings and
workshops, the POs decided to focus on three priority crops, namely, coffee, abaca and rubber with agreement
to practice diversified farming system to address as well biodiversity conservation and food production. At the
gestation period, cash crops are intercropped with the three priority crops identified.
75
The Kiamba FLUP and the CRMFs which were formulated with EcoGov technical assistance pinpointed areas
available for development. According to the municipal agriculture office, out of the 20,000 hectares of open
canopy forestland and over 3,000 hectares of brushland areas, 11,000 hectares can be developed into coffee,
abaca and rubber-based farms. These areas represent all plantable areas that can be found in both brushland/
grassland and open canopy forests including areas with existing plantation regardless of tenure status. This is
considering that coffee and abaca also thrive in shaded areas which include open canopy forests and existing
plantations.
Entry of Investors
To pursue the agreed direction on enterprise development in forestlands per their FLUP and CRMFs, the
EcoGov Team in collaboration with the provincial LGU sponsored a series of investment forum and round
table discussions geared towards investments and enterprise development for coffee, abaca and rubber. These
meetings were attended by interested private company/organizations which include the Nestle Philippines,
PLATNUM Rubber Corporation, Saranggani Chamber for Commerce and Industries, Inc. (SCCI), concerned
government agencies, namely, DTI, FIDA, DENR, the MLGU of Kiamba, PLGU of Saranggani and of course
the POs themselves and representatives of farmers growing coffee, abaca and rubber. These meetings helped
identify business opportunities for the POs and how to get started on the ground. It made the farmers realize
and confirm that working together with partners, production and trading of coffee beans, abaca fibers and
natural rubber are enterprises that they can pursue.
Rubber
As a result of the investment forum and RTDs, and knowing
that the farmers are given security of land tenure through
the FLUP implementation, PLATINUM Rubber Corporation
formally entered into MOA with LGU Kiamba and TFCAI last
April 18, 2008 for the development of rubber- based farms
and marketing of natural rubber. As part of the agreement,
the company provided 200 seedlings of quality high yielding
variety of rubber which will become the source of materials
for budwood nursery to ensure and sustain the production
of better variety of rubber in the area. The company also
committed to provide technical and marketing support.
Abaca
With the heightened interest on abaca, planted areas for this crop in Kiamba has increased from 600 hectares
in 2007 to 1,500 hectares in 2009. Individual farmers are expanding their abaca farms with assistance from the
provincial LGU whoichallocated budget to support the establishment of abaca nursery in Kiamba and adjoining
municipalities.
Coffee
The finest quality of coffee is grown in high altitude in areas known to be rich in biodiversity. Kiambas forestlands
stand at an elevation of 2,600 feet above sea level. A foreign investor is currently expanding its Arabica coffee
plantation there in partnership with a local cooperative of Tboli farmers. Initially developing a 100-hectare
upland coffee farm, the investor plans to cultivate about 1,000 hectares in the next 10 years, expected to result
in at least 1,000 jobs for the locals.
76
Triggers for the Investments
Secure Land Tenure Among Partner Families. The Individual Property Right awarded to each
family over their land holding assured their possession of that land for as long as 25 years renewable
for another 25 years. As such, they can be held accountable for their contractual commitments over a
long period of time also.
Support from the LGU and Associated Organizations. The existence of this support system
lessens anxiety on the part of the investors, assured that their partner farmers are not by themselves,
but there are forces around that will help them succeed in their contractual obligations. The improved
farm-to-market road infrastructure alone that the Kiamba Municipal and Sarangani Provincial LGUs
have provided are big come-ons to the investors.
Existence of Good Market. Abaca, coffee and rubber are commodities that have good market
locally and internationally, and the investors know that fully well. Resources and capital assets that help
them produce goods for this market are welcome to them. These include the vast tenured land assets
of the Tbolis of Kiamba and the people themselves as manpower resources.
Current Benefits and Impacts
It is expected that Kiamba will be able to put into productive development additional areas covering
5,000 hectares of abaca farms, 4,000 hectares of rubber-based farms and around 2,000 hectares of
coffee-based farms within the next five to ten years provided private sector investment will continue.
The significant legacy and impact that this intervention has produced is in having laid a strong foundation
for public- private sector partnership for ecologically friendly enterprises in forest lands-- for coffee,
abaca and rubber.
On the other hand, the other benefit and impact is the conservation of the forest and its biodiversity due
to reduced pressure towards timber poaching because of sustained income from these enterprises.
77
WAOS PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (PES):

