GHOST TREES IN NON-EXISTING FORESTS
GHOST TREES IN NON-EXISTING FORESTS
We live with ghosts. Not the kind that walk in corridors at midnight, but the kind that stand silent and skeletal on our once-live mountains—the ghost forests. Forests that were promised, planted, perhaps counted—but not quite there. When the trees are dead, or never grew, or the canopy is more a memory than a reality, what have we done?
I’m not talking about saltwater intrusion or climate-change driven forest die-offs abroad. I’m speaking of the forests that should exist under the Philippines’ National Greening Program (NGP)—those millions of seedlings, those millions of pesos—that are, for many places, spectral. Where are they?
What the Records Say
Let’s look at what has been achieved, according to government data:
The NGP, launched 2011 under EO 26, aimed to plant 1.5 billion trees on 1.5 million hectares by 2016.
EO 193 (2015) expanded the scope so that the program’s targets extend to restore all remaining unproductive, denuded, degraded forest lands through 2028.
By late 2018, the government claimed over 125,000 hectares rehabilitated that year, with some 116 million seedlings planted on those lands; by then, since 2011, about 1.7 billion seedlings on roughly 1.99 million hectares had been planted.
In Western Visayas alone, from 2011–2020, NGP claimed that 121,257.58 hectares were planted, raising forest cover by about 10.4% in that region.
Survival rates in certain places are high: in Bicol, the DENR logs 85% survival of seedlings in 2024, across over 2,000 hectares.
So on paper, numbers are huge. Ambitions are laudable. But something feels off.
Why “Ghost Forests” Might Be More Than Metaphor
Because some statistics can be misleading, some forests might be more of promises than substance. Here are what I believe are real concerns:
Survival vs. Canopy Recovery
Planting seedlings is only step one. For a forest to really be forest, it must grow: canopy cover, understory, soil ecology, wildlife. It must endure. Reports show survival rates, but often, early mortality, damage from pests, drought, or bad site choices erode those gains. A high number of seedlings planted say nothing about whether in five-ten years there will be a mature forest.Mangrove Rehabilitation Gaps
A Rappler study saw satellite images of mangrove sites under NGP (e.g. in Calauag, Quezon) showing very little change over time—suggesting that some mangrove “rehab” may be more cosmetic than ecological. Ground verification is still pending.Inadequate Use of Native Species
Native trees are crucial—they are adapted, they support local fauna, they help in ecosystem stability. But data show that in many NGP plantings exotic or fast-growing species are overused compared to native ones. A study noted that only ~7% of tree seedlings in some reported reforested areas are indigenous species; civil society has pushed for more.Transparency, Monitoring, Accountability
Agencies have started using satellite imagery, drones, and geospatial data. The Philippine Space Agency (PhilSA) has teamed up with DENR to build a geospatial database to monitor NGP progress.
But sometimes, field validation lags; sometimes regional reports are inconsistent; sometimes what is reported is hard to verify on the ground. The ghost projects in flood control show how projects can be on paper but missing in reality.
My Questions & Concerns
If millions of seedlings were planted, why do some mountains still look as barren as before?
Are there “ghost” NGP plantations—projects funded, reported, but with either no seedlings surviving, or no visible forest year after year?
How are NGP sites mapped, monitored, and validated over time? How many have been revisited after 3, 5, or 10 years to check survival, canopy cover, biodiversity return?
What Can Be Done—Not Just Talked About
To turn these “ghost trees” into real forests, we need action in these directions:
Rigorous Long-Term Monitoring & Transparency
Make public maps of NGP sites, with coordinates. Use satellite or drone data, ground-truthing updates. Require remote and local communities to report. DENR-PhilSA geospatial database is promising—push it.Native Species First
Prioritize planting indigenous trees. Replace mature exotics with natives. Ensure seedling quality and site suitability (soil, climate, hydrology) so that trees survive and thrive.Accountability for Failures
If survival rates fall below acceptable thresholds, require agencies or contractors to account for what went wrong. Do not count everything just because seedlings were planted.Link Reforestation with Watershed, Flood Control, Climate Adaptation
How many floods or landslides might have been worsened by missing forests upstream? Restoration isn’t only about trees—it’s buffer zones, absorbing rainfall, stabilizing soil. Reforestation must be part of risk reduction.Involve Communities, Provide Incentives
Local communities must be partners—not only laborers. Give them tenure, share benefits (fruit trees, harvest), support them with technical assistance. Also, civil society can help monitor and advocate.Budget & Performance Measures
Lawmakers should demand receipts: How many hectares planted, what species, what survival after two or three years, what ecological benefits, what flood risk mitigation. Not only “number of trees” but ecological impact.
Final Thoughts
“Ghost Trees in Non-Existing Forests” is more than a poetic phrase; it is a warning. If we continue to plant trees that die, or report forests that don’t exist, we degrade not only land, but trust. We deceive ourselves, and worse, fail those who depend on the environment for their homes, livelihoods and safety.
The National Greening Program has undeniable achievements. But in many places, forests must become forests: full of life, cast shade, and support ecosystems. Until then, we should neither accept silence nor skeletons. We deserve green that breathes, not ghost green that haunts.
Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com
02-20-2026
Comments
Post a Comment