LET’S HAVE MORE INDUSTRIAL TREE PLANTATIONS

LET’S HAVE MORE INDUSTRIAL TREE PLANTATIONS

When we think of reforesting the Philippines, we often imagine communities planting seedlings—kids digging holes, barangays putting their backs into greening hillsides. These are noble images. But noble images alone will not undo the scale of deforestation we've already witnessed. What we need are strategies that match the magnitude of the problem. One such strategy: industrial tree plantations (ITPs).

What are Industrial Tree Plantations (ITPs)?

ITPs are large, managed forest areas—usually on public forest lands—planted with species intended largely for commercial timber, pulp, wood products, or other tree-based products. Under certain conditions, ITPs can also include food trees (coffee, cacao, fruit trees) along with non-timber forest products.

In the Philippine legal framework, Presidential Decree No. 705 (the Revised Forestry Code) provides for industrial tree plantations, tree farms, and agroforestry farms. Under PD 705:

• Industrial tree plantations require a lease of at least 1,000 hectares for establishment.
  
  

• Tree farms (smaller scale) can start from 100 hectares.
  
  

• The lease is for 25 years renewable for another 25 years, with conditions.
  
  

There are also DENR Administrative Orders that regulate ITPs and provide incentives (e.g. rent exemptions, reduced forest charges under certain conditions) and conditions like protection of riverbanks, requirement for diversity, etc. 

Where we are now: NGP & realities

The National Greening Program (NGP) remains the Philippines’ flagship reforestation/restoration initiative. Since its launch in 2011 under Executive Order 26 (and expanded by EO-193 in 2015), NGP aims to plant 1.5 billion trees on 1.5 million hectares, especially on denuded, degraded, and unproductive forest lands. Some achievements:

• More than 1.8 billion seedlings have been planted on 2.17 million hectares as part of NGP since 2011. Job creation: millions of jobs in upland and rural communities. 

• Reduction in poverty in some areas where NGP is implemented; environmental benefits like carbon sequestration. 

But the flipside is that the NGP has repeatedly been criticized for focusing too much on quantity of seedlings planted rather than survival, ecological quality, diversity, benefits to communities, tenure security. Some sites are merely “planted” on paper. Some People’s Organizations (POs) still lack secure rights or legal tenure to benefit from what they plant. Monocultures still dominate many sites. 

Why ITPs—if properly managed—could help

Industrial Tree Plantations, used correctly, offer some advantages:

1. Scale and predictability – With large tracts and long leases, ITPs allow for planning and economies of scale.
   
   

2. Commercial returns – If tree species are chosen for marketability (timber, wood products, even some non-timber woods), ITPs can generate revenues. This profit motive can drive sustainability, maintenance, incentives for better stewardship.
   
   

3. Relieving pressure on natural forests – If industries know they can source from plantations, they may reduce harvesting from native forests.
   
   

4. Potential for export and foreign exchange – Growing exportable timber, wood products, or high-value tree crops can help trade balances.
   
   

5. Opportunity for integration – Combining ITPs with agroforestry, including shade trees, food crops, indigenous species, community co-ownership can add environmental and social benefits.
   
   

6. Indigenous participation – If ancestral domain holders or IP communities are involved, ITPs can support livelihood, culture, and rights.
   
   

What should policy or practice look like (my suggestions and questions)

We risk oversimplifying or worse, doing more damage if ITPs are implemented without care. Here are questions and suggestions:

• Which species should we plant? Fast-growing exotic ones give quicker returns, but native species support biodiversity, watershed health. Maybe a mixed system (some exotics, some natives) is better.
  
  

• How do we protect ecology? ITP leases should have ecological safeguards: protecting riverbanks, watersheds, wildlife corridors; minimum percentages of preserved natural forest inside plantations. (PD 705 and DAO regulations already mention some of this.)
  
  

• How can we guarantee rights for smallholders, indigenous peoples? Secure land tenure is vital. If indigenous communities in CADTs choose to engage in ITPs, they should have incentives, technical support, and fair benefit sharing.
  
  

• What about incentives and finance? Leasing terms, tax breaks, rent exemptions are part of policy. But small players often lack access to capital, technology, and markets. The government or the private sector must facilitate these. Also, loans should be designed to accommodate the long “gestation period” of forest plantations (many years before harvest).
  
  

• Monitoring and survival rates matter. We don’t need just planting; we need trees that survive and grow. Standards, reporting, satellite and GIS monitoring could be ramped up. There needs to be transparency. Civil society can play a role.
  
  

• Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) could map all deforested or degraded lands, prioritizing those for ITPs. There must be no double claims, or land conversion that undermines reforestation.
  
  

• Support for agroforestry / combining ITP with food producing trees (coffee, cacao, fruit trees) so communities benefit while forest is regrowing.
  
  

My concerns and what we must avoid

• Monoculture risks: Planting fast-growing exotics only, with little ecological diversity, can lead to loss of soil fertility, more vulnerability to pests, less resilience.
  
  

• Displacement or rights issues: If communities or indigenous people are not properly consulted, or if ancestral domains are ignored, ITP could become a source of social conflict.
  
  

• Perverse incentives: If planting is rewarded regardless of survival or benefit, or if monitoring is weak, then money gets spent without real results.
  
  

• Neglecting non-timber forest values: Watershed protection, biodiversity, carbon, recreation, cultural values might get sacrificed for profit unless regulations enforce balance.
  
  

The idea of industrial tree plantations isn’t new. It's embedded already in law (PD 705, DAOs) and there are existing ITPs. But what we need now is not just more plantations, but better plantations—those that serve the environment and the people.

If we are to reverse decades of forest loss, we must scale up, not just in the number of trees planted, but in the scale of engagement, investment, policy coherence, community rights, and commercial viability. Planting a few trees here and there will always be useful—but unless we build full-scale systems that merge environmental care with economic return, our forests will remain in retreat.

I would suggest the government develops a national framework for industrial tree plantations that:

• identifies priority lands (deforested, degraded) for ITP use;
  
  

• secures the rights and incomes of communities and indigenous peoples;
  
  

• provides financial and technical support especially to smallholders;
  
  

• defines ecological standards and ensures biodiversity;
  
  

• monitors outcomes (survival, wood product output, environmental services) rigorously;
  
  

• links plantations to markets both domestic and export.
  
  

With that, ITPs could become not just tools of commercial timber, but engines for forest recovery, economic opportunity, climate mitigation, and rural development.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

02-09-2026