A SUCCESS IN THE MAKING
Ensuring the forest resources are managed well requires
considerable LGU investment. In Wao, various sectors
come together to contribute their share in watershed
rehabilitation through sustainable financing scheme
Introduction
In the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Philippines,
a small municipality in the province of Lanao del Sur is
modeling innovative means to ensure sustainable financial
support for watershed management.
With technical
assistance provided by USAIDs Philippine Environmental
Governance Project (EcoGov), payment for ecosystem
Waos watershed feeds 5 river systems and
services (PES) is being tested in Wao, Lanao del Sur, to hasten
can potentially irrigate 19,000 hectares of
rehabilitation and protection of its forests and forest lands,
farmlands within Wao and 5 other nearby
guarantee sustainable supply of water to stakeholders, prevent
municipalities.
or minimize flooding of downstream barangays and improve
livelihood of upland settlers.
Waos Declining Forests
For many years, Waos forestlands have been subjected to illegal cutting and forestland conversion. Records
show that from 1998-2002 alone, Wao lost around 2,325 hectares of natural forest or an average of 581
hectares per year. Many believe that the operation of Timber Industries of the Philippines Inc. (TIPI) for more
than 20 years largely encouraged rapid migration of kaingineros or slash and burn farmers and illegal loggers
in Waos forestlands. This led to rapid reduction of the municipalitys natural forest cover, making Wao more
vulnerable to flash floods during the rainy season and water shortages during the summer months.
Realizing its vulnerability to flooding and water shortages, Wao decided in July 2002 to seek assistance from
the Philippine Environmental Governance Project (EcoGov) in formulating its forest land use plan (FLUP). By
2004 its FLUP was completed where one of the major findings was that large areas of the Banga watershed,
which is tapped by Wao Water District (WWD) to supply the domestic water requirements of its water
concessionaires, had been degraded. Some creeks which historically provided year round water flow have
gone dry during summer. Alarmed by this fact, the municipal government of Wao signed a memorandum
of agreement (MoA) with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Autonomous Region in
Muslim Mindanao (DENR-ARMM) for joint management of the watershed. The following year the municipal
government started to mobilize settlers within the watershed to rehabilitate and protect the area from further
degradation. A barangay nursery was established and forest and fruit tree seedlings were distributed to the
watershed settlers for planting in their respective claimed areas.
78
Establishing the PES Scheme

In 2009, faced with competing demands for available
budget allocations, Waos government had to get creative.
In a round table discussion held on 25 November 2009,
the municipal government of Wao, the WWD, the Banga
Farmers Watershed Cooperative and other stakeholders,
reached an agreement to establish a payments for
ecosystem services (PES) scheme with the LGU creating a
special account where such fund could be deposited. The
agreement was sealed on 15 December 2009 between
the local municipal government of Wao, the Wao Steering
Committee7 and the WWD.
The PES scheme is being tested in Waos 2,184 hectares
(L-R) Salvador Redulla, Acting Gen. Manager of
co-managed forest lands covering the Banga sub- Wao Water District (WWD); Elvino B. Balicao
watershed, which is a major source of the domestic Jr., Wao Municipal Mayor; Mary Ruth Catalan,
water supply requirements of about 3,239 households in Wao Municipal Vice Mayor; and Marcelina
the municipality. Around 50 liters per second of water Balista, WWD Board of Director member sign
is drawn by the water district from a spring located in the memorandum of agreement.
the watershed. This generates an annual gross income
of about Php 5.4 million (USD 116,129.00) for the Wao
Water District. In addition, other industries also source their water requirements from the watershed such as
the Wao Development Corporation.
The establishment of a PES scheme is expected to guarantee a sustainable source of financing conservation
programs to ensure adequate rehabilitation and protection of the watershed.
WWD committed PhP 75,000.00 pesos (USD 1,613.00) as an annual payment. In turn, the LGU will use the
funds to finance rehabilitation and conservation activities to be undertaken by members of the watershed
community whose claims to forest lands within the co-managed area are recognized under an individual
property rights (IPR) agreement.
The IPR agreement is important for PES in Wao to succeed. A significant portion of the watershed is already
occupied by settlers who plant the areas with short-term agricultural crops, mainly corn, which contribute
to increased soil erosion and watershed degradation. The IPR agreement will document the changes in land
uses, as indicated in the farm plan, which the claimant promises to undertake with funds coming from the PES
contributions. It also gives IPR holders more secured tenure so they will be motivated to protect and maintain
their areas and plant long term crops since they can harvest the fruits from the orchards.
Since the agreement was inked, the water district had deposited Php 75,000.00 (US$ 1,613.00) in 2010 and
another Php 75,000.00 in 2011 to this account.
Steering Committee (SC) is a multi-sector oversight body created under the co-management agreement. It is authorized to recognize individual
property rights of claimants and to enter into agreement with investors for the management or development of portions of the co-management
area.
79
Bringing the Wao PES Model to Scale

