I HAVE ALWAYS believed that massive reforestation programs are best left in the care and investment portfolios of the private sector, except tight governance and watchful government monitoring must be in place to prevent abusive practices.
Environmental advocates have raised alarm by the potential conflicts of interest in privately managed reforestation, as opposed to government-directed programs carried by local communities.
The profit motive could erode the imperative that future generations benefit from the earth’s resources, while also undermining the “equitable distribution of resources especially for indigenous communities,” noted Business World on the post of Ateneo School of Government Jennifer S. Oreta.
“The private sector, by its very nature, is concerned with profit. Return of investment is the immediate goal; profit maximization is the long-term goal,” Oreta said. “Profit-seeking on the one hand, and human rights-social justice on the other are fundamentally different concerns.”
REGREENING PROGRAM
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) last week said it plans to open 1.2 million hectares of “denuded” forest land to private investors on June 26, shifting away from government-centric reforestation.
Such massive tracts of land, now denuded, might undergo a partial reforestation and, if the government fails to monitor well, can be turned into land development and resorts that can benefit only the purses of private companies to the exclusion of local communities around these areas.
DENR Undersecretary Carlos Primo David said half of the 1.2 million hectares should be reforested by the private sector under the National Greening Program (NGP). In 2024, the NGP had set a goal of rehabilitating 7.1 million hectares of denuded land by 2028.
“You need to reforest the half, and then you utilize the other half,” David said, noting that the previous purely conservation-focused approach has not worked.
MAKING CHOICES
Setting such enticing parameters for the private companies will certainly attract them, but again, the government must be watchful that half is half and that they won’t add more land for their business, to the detriment of regreening our bald forest lands.
“If you wait for the government to do reforestation of one million hectares… It will take us many years.” These kinds of excuses should not even be floated as it is an admission of the inefficacy and ineptness of government, considering the massive resources at its hands.
But what about the surrounding communities? Are we not even giving them a reason to do the reforestation themselves, as they are in a better location (provided they have the financial support and proper government monitoring) to do so. Why always the bias for private companies?
Companies involved in agriculture and timber production as well as those involved in renewable energy, eco-tourism, and the carbon credit markets are expected to participate in the program, David said. (I wonder why it is even using the carbon market to entice them, they know all about this by now and why stress this point. If at all, the organized communities surrounding the bald mountains and plains should be the one to be educated about carbon credit trading, but immediately, it is government financial support that they need ASAP.
“In situations where a choice had to be made, will business choose the nobler agenda of conservation over profit?” Oreta asked.
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN
Should private partners need to get free, prior and informed consent, a prerequisite for building on indigenous land, David, who heads the DENR’s geospatial data office, said: “Half of the 1.2 million hectares is outside IP areas.”
“Since half of the target areas are in IP ancestral domain areas — in parts where mining companies are operating, who will manage the relations/conflict mitigation among IP communities, mining companies, and the business sector?” Oreta asked.
Cleng Julve, secretary general of AGHAM, a group of scientists, said the government has not clearly defined what lands are classified as “denuded” (which often applies to productive land cultivated by farmers and IPs) to be classified for corporate interests.
“Such ambiguity puts these stakeholders at risk of displacement, especially when land is handed over to corporations under the guise of reforestation.”
Julve said previous projects claimed to be outside IP areas still “spilled over into IP areas, often accompanied by militarization to protect corporate interests.”
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Alyansa Tigil Mina said the DENR “deliberately neglects” and abandoned its primary mandate of “conservation and restoration under the 1987 Constitution by giving private and non profit-driven corporations millions of hectares of forest lands.
Oreta said while the private sector can help in the greening program, “running the show must still remain with the government.”
Julve of AGHAM said the DENR must confront “the real drivers of deforestation head-on,” namely large-scale mining, logging, and land use conversion.
“Genuine forest restoration must be community-led, ecologically sound, and rooted in social and environmental justice,” she said.
“Instead of turning forests into business ventures, the government should support indigenous and local communities who have long protected these ecosystems.” Exactly my point.
DENR’s David said the government will open another one million hectares of land every year until 2027. (Do I hear election bells?)