Establishing a public record for Philippine forests — Chocolate Hills included

THE PROBLEM with the resort built within the Chocolate Hills in Bohol boils down to two key factors: property rights and information availability.

Over half of the Philippines’ land area, 15.8 million hectares, is classified as forest lands, including protected areas like the Chocolate Hills. These lands are under State ownership, but certain rights are granted to individuals or groups for the purposes of management, conservation, preservation, or development. Moreover, ownership rights granted prior to the declaration of an area as protected are to be respected.

Here’s the catch: information on forest lands is not publicly available. While the country’s alienable and disposable lands (A&D lands), spanning 14.2 million hectares, can be privately owned with information readily available through land titles or government records (the Registry of Deeds), the same does not hold true for forest lands. There is no equivalent system in place to provide accessible information on the rights, restrictions, and responsibilities associated with forest lands.

In the case of the Chocolate Hills, there is no database where the public can access to check or verify the rights, parties, and allowable activities in the area. Information on forest lands exists but is known and accessed by few, even within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

FOREST CADASTRE

Forest lands, unlike A&D lands, are not part of the country’s cadastre system. A cadastre is a comprehensive and up-todate information system that encompasses records of land interests, including rights, restrictions, and responsibilities. It incorporates detailed geometric descriptions of land parcels connected to tenurial instruments, as well as assessments of parcel value and any improvements made on the land.

Finland, Germany, and New Zealand have unified cadastre systems that cover all types of land, including forests. However, in countries like Turkey and Greece, there are separate cadastres specifically for forests. In the Philippines, there is somewhat of a cadastre for forests, but it’s not comprehensive — it only records forest lands with tenure agreements like Integrated Forest Management Agreements or IFMA, Community-Based Forest Management Agreements or CBFMA, and Protected Area Community-Based Resource Management Agreements or PACBARMA, among others — leaving out other areas without a tenure.

SAMPLE FOREST BLOCK IN A FOREST CADASTRE

Visualize the forest cadastre as a colossal jigsaw puzzle, with each piece representing a forest parcel with crucial information. Imagine the Chocolate Hills divided into squares, 20 hectares each with data on dimensions, coordinates, physical attributes, rights allocation, stakeholders, and allowable activities. This comprehensive information is essential for effective forest land management. However, such data is not found in a publicly available database, leaving a significant gap in how such natural resources ought to be managed or taken care of.

A PUBLIC RECORD

It is high time we integrated forest lands into our existing national cadastral system. Why?

First, our forest lands will have an indisputable claims and rights information system. We can ensure that everyone knows who has rights in which areas and what they can do with them. This will also help clarify boundaries and resolve conflicts. Moreover, if a local government unit intends to protect, use, or develop forest land within their jurisdiction, they will base their planning, management, and assessment on the forest cadastre.

Second, all information is transparent and accessible, enabling us to take better care of our forests. This means we can plan better, manage resources more effectively, and understand what’s happening in our forests. It also gives existing forest managers and potential investors a clear picture of what’s allowed and what’s not. And, if someone is using the forest in a way they should not be, we can easily pinpoint who they are and hold them accountable for their actions.

Thirdly, having a robust information system about forest lands makes them bankable and increases their value. A forest cadastre would encourage green and sustainable investments. Many banks are ready to help projects that improve or protect forests. However, to facilitate this process, there must be a transparent public information system enabling these institutions to verify the legitimacy of rights in forest lands.

WHAT IS NEXT?

Several bills have been introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate aimed at integrating forest lands into the national cadastral system. This forest cadastre would encompass all claims, rights, and tenure within the forest lands which include: 1.) mineral lands under mining laws, 2.) protected areas under the National Integrated Protected Areas System and Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System laws, 3.) Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles/ Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act, and 4.) CBFMA, IFMA, Socialized Industrial Forest Management Agreement, and other forest-related tenurial instruments. This initiative aligns with Section 53.c. of Department of Environment and Natural Resources Memorandum Circular 2010-13, which emphasizes the inclusion of lands ineligible for private ownership in lot surveys to be issued cadastral lot numbers.

With a low forest cover (23% of total land area) and looming climate change and food security issues, sustainable management of our already diminished forest resources is anchored on well-defined property rights and accessible and reliable information.

The Chocolate Hills situation is just the tip of the iceberg. There are other cases out there yet undiscovered. A forest cadastre could bring these existing cases to light or prevent similar ones from happening again. But more importantly, the forest cadastre would enable us to plan better and make smarter decisions about using our forest lands and resources sustainably.

n