The local government of Wao has also initiated consultations with other industries drawing water from
the watershed, such as the Wao Development Corporation (WDC), to participate in the PES model and
contribute to the special account. For 2011, WDC has already turned over Php100,000.00 (US$2,325.00).
Similar consultation was also undertaken with the association of truck owners who have expressed interest in
participating in the conservation program of the local government. The Wao United Truck Owners Association
committed to collect PhP10 (USD 0.23 cents) for every trip loaded with agricultural products passing Wao.
As of 31 March 2011, a total collection of about PhP 32,040 (USD 745.17) from trucker owners association
was already deposited in the special account. In addition, the local government of Wao will begin to set aside
a percentage of the entrance fee collected through an ecotourism development project in the co-managed
watershed which is set to start operations in 2011.
Benefits and Impacts
The collaborative partnership among different stakeholders
in securing the watersheds of Wao, as a result of the comanagement implementation since 2004, is slowly gaining
ground. Aside from having a sustainable source of financing
rehabilitation efforts on its watersheds through the PES,Waos
forest management program has resulted in a number of
benefits. Among them are:
Security of tenure to upland dwellers provided. The First batch of IPR recipients.
rights of these settlers to their farms have been
secured by the awarding of individual property right (IPR) agreements. This has led to upland dwellers
making their own investments to make their assigned land productive. Watershed settlers who
used to engage in harmful activities such as cutting trees, or practicing slash-and-burn system to
plant crops such as corn, are now growing rubber and various fruit trees in their farms. As of end of
2010, more than 150 IPR agreements have been awarded to watershed settlers who were trained in
farm planning and begun planting perennial trees as their contribution to the local governments forest
conservation program. The local government has established a Farmers Training and Nursery Center
which also houses the watershed forest guards. Income of these IPR holders is expected to increase
Illegal logging almost eliminated. With communities
participating in watershed management, illegal logging
in Wao is almost zero, as illegal cutting was quickly
reported to the forest patrol guards deployed in
the watershed and given appropriate sanctions.
Watershed dwellers have become advocates of forest
conservation.
Soil and water conservation practiced. The shift
in farming system of IPR holders within the Banga
watershed from pure corn-dominated to multiple
cropping and from pure cash crops to perennial and
woody crops of endemic species, fruit trees and
rubber trees will help ensure that soil and water are
properly conserved.
Biodiversity improving. The improved micro-climate of the area is allowing the growth and presence
of more flora and fauna. In fact members of the BFWDC have observed more birds in the area
particularly where endemic species are growing well. Riparian zones that used to be open and prone
to erosion and landslides are gradually covered with endemic species lessening the likelihood of flash
floods during heavy downpours.
80
CO-MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES OF NUEVA VIZCAYA TOWN

