Paradigms Shifts in Forest Management:

Its Evolution, Implementation Challenges and the Adoption of the Philippine Forestry
Sector1

Introduction

The ever increasing demand for a variety of resources and services by an equally increasing
population from a static resource base has led to a plethora of paradigms suggested to be
templates for managing the world’s forest in the face of increasing human pressure.

This paper discussed the major paradigms in forest management as they evolved through
time, presenting their key features and the major challenges in their actual implementation.
The paper traced the history and the foundation of each paradigm. It also briefly discussed
the attempt and actual adoption of the Philippine Forestry sector to embrace each paradigm.

Five major forest management paradigms are discussed, these are: 1) Sustained Yield
Forest Management; 2) Multiple Use Forest Management; 3) Multiresource Forest
Management 4) Forest Ecosystem Management; and 5) Sustainable Forest Management.

1. Sustained Yield Approach

History and Background

The manner in which forest and its resources are usually managed depends largely on the
defined management objectives. And the outcomes and impacts of these management
objectives depend on how the management concepts are interpreted and the strategies
applied.

Most traditional approaches in managing forest resources focus mainly on the commercial or
economic value of such resources. Such feature was evident in both the Sustained Yield and
Multiple Use Concepts.

The concept of Sustained Yield forest management started in the 1930’s. This focuses on
the continuous production of goods and services (Andrada, 2000 and Cruz, 1996). The basic
premise of this approach is “sustainability of production”. A forest management scheme is
said to be successful if production is achieved in its perpetuity. Thus, it follows the principle

1
A paper submitted by Cassiophiea M. Madid, Orlando Panganiban and Tomas
Reyes to Dr. Diomedes Racelis in partial fulfillment of the requirements in FRM 286
Advance Forest Management, College of Forestry and Natural Resources, UPLB. July 8,
2009.
1
of “drain equals gain” (Andrada, 2000), meaning continuous production is achieved if the
amount of goods harvested is equal to the amount of potential goods the forest produces.

Major challenges

However, critics would claim that Sustained Yield concept would only apply to ideal situation
where there are “fast-renewing” resources capable of regeneration (greater or equal to
utilization) over a significant period of time. Since forests take time to regenerate vis a vis its
rate of utilization, most forests cannot keep up with the demand for its products.

Sustained Yield Concept in the Philippines

In the Philippines, the adoption of Sustained Yield Concept was apparent in the timber
production especially during the harvesting stage. Following the Sustained Yield Concept,
harvesting techniques were conducted with outmost care, dramatically reducing the impact
to other forest components. Residuals were also accounted for as future source of timber.
Sustained Yield concept was the principle behind the Philippine Selective Logging System.

2. Multiple-use Forest Management

History and Background

Multiple-use concept was developed and popularized by forest managers in the United
States of America in the mid-1940s (Andrada, 2000). Earlier publications (Davis, 1969 and
Glascock, 1967) reported that the US Forest Service was the major proponent of multiple-
use as applied to forest lands. It, in a sustained yield context, became a directive for both
national forest and Bureau of Land Management in the Acts of 1960 (Public Law 86-517 of
June 12, 1960) and 1964 (Public Law 88-607, September 19, 1964), respectively.

In 1965, Lowry defined Multiple-use concept as the allocation of different parts of a tract of
land or area to a multiplicity of single uses sequentially and/or simultaneously. This involves
using parts of one tract for a multiplicity of purposes each appropriate to the character of the
land and human setting of the area, spatial and temporal aspects of management
considered. Similarly, Glascock (1967) considered it as a basic, essential concept of land
management. According to him, it is a guiding principle and policy for federal, state and
forest industry lands. He added that it is not a method of land management or a land
management practice. It is a concept and, as such, is in need of proper methods for its
effective implementation.

2
In the U.S., Multiple-use was pictured out as the combination of five major uses of forest
land. These included the use of the land for wood production, watersheds, grazing by
domestic livestock, the forest as habitat for wild game and fish, and use of the forest for
outdoor recreation (Macardle, 1960).

