OVERLAPS IN TREE PLANTING FUNCTIONS

OVERLAPS IN TREE PLANTING FUNCTIONS

It is very clear in my mind that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) should lead in our overall tree-planting programs. After all, reforestation and forest conservation are primarily environmental mandates. But here’s the twist: what if tree planting is done for business reasons and not simply for environmental ones?

Strictly speaking, there is no profit motive in planting trees solely for environmental reasons—except perhaps for secondary income streams such as carbon credits or debt-for-nature swaps. These can generate money, yes, but they are not always reliable or easily accessible for small communities or investors. On the other hand, planting trees for commercial purposes has a clear profit motive, and that could actually lead to more trees being planted. Isn’t it ironic that the pursuit of profit might actually serve the environment better than the pursuit of environmental goals alone?

Take agarwood, for example, one of the most expensive tree products in the world. Properly cultivated, it can provide high-value livelihoods for upland farmers, while still contributing to forest cover. Coffee, rubber, and even timber species like teak and mahogany also bring commercial returns. If communities can make money from trees, the incentive to protect and expand plantations naturally increases.

But here’s where things get complicated. If the DENR leads environmental tree planting, shouldn’t the Department of Agriculture (DA) lead commercial tree planting? Or should both agencies share jurisdiction, with clear divisions? Right now, overlaps in tree planting functions often create confusion, inefficiency, and even corruption. Remember the National Greening Program (NGP)? Billions were poured into it, but many observers say the results fell short due to mismanagement and ghost projects. Planting trees for “show” rather than survival was the norm in some areas.

Overlaps in tree planting functions also extend beyond DENR and DA. Local government units (LGUs), non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations, and private corporations all have their own tree-planting initiatives. On the surface, this looks good—more people planting trees means more forests, right? But in practice, duplication wastes resources.

Here are common overlaps that occur:

• Site Selection: Multiple groups choose the same degraded areas, sometimes leading to redundant mapping and planting in unsuitable locations.

• Species Selection: One group promotes fast-growing exotics like gmelina or falcata, while another insists on indigenous trees. Both have valid points, but without coordination, we end up with conflicting goals.

• Community Engagement: Farmers and barangays get bombarded by multiple groups offering training, incentives, or planting programs—often with different conditions. This causes confusion, and sometimes, fatigue.

• Monitoring: Different funders and agencies have their own reporting systems, forcing local implementers to double or triple their paperwork.

• Funding: Multiple subsidy schemes may overlap, while some areas remain neglected.

• Policy Advocacy: Different organizations push similar reforms, but without unifying their voices.

The result? Wasted resources, fragmented data, and a tired public. Communities often disengage when they feel they are being used for photo opportunities rather than real, sustainable programs.

What’s the way forward? A master plan for reforestation that clearly distinguishes environmental, commercial, and energy-related tree planting. DENR should focus on ecological restoration, biodiversity conservation, and climate resilience. DA could spearhead commercial tree farming—coffee, cacao, agarwood, rubber, timber—using agroforestry systems that combine profit with ecological benefits. For energy trees like Jatropha and palm oil, perhaps the Department of Energy (DOE) should take the lead, in partnership with DA and DENR.

And let us not forget coordination at the ground level. Why not create a Shared GIS-based Tree Registry, showing who is planting what, where, and for what purpose? Barangay-level mapping could prevent duplication and foster collaboration. A Stakeholder Matrix updated quarterly would show which communities are engaged, and in what way. Even harmonized monitoring indicators would save everyone time.

The government could also encourage public-private partnerships in tree farming. For instance, corporations needing carbon offsets could invest in community-managed plantations of both commercial and native trees. Communities could earn both profit and protection for their lands, while corporations fulfill their sustainability pledges.

Ultimately, planting trees is not just about increasing green cover. It is about creating sustainable ecosystems—economic, ecological, and social. To do that, we need clarity in roles and coordination among agencies. Otherwise, overlaps will continue to sap resources, confuse communities, and limit the true potential of our tree-planting programs.

So, here’s my suggestion: let’s stop planting trees for photo ops and start planting trees for people, profit, and the planet—all at once. But only if DENR, DA, DOE, LGUs, NGOs, and the private sector can finally learn to work together. The forest cannot afford more bureaucratic turf wars.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

01-13-2026