PAVE WAY FOR OUTPOURING OF ASSISTANCE
Quezons efforts to protect watershed get support from various sectorsincluding upland
dwellers enticed to invest their own resources through IPR issuance
The people of Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya believe that
the health of its forest and forestlands is entwined
with the condition of its local economy and that
putting these resources to their premium uses
will highlight the ecological as well as economic
value of these natural assets. But while the forest
and forestlands provide benefits and opportunities
to the people, the potential of these assets have
been undermined by various threats of degradation.
Quezons old growth forest cover has dwindled
from 35 percent in 1993 to only 18 percent in 2003.
The forests disappear at 386 hectares per year,
with unregulated migration to the uplands, timber
poaching and kaingin as the main cause. If the trend will continue, Quezons forest will be gone by 2014.
But Quezons leaders are not poised to let go of its forests without mounting a fight.They sought the assistance
of the USAID-funded Philippine Environmental Governance Project (EcoGov) in preparing their Forest Land
Use Plan. The Plan identifies watersheds that are critical to the towns development, their status, and the
interventions that have to be carried out to ensure their sustainability. It also spells out strategies that will place
its forest and forestlands under improved management, among them, closing unallocated forestlands through
the issuance of tenure instruments and co-management agreements with the local DENR.
One of the most important watersheds in Quezon is the 4,995 hectares Buliwao-Maasin Watershed, where
water is tapped to irrigate more than 400 hectares of farmlands in Quezon and the nearby municipalities of
Bagabag and Solano. This catchment, which drains into the Magat River, is also home to a number of wildlife
species, host to three magnificent waterfalls and overflowing with potentials for ecotourism. But with its old
growth forest of 2,307 hectares in 1993 down to only 1,612 hectares in 2003 the watershed may as well
represents the overall condition of Quezons forests.
Co-Management Agreement
Recognizing its economic and ecological value, the LGU requested the DENR to devolve its management of
the Buliwao-Maasin Watershed. In May 2006, the municipality of Quezon pioneered a local initiative in forest
management when it forged a co-management agreement with the DENR for this critical watershed. The comanagement agreement paved for the creation of a multi-sectoral steering committee to formulate policies for
integrated resource management.
Multi-stakeholder support and complementation
In restoring the watershed, the local government enlisted support of various local and national institutions.
Stirred by the enthusiasm displayed by local leaders in taking the lead for this pilot undertaking, financial and
technical support poured in.
The Philippine Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation (PTFCF), funded through Friends of the Environment
for Development & Sustainability, Inc. (FRENDS), a local non-government organization based in Bayombongs
81
fund assistance for the preparation of the watershed integrated resource management plan, facilitating
issuance of the co-management agreement, partnership building and formation and strengthening of Peoples
Organizations. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) also provided fund support for awareness raising
and capability building activities and advocacy for the declaration of community watersheds. The fund availed
by FRENDS from EcoGovs small grant project assistance was likewise used to facilitate the conduct of survey
of the catchment and individual property rights.
The provincial government supplied additional seedlings for the nursery and provided assistance in the survey
of the catchment. The DENR, on its part, has provided technical assistance, regulates forest use and facilitates
conflict resolution. The Nueva Vizcaya State University has also given technical assistance for agroforestry
establishment and for the development and promotion of local ecotourism. The Department of Agrarian
Reform likewise provided livelihood support including improvement of water system.
The municipal and barangay LGUs concerned have also provided 5% annual allocation from their IRA to
support co-management activities. The barangays of Buliwao and Maasin, in collaboration with the POs have
also formed their enforcement groups and do patrolling and checkpoint in some strategic areas.
Individual Property Rights
Uncertainty over their land claims has held back the upland farmers within the watershed from developing
their lands. The LGU then introduced Individual Property Rights (IPR), an instrument which grants qualified
upland farmers rights to make improvements on their awarded lands consistent with the forest management
goals embodied in the Forest Land Use Plan and the co-management resource management plan. The
agreement, which obliges the beneficiaries to develop their land claims according to their farm plans has
effectively eliminated uncertainty on their occupancy. A total of 109 family beneficiaries that were granted
with IPR agreements covering 188 hectares have started making their lands productive by planting cash and
perennial crops. To protect their investments, upland farmers have also started assuming forest protection
and management responsibilities. They also found a staunch ally in the local government leadership that
declared a ban on timber poaching in the municipality and called upon the local Philippine National Police to
strictly monitor the implementation of his order.
The Integrated Resource Management Plan of the Buliwao-Maasin Watershed was also used by FRENDS as
leverage in accessing another grant from PTFCF for the reforestation of 60 hectares within the source water
protection areas. With labor counterpart provided by the local communities, the project exceeded its target
when a total of 61 hectares was reforested.
The physical development plan for the promotion of Mapalyao Falls as an ecotourism destination has likewise
been completed through the joint efforts of the LGU, academic institutions and the DENR.
Quezons struggle to bring back the ecological integrity of its watershed is far from over. But the seeds of hope
for the continuity of the services the watershed provides have been sown. And as the municipality proceeds
with improving management of its forests, agricultural production in the lowland is increased and sustained.
Quezons initiatives showcased the local governments ability to spearhead watershed management, especially
in transforming forest land occupants into land managers and active partners in protecting and rehabilitating
Quezons forests and forestlands.
82
IPR-Holders Vow to Protect Watershed