Major Challenges

The variability in the definition of Multiple Use Concept led to confusion among natural
resource managers. There was no clear definition of the term, hence during its early years,
Multiple-Use Concept was viewed as obscure and confusing. The confusion further led to
sources of conflicts among various implementing agencies involved in forest management.
While the use of Multiple-Use Concept was mandated, resource managers were usually
trained in resource-specific disciplines. As such, the implementation of Multiple-Use Concept
was viewed by critics as ‘adjacent, single-resource, land use allocations’ (Cawley and
Freemuth, 1997 as cited in Stevens and Montgomery, 2002). There was much skepticism
about multiple-use policy because, in the past, multiple use came to mean dominant use
(Bowes and Krutilla, 1989 as cited in Stevens and Montgomery, 2002), and the feeling
prevailed that forest management had often followed a zoning model of many dominant
uses. The result was what Behan in 1990 called “multiple use by adjacency.”

Multiple-Use Concept in the Philippines

In the Philippines, Cruz (1996) defined Multiple-Use Forest Management as the

“management of a single homogenous land management unit for the optimal production of
mixed goods and services or combination for the longest time possible for the greatest
number of people”. Simply, it is about utilization of forest lands for various uses at a given
time frame. Multiple-use of renewable land resources, thus, is a necessity born of scarcity of
resources and abundance of people who need these resources.

Basic features of this concept based on the definition include: (a) optimal utilization of goods
and services; (b) concept of homogenous land management unit with similar capacity to
produce a given combination of goods and services; (c) consideration of sustainability in
multiple-use management for the longest time possible; and (d) application of the social
equity concept for the greatest number of people, meaning, the benefits must be distributed
equitably to the beneficiaries of a given area.

Likewise, our country adopted two prevailing interpretations on how to implement MU

approach. These were Pearson’s and Dana-McArdle’s as cited by Andrada (2000) in his
handbook.
3
Pearson’s interpretation of the multiple use concept involves the subdivision of the forest
area into compartments that are of the same physical and climatic characteristics
(homogenous) and subjecting each compartment to its best land use. In practice, this was
the principle behind the implementation of Forest Land Use Planning (FLUP). On the other
hand, Dana-McArdle’s interpretation dictates that the homogenous compartments
comprising the forest area should be subjected not to one but two or more compatible uses.
Dana-McArdle’s interpretation of Multiple-Use was adopted in the implementation of
Agroforestry Systems in the Philippines.

In the Philippine context, Multiple-Use concept’s basic premise is to seek the best
combination of uses and coordinated management to maximize production without impairing
land productivity. However, incorporating this to forest management resulted to forest areas
being subjected to several inefficient and ineffective land use schemes for the production of
a variety of goods and services within the bounds of various ecological and social
constraints.

3. Multiresource Forest Management

History and Background

It could be said that Multiresource emerged from the critiques of Multiple Use paradigm in
the early 60’s, since it was unable to effectively address the problems on multiple demands
for products and services from the forest. It was apparent that the consumption or use of one
forest product or service has an effect on other products and functions. For example, the
cost choice of designating is the value of the foregone timber production. Similarly,
clearcutting a mixed-age, mixed-species forest and replanting to a single species forest
reduce biodiversity.

As a response to this challenge, the forestry sector in the U.S. (as early as 1940’s) saw the
slow emergence of a new paradigm. There was a gradual shift in how forest land and
management was viewed - from dominant use to multiple use, from focus to product output
to an ecosystem health focus, from emphasis on one use or product for another to the joint
production of multiple products and services. This gave rise to the concept of Multiresource
Forest Management.

Major Challenges

4
During its early conception stage, Multiresource was viewed as difficult since considerable
knowledge of ecological alternatives is a fundamental requirement, and can be met only
rarely within the experience or knowledge limits of one person (Ripley and Yandle, 1969).
However, despite its perceived difficulty, it slowly gained support from natural resource
managers and scientist from various fields, giving rise to researches focusing on techniques
to address the challenges of implementing Multiresource Forest Management on the ground.

In its early years, much of multiresource analysis had used methods from economics to
operations research. The basis for analysis of researches was also drawn on the work of
field scientist such as biologist, hydrologist, ecologist and others. Early studies involved field
studies usually taking measurements of a second resource after varying degree of timber
harvesting.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 in the United States required that each
national forest use an interdisciplinary team to develop its forest plan. Slowly, better
interdisciplinary communication and understanding led to the change in the composition of
personnel in the Forest Services from predominantly foresters to a mix of in wildlife,
recreation, hydrology, landscape architecture, and other fields. The publication of “Wildlife
Habitats in Managed Forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington” in 1979 by
Thomas, marked a major shift in management paradigm. The prevailing philosophy that
“good timber management is also good wildlife management” had been modified to “good
timber management can be good wildlife management if it is done correctly”.

In the advent of increase in computing power and the development of more powerful
software by the mid-1980s facilitated more sophisticated, larger scale analysis. Increasingly
complex mathematical programming models were developed to deal with previously
intractable multiresource questions.

Models available for multiresource research included timber growth and yield models, wildlife
population simulation models, water yield models, aesthetic impact models, and so on.

Despite its perceived difficulty, the concept was embraced as a challenge by many natural
resource managers and scientists and had continued to perpetuate until recently (Stevens
and Montogomery, 2002). According to Behan in 1990, “Multiresource forest management is
rooted not in policy but in a fundamentally different perception of forest land. In viewing the
forest as a single, interactive system of plants, animals, soil, water, topography, and climate,
the argument over multiplicity is rendered moot. Simultaneous multiplicity is axiomatic— it is
implicit in the concept of a system.”

5
Multiresource Forest Management in the Philippines

Unfortunately, at the height of embracing the concept of Multiresource Forest management

in the U.S from the late 60’s to the early 80’s, the concept did not successfully took off in the
Philippines. The lack of available data from the field as well as affordable software was
viewed as impediments in the adoption of the concept. However, with the increasing access
to information and affordable technologies, this concept may have been unknowingly
embraced. For example, the active use of Geographic Information System (GIS) in drafting
resource management plans was viewed as a form of multiresource inventory and planning
tool.

4. Forest Ecosystem Management

History and Background

The traditional management of forest has been organized around particular uses such as
timber management, agriculture, tourism and so on. Such sectoral approach resulted in
separate governance for each use subsequently resulting in conflicts among users and
neglect for environmental protection. From late 80’s to early 90’s, environmental and natural
resource managers saw the emergence of ecosystem management as a new paradigm that
emerged to address the problems arising from sectoral management approach. The shift
from the management of individual resources to a ‘systems approach’ was reflected in the
work of international organizations ranging from the International Oceanographic
Commission, to the FAO, UNEP and GEP (Kimmins, 2003).

In general, ecosystem-based management (EM) acknowledged that plant, animal and

human communities are interdependent and interact with their physical environment to form
distinct ecological units called ecosystem. Transboundary in character, ecosystems cut
across political and jurisdictional boundaries and subject to multiple management system. As
such, human actions and their consequences transcend jurisdictional boundaries and affect
the functioning of important ecosystems shared by multiple jurisdictions.

Ecosystem-based management has been defined as: …management driven by explicit

goals executed by policies, protocols and practices, and made adaptable by monitoring and
research based on our best understanding of the ecological interactions and processes
necessary to sustain ecosystem structure and function (Christensen and others 1996 as
cited in Kimmins, 2003)
6
Adding the dimension of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ecosystem management
approach is defined as: The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated
management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable
use in an equitable way. Thus, the application of the ecosystem approach will help to reach
a balance of the three objectives of the Convention: conservation, sustainable use, and the
fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

Applying ecosystem approach to forestry management evolved from the recognition that
Forest ecosystems are areas of the landscape that are dominated by trees and consist of
biologically integrated communities of plants, animals and microbes, together with the local
soils (substrates) and atmospheres (climates) with which they interact. Forests are much
more than the present population or community of trees.

Forest ecosystem is seen at both the stand level and at the landscape level. Forest
landscape was characterized as a mosaic of stands with varying age, species composition,
structure, function and time since last subject to disturbance.

Under this approach, forest is recognized as a highly integrated, complex, generally resilient,
multi-value biophysical system that has thresholds for tolerance to disturbance (with varying
degree of disturbance and the time recovering from thereof).

Forest Ecosystem Management is the management of forest ecosystem processes and

disturbance regimes to sustain the desired values and ecosystem services from a shifting
mosaic of different ecosystem conditions across the landscape, and a non-declining pattern
of change over time in the values and services provided by each stand in that landscape
(Kimmins, 2002).

Major Challenges

Ecosystem Management (EM) as a management paradigm was not spared from criticism
primarily during its early years. Its attempt to capture and understand the complex ecological
dynamics of natural resources has been the center of criticism. Major challenges to the
paradigm are briefly discussed below:
• In the early years of Ecosystem Management, there has been little concern on
setting an agreed definition for new terminologies, conceptual categories and
classification, while that it is important to maintain ecological stability, integrity,

7
 productivity, and biological diversity, there is an argument on what this means in
terms of management outcomes.
• Ecosystem as a management unit was deemed difficult and impractical especially
because the boundaries cannot be matched to existing institutional jurisdiction.
• EM has been criticized as having no clear conception of the desired future condition
of the ecosystem or management objectives to be achieved. It has been said that EM
susceptible to subjective judgement, bias and personal policy preference.
• There is also lack of performance standard to determine when the policy or
management goals have been achieved.
• EM is challenged to be ‘expert-centered’ since it was argued that only scientists are
the only ones that could determine how ecosystem function and assess actual and
desired ecosystem condition, hence only scientists will be able to determine the
criteria of sustainability and ultimately only scientist will remain involved.