After many years of uncertainty over their land claims, upland farmers within the Buliwao-Maasin Watershed
of Quezon in Nueva Vizcaya can finally focus on developing their farmlands. In a milestone event for forest
management in the country, individual property rights (IPR) agreements covering more than 20 hectares
were issued to eight upland-farmer beneficiaries by the municipal government of Quezon, together with the
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources (PENRO) on January 26, 2007. Another 101 beneficiaries
were awarded their IPRs bringing the total number of grantees to 109 and the area of lands awarded to
108 hectares. More than 400 households would be issued similar tenure instruments.
The Bayombong-based Friends of the Environment for Development and Sustainability, Inc. (FRENDS) is
helping the LGU implement its FLUP and prepare the technical requirements for the IPR agreement, with
a grant from the EcoGov Project.
Elated over the grant of IPR to the upland farms that they have been claiming for many years, farmer
beneficiaries within the Buliwao-Maasin Watershed of Quezon in Nueva Vizcaya have committed themselves
to develop and protect the area.
Ricardo Dinag-a, President of the Maasin Multi-Sectoral Watershed
Association and one of the beneficiaries, shared the sentiments of the
group when he said,Now that we are assured of our rights over the land,
we can now plant long-term crops such as fruit trees because we know
we can harvest what we have planted. And we know we will continue to
benefit only if we protect our watershed.
A native of Lamut, Ifugao, Mang Ric migrated in the area in the early 70s
and eventually acquired about four hectares of land. But lack of security
of tenure has held him back from fully developing the area, as he could
only plant cash crops and a few forest trees. Now, Mang Ric is looking
at an agro-forestry project, combining fruit trees and cash crops, with
kakawate trees as boundary markers.
83
84
Annex B
Forest Land Use
Planning
and Data
Collection
Guide
1.
From secondary sources and key informant
interviews, gather the basic Information and socioeconomic, cultural and institutional profile of the LGU.
Basic Information
a. History of the city/municipality. Describe its
origin, legal basis and other vital information
related to its creation.
b. Location and land area. Describe the geographic
location.
c. Climatic condition of the area?
d. What is the LGUs classification ? How much is
the IRA?
e. Accessibility. How far is it from the nearest urban
center? From the capital town of the province?
From Manila?
Describe the socio-economic, demographic, institutional
and political condition of the municipality
a. Administrative jurisdiction. Describe the number
of barangays and if possible, the sitios covered by
the LGU.
Barangays Sitios Covered
Land Area
Percent of Total
TOTAL
b. Population. What is the total population? How

many belong to IP/ethnic groups? Describe
the population growth rate. Determine the
population 10 years from now.
c. Describe the population density in each
barangay.
Barangay
Total Area Population Growth Density

(ha)
rate
(persons/ha)
Describe the economic activities. What are the major

sources of livelihood?
e. Describe the social services and infrastructures
found in the LGU. What is/are the status of the
infrastructure/s? Describe the communication
facilities, education, health and other services.
85
Infrastructures
Quantity
(No./Length)
Status/Remarks
Roads
Bridges
Airport area
Schools
Hospitals
Dams
Irrigation Systems
Water Supply
Built-up Areas
Communication
facilities
f. Describe the existing institutional arrangements in the management of forest resources

g. Describe the presence of civil societies and the extent of their participation/involvement in forest
management
2.0
Prepare thematic maps and determine the bio-physical features and conditions of FFL assets/ resources
of the LGU.
Biophysical Profile:
a. Discuss the land classification/legal status of the municipality. How many hectares are considered
timberland? Express the numbers in percent.
Land Classication
Area (in hectares)
Percent of Total
Timberland
Alienable and
Disposable
TOTAL
b. Describe the slope characteristics of the area. How many hectares are above 50% in slope?
Slope Category (in percent)
Area (in hectares)
> 18
18-30
30-50
>50
TOTAL
86
Percent of Total
c. Describe the elevation status of the area. How many hectares are above 1,000 meters above sea
level?
Elevation Category (masl)
Area (in hectares)
Percent of Total
>500
500-1,000
>1,000
TOTAL
d. Discuss the importance of watershed with respect to its service areas/uses of the rivers. How many
hectares of rice lands or croplands are being supported by what watershed? Where and what is/are
size/s of this/these service area/s? Is there data on the amount of water (discharge flow) coming out
of the river/watershed?
Name of Watershed/
Sub-watershed
Rivers and Creeks Covered
Uses/Service Areas
TOTAL
e. Describe the geologic hazards/status of the municipality