Forest Ecosystem Management in the Philippines

In the Philippines, adoption of Ecosystem Management as a management paradigm placed

emphasis on ecological processes and services – hence putting biodiversity conservation as
a forefront of natural resource and forest management. The Philippines was among the
active countries that have participated in the drafting the Convention and saw it through the
signing in Rio de Janeiro during the Earth Summit in 1992. The Philippine was among the
first 31 countries to ratify the convention and puts the agreement into force.

As a centerpiece response to protect and conserve its biodiversity, the Philippine

government established the Integrated Protected Areas System. The legal basis for this
policy is embodied in two major legislations passed by the National Government. The first
legislation was the Executive Order 192, creating the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
(PAWB), mandated to consolidate all government efforts in the conservation of natural
biological resources through the establishment of protected areas system. The second legal
basis was the Republic Act 7586 otherwise known as the National Integrated Protected
Areas System (NIPAS) Law providing the establishment of NIPAS to promote biodiversity
conservation and sustainable development.

5. SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT (SFM)

History and Background

8
SFM is founded on the Brundtland Commission's definition of sustainable development,
which stresses meeting the needs of present and future generations. Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) and its Governing Bodies have concluded that for agriculture, forestry
and fisheries, sustainable development also implies the conservation of land, water and the
genetic patrimony, and the utilization of technically appropriate, economically viable and
socially acceptable techniques not harmful to the environment.

To simplify, SFM is the tool allowing forests to contribute fully to sustainable development
overall. The novelty of the concept of sustainable forest management is primarily its
systematic approach to sustaining each component of the forest ecosystem and their
interactions. Basing from the principles of sustainable development, SFM uses very broad
social, economic and environmental goals.

The Forest Principles adopted at The United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 captured the general international
understanding of sustainable forest management at that time. A number of sets of criteria
and indicators have since been developed to evaluate the achievement of SFM at both the
country and management unit level. These were all attempts to codify and provide for
independent assessment of the degree to which the broader objectives of sustainable forest
management are being achieved in practice. In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly
adopted the Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests. The instrument is the
first of its kind, and reflects the strong international commitment to promote implementation
of SFM through a new approach that brings all stakeholders together.

Moreover, the international definition of SFM as developed by the Ministerial Conference on

the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE), and has since been adopted by the FAO. It
defines sustainable forest management as: “the stewardship and use of forests and forest
lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration
capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological,
economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause
damage to other ecosystems”.

In simpler terms, the concept can be described as the attainment of balance between
society's increasing demands for forest products and benefits, and the preservation of forest
health and diversity. This balance is critical to the survival of forests, and to the prosperity of
forest-dependent communities.

9
For forest managers, sustainably managing a particular forest tract means determining, in a
tangible way, how to use it today to ensure similar benefits, health and productivity in the
future. Forest managers must assess and integrate a wide array of sometimes conflicting
factors - commercial and non-commercial values, environmental considerations, community
needs, even global impact - to produce sound forest plans. In most cases, forest managers
develop their forest plans in consultation with citizens, businesses, organizations and other
interested parties in and around the forest tract being managed. The tools and visualization
have been recently evolving for better management practices.

Because forests and societies are in constant flux, the desired outcome of sustainable forest
management is not a fixed one. What constitutes a sustainably managed forest will change
over time as values held by the public change.

Sustainable Forest Management in the Philippines

The Philippines has adopted sustainable forest management as the key strategy for all plans
and programs in the forestry sector. It provides current understanding and framework on
how the country’s forests should be managed to address present problems and the tools
required to generate a desired forestry scenario for the future. It consolidates experiences
and lessons learned in forest management and the resulting state of forest condition. It can
be considered as a dynamic evolution of scientific and administrative management of our
forests as enabling conditions change along with strategies and approaches to meet ever –
changing realities of the forestry situation. It is a national response but highly influenced by
global imperatives to better manage tropical forests.