Geologic Hazards
Location
Length/Area/No./Remarks
Volcanoes
Faults
Landslip
Frequently ooded areas
Highly erodible areas
TOTAL
87
Conditions of FFL Assets:

f. Identify the FFL assets, determine the extent, area or number, their watershed/ barangay locations,
users and uses, conditions, trends/threats to these assets and opportunities
Vegetative Cover/
Land Use
Area(ha.)/ No./ length

per SW
SW1
SW2
Total
SWn
Land assets
Forestlands
A & D lands
Water bodies and subwatersheds
Rivers & creeks (kms.)
Area of sub-watersheds
Natural forests
Closed Canopy forest
Open Canopy
Mangroves
Plantations
Water production catchments
(ha)
Biodiversity assets
Water infrastructures
Nature-based tourism assets
Grasslands/ brushlands
Cultivated Uplands
Mineral lands
Other assets
TOTAL
g. Tenure over forest lands. Describe the tenure status of the forest lands? How many are still open
access?
Tenure/Allocation
Instruments
Area (in hectares)
Percent of Total
TOTAL
3.0
Identify the stakeholders through stakeholders analysis.

a. Who are the forest users and other groups or institutions that have interests in the forest resources?
Any cooperation, conflict or competition in the use of resources?
b. How organized are these forest occupants/forest users? Describe their decision making making patterns/
leadership, communication, problem-solving, power influence and mutual support/cooperation
88
4.0 Assess the institutional capabilities of DENR and the LGU in joint management of forests
and forestlands
a. Discuss the capabilities of DENR and the LGU in managing FFL by examining the existing personnel,
their skills, budget allocation, equipment and their overall organizational structure.
b. Examine previous programs implemented by both agencies related to resource management including
existing policies that may affect management of FFL
5.0 Summarize the key Problems, Issues Conflicts, Needs,
Opportunities
Investment/Socio-Economic
89
90
Summary
Annex C
Suggested
Forest Land Use
Plan Outline
Highlights and summary of the plan

Recommendations and plan of action on:
a. Key targets and closure of open access forests
and forest lands
b. Key targets and putting effective management on
allocated FFL
c. Resolving or reducing conflicts in FFL
d. Support systems, incentives, financing
e. Information, education and communication,
advocacy and formation of multi-sector
organizations
f. Enforcement of forestry rules and regulations
g. Implementing structure and operational strategy
h. Capacity building for the implementing and
supporting organizations
i. Collaboration and complementation of support
systems
j. Monitoring and evaluation including participation
of civil society groups in annual assessment
k. 5-years (Total costs, sources and uses of funds
for implementing the FLUP)
l. Priority sub-watersheds for increasing/improving
forest cover investments in rehabilitation,
protection, enforcement, tenure processing and
support systems.
1.0 Background
1.1 Rationale of the municipal FLUP in the context of
improving FFL management at the LGU level
1.2 FLUP in the context of its historical, socioeconomic, biophysical, life support systems,
agricultural, industrial, and political importance
1.3 FLUP in the context of the present and future
consumption and production of food, fiber and
water. Relate this with the location and area
(with location map) of the LGU.
1.4 Discussion on how the plan and its implementation
respond to the current problems, issues, needs
and opportunities in FFL management within the
LGU.
91
2.0 LGUs Vision, Mission, Goals and Objectives on its FFL

2.1 Vision and Mission
2.1.1 Improve the socio-economic condition by ensuring sustainable production of food, fiber
and water in the locality
2.1.2 Maintain ecological balance and biodiversity through effective development and management
of FFL in each sub-watershed.
2.1.3 Protect communities, public and private investments from environmental hazards such as
damages from sudden floods and landslides
2.14
Manage the forests for tourism, aesthetic purposes and well-balanced clean environment.
2.2 Goals and Objectives
Based on transparent and participatory approaches and clearly defined goals, standards and centers of
responsibility and accountability:
2.2.1 Determine priority sub-watersheds for planning and allocating limited resources for
development and investments
2.2.2 Determine and recommend optimal allocation/management of FFL following
biophysical, socio-economic, legal and political criteria
2.2.3 Recommend measures to facilitate resolution or reduction of conflicts arising from
the governance of FFL
2.2.4 Provide a baseline to monitor and evaluate key criteria and indicators for the
implementation of legitimized FLUP to achieve sustainable environmental and FFL
management.
3.0 Scope and limit of FLUP (in the context of the comprehensive land use plan of a municipality
or province)
4.0 Methodology
4.1
Orientation on TAP-enhanced FLUP process, formation of the FLUP team, action planning
4.2
MOA (DENR and LGU) with ordinance or resolution from MDC and SB
4.3
Sources of information (maps, socioeconomic and biophysical)
4.4
Preparation, validation and revision of thematic and composite maps
4.5
Map overlays, analysis, consultations with various stakeholders (communities, private sector, civil
society, LGU leaders, SBs, MDCs)
4.6
Criteria for prioritizing sub-watersheds and for allocating open access (unallocated and unmanaged)
FFL
4.7
Cross visits lessons learned and observations
4.8
Community mapping and field validation of recommendations for the allocation and management
of the FFL
4.9
Visioning, drafting and revising the final FLUP
4.10
Legitimization (MDC and SB ordinances or resolutions from civil society groups or peoples
organizations)
4.12
Endorsement and approval of FLUP by the local chief executive and the DENR
4.13 Preparation, validation and MOA signing for implementation - investments in infrastructure, extension
services, tenure application/processing, IEC, community organizing, preparation of resource
management plans, etc.
92
5.0 Key Findings

5.1 City/Municipal Profile
5.1.1 Biophysical profile Total area, topography, slope, climate, recent vegetative cover, subwatersheds and drainage, hazard areas
5.1.2 Socio-economic and cultural profile Political subdivisions (barangays & sitios),
demography,
5.1.3 Major livelihood sources, social and infrastructure services
5.1.4 Institutional profile Describe how the different resource institutions collaborate in
managing the FFL
5.2 Conditions of Forest and Forest Land Assets
Identify the FFL assets, determine the extent, area or volume, their locations, users and uses, conditions,
trends/threats to these assets and opportunities
5.2.1 Forest lands area of timberlands and alienable and disposable lands tenure holders and
extent of open access
5.2.2 Natural forests
5.2.3 Plantations
5.2.4 Grasslands and brushlands
5.2.5 Cultivated lands
5.2.6 Water bodies and water production areas
5.2.7 Biodiversity resources
5.2.8 Nature-based tourism assets
5.2.9 Mineral resources
5.2.10 Other resources
5.3 Key Stakeholders (Discuss the results of the stakeholders analysis)
5.4 Institutional Assessment (Discuss the capabilities of key institutions in terms of personnel,
budget, organization, equipment, etc.)
5.5 Summary of Key Issues, Conflicts, Problems, Needs, Investment/Socio-Economic
Opportunities
6.0 Recommended Strategies
6.1 General Strategies
a. Zoning
b. Allocation of open access forest lands
c. Prioritization of sub-watersheds
6.2 Specific Technical Strategies
a. Delineation of protection and production forest lands
b. Protection of existing natural forests
c. Rehabilitation/development of grasslands, brushlands and cultivated forest lands
d. Conservation and development of water production areas and biodiversity resources
e. Nature based tourism development
f. Recognition of IPR
g. Developing the priority sub-watershed
h. Others
93
7.0 Organizational Structure and Operations in Support of FLUP Implementation