In June, 2004, Executive Order No. 318 entitled “Promoting Sustainable Forest Management
in the Philippines” was issued. The enactment of the said policy was meant to facilitate the
implementation of SFM in the country while the Bill for SFM has yet to be passed into a law.
The E.O. has six (6) guiding principles namely: i) delineation, classification and demarcation
of State forestlands; ii) holistic, sustainable and integrated development of forestry
resources; iii) community-based forest conservation and development; iv) incentives for
enhancing private investments, economic contribution and global competitiveness of the
forest-based industries; v) proper valuation and pricing of forestry resources and financing
SFM and; vi) institutional support for SFM. The E.O. mandates the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to lead in the formulation and promulgation
within 180 days from the issuance of the said EO its Implementing rules and regulations
(IRR) and priority actions. However, the IRR has not yet been issued so far.

10
Assessment of the current progress of SFM in the country is underway as part of the
development of the Criteria and Indicators (C and I) at the national and forest management
unit levels following the process of the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO).
Preliminary results of the assessment suggested to make the envisioned SFM under the
present forestry situation and practices workable; current policy, institutional and planning
framework should be modified with the end view of updating, amending, and filling the gaps
on these enabling conditions.

Since SFM is the most recent management paradigm embraced by the Philippines through
its leading implementing agency (i.e. the DENR), some crucial work are still underway. This
includes facing up to the following challenges of implementing genuine SFM in the
Philippines:
1. The enactment of Sustainable Forest Management Act;
2. The enactment of the National Land Use Code;
3. Formulation of proper agreements between the DENR and the NCIP involving
Indigenous Peoples and ancestral lands;
4. Creation of guidelines in the application and procedure of Certification for sustainable
timber source;
5. In-depth policy studies to come up with an acceptable forest and non-forest land ratio
6. Bringing down macro policies down to regional levels especially where SFM projects
are implemented;
7. Formulation of a SFM financing; and
8. Institutional re-orientation and strengthening vis a vis the use of SFM as a dominant
paradigm in the Philippine natural resource management.

11
References:

Andrada, R. T. III. 2000. Handbook on Introduction to Forest Resources Management.

IRNR. UPLB-CFNR. pp 11-19.

Cruz, R. V. 1996. Forest Management: Lecture Handouts in the Forester’s Licensure

Examination Review Classes. UPLB College of Forestry.

Davis, K. P. 1969. Multiple Use. Journal of Forestry. Volume 67, Number 10, October 1969 ,
pp. 718-721(4)

Ecosystems Based Management. Markers for Assessing Progress. UNEP.

Forest Management Bureau. 2003. National Report to the Third Session of the United
Nations Forum on Forests.

Glascock, H. R. Jr. 1967. A Concept in Search of a Method. Journal of Forestry. Volume 65.

Cortner H and Moote M. 1998. The Politics of Ecosystem Management. Island Press,
1998.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SpKqmqhc2AYC&printsec=frontcover&hl=En&source=gb
s_v2_summary_r&cad=0> accessed on July 3, 2009.

Hall, O.F. 1967. New Tools for Planning and Decision Making. Journal of Forestry Volume
65, No. 7, pp. 467 – 473.

Kimmins, J.P. 2003. Forest ecosystem management: an environmental necessity, but is it a

practical reality or simply an ecotopian ideal?. Paper submitted for XII World Forestry
Congress. Quebec, Canada.

Lanly, J.P. Sustainable forest management: lessons of history and recent developments.
Food and Agriculture Organization, Forest Resources Division.

Lowry, S. T. 1965. Multiple Use: Space and Time. Journal of Forestry. Volume 63.

Malacañang Palace. 2004. Executive Order No. 318. Philippines

Mcardle. R. E. 1960. The concept of multiple use of forest and associated lands - Its values
and limitations (Keynote address delivered at the Fifth World Forestry Congress). Unasylva -
Vol. 14, No. 4.

Navon. D.I. 1967. Computer oriented system for wildlife management. Journal of Forestry
Volume 65, No. 7, pp. 473-479.

Ripley, T. H. and Yandle D.O. 1969. A System Analysis – Ecological Control Approach to
Multiresource Forest Management. Journal of Forestry.

12
Stevens J.A. and Montgomery C.A. 2002. Understanding the Compatibility of Multiple
Uses on Forest Land: A Survey of Multiresource Research with Application to the Pacific
Northwest USDA Forest Service.

The First Philippines National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 1998. PAWB-
DENR. Philippines.

13