Creation and/or strengthening MENRO
IEC/Advocacy
Enforcement, deputation, litigation and penalties
Extension support systems DENR, LGUs, collaborative arrangements, facilities and financing support
for smallholder operations
Crafting, implementing and administering user fee systems
Forging partnership agreements or arrangements
Marketing the FLUP through investment fora.
8.0 Periodic Monitoring and Evaluation of FLUP Implementation
Multi-sector and interagency periodic assessment, analysis and reporting in support of the FLUP
Participation of multi-sector groups to monitor compliance to commitments and MOA under the
FLUP.
Periodic assessment of key FLUP indicators forest cover, reduction of open access FFL, etc.
Annual tenure holders assessment
9.0 Estimated 5-Year Financial Requirements for Implementing FLUP
Total costs of personnel requirements, maintenance and operating expenses (MOE), capital outlay
Sources of funds LGU, rentals, taxes, grants, counterparts of DENR and other government agencies,
income from joint venture agreements, private sector investments, etc.
Uses of funds personnel, MOE, investments, support for smallholder upland farmers/groups, facilities
such as nursery, capacity building activities, coordination costs, etc.
Strategies for meeting the total FLUP implementation financial requirements
First work and financial plan for implementing FLUP details of specific activities (who is responsible,
target date, how much will it cost, etc.)
Attachments
a) thematic maps
b) location map
c) derived maps
d) composite map
e) vision map (if any)
f) appendix tables
g) appendix figures
h) minutes of meetings, validations, public hearings and consultations
i) recommended organizational set-up for implementing FLUP
j) details of recommended schedule and required budget of key activities for implementing FLUP
k) resolutions and adoption by the MDC, civil society groups, POs, private sector
l) resolution and approval by the Sangguniang Bayan
m) signed MOAs (for FLUP preparations; and for FLUP implementation)
n) Approval of the FLUP by the LCE and DENR
94
For information, please contact:

The Philippine Environmental Governance Project
(EcoGov)
Unit 2401, Prestige Tower
F. Ortigas Jr. Road, (formerly Emerald Avenue)
Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605
Philippines
Telephone: (632) 635-0747 Fax: (632) 637-8779
Website: www.ecogov.org
Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects Ofce

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Visayas Avenue, Diliman
Quezon City 1104
Philippines
Telephone: +63 2 928-0028; 928-2226
Website: www.faspo.denr.gov.ph
95

Training Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forest Land Use Planning Training Guide

Cesar Virata and Associates

Zoning FFL into Production and Protection Areas .................................................................37

Alienable and Disposable

Participatory Rural Appraisal

Using the Training Guide on Forest Land Use Planning

Leveling of Expectations/Overview of Training

Use of Technology of Participation method is

Walkthrough of Past Activities

Presentation of activities undertaken that led to

Discussion on National and Regional Forest Situation

Presentation (using powerpoint)

Workshop 1: Current Reality Dialogue

Group workshop focusing on the status of FFL

Presentation of Workshop Outputs/Synthesis

Discussion on Governance Oriented Forest Land Use

Interactive technical input with powerpoint

Discussion/Lecture on the Need for LGUs To Be

Interactive technical Input with powerpoint

Workshop 2: Data Needs Assessment

Assessment by the TWG of what data are needed in

Assessment by the TWG of the composition of its

Preparation of action plan for collecting available

Presentation of workshop outputs in plenary

5. To make the discussions more relevant to local situations,

Extent of Forest Cover Loss in the last 100 years

1.1 The Forestry Situation

1.2 Key Concepts: Governance-oriented FLUP as a tool to improve management of forests

Allocation Rights in Forests and Forest

Since FFL have inter-generational impacts, the

Allocation confers certain rights to tenure

Use right - right to use and derive benefits

If these rights are sufficiently recognized, protected

Otherwise, tenure holders will turn their back

Importance of Governance-Oriented FLUP

1.4 Why Should LGUs be Involved in Forest Land Use Planning?

Figure 1. Forest Land Use Planning Process

Data and Map Collection

FLUP Implementation Agreement

Functionality of bodies, offices or organizations created supported with manpower and

1.6 Data and Map Requirements of FLUP

Box 1. Checklist of Data Requirements

Community IEC Plan

Box 2. Checklist of Thematic Maps Needed for FLUP

Land Classication Map

Shows the location of timberland, alienable and

Watershed and Drainage

Shows the watershed divide; Shows the rivers and

Vegetative Cover Map

Old-growth forest (virgin forest); Second-growth

DENR, to be updated from

To be computed from 1:50,000

To be derived from the topographic

Tenure & Allocation Map

Shows the areas with CSCs, CBFMA, land grant,

DENR, DAR, DA-BFAR, MGB

Land Use Map

Shows agro-forestry, built up, cultivation areas, etc.

Comprehensive Land Use Plans,

Shows the bridges, roads, communal irrigation

Show the population density/ distribution by

LGU, barangays concerned, to be

Shows the location of barangays and sitios