UNIVERSITY OF STO.

TOMAS FACULTY OF ARTS AND LETTERS 2ECONOMICS2

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics
Forest and Mineral Resources Sectors in the Philippines
Mark Martin Celino John Christian Ceal Arvin Matias Angelo Vincent Omos Karl Alen Yu 9/29/2011

NEDAs framework, the Medium-term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) has been adopted by the Aquino administration as the basis of economic development and industrialization of the country for the next six (6) years. However, analysis of the present situation of the Philippine ecosystems in relation with the overall economic undertakings of the past and present regimes proves the insufficiency of the development model towards attaining long-term and sustained economic growth. Hence, this research aims to promote the involvement of national interests over the vast natural resources of the country. The result of this research is a sectoral plan recommendation of a Government or National (Management), Corporate or Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil or Community (Participatory) model to sustainability directions. This is the recommendation of a Nationalization Programme towards a Sustainable Development Framework in the Forests and Mineral Resources Sectors of the Philippines, which is a strengthening of the present sustainability development efforts of the government, community and corporate arm. It seeks to underline the Sustainability development framework in the Philippine ecosystems and socio-economic context.

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 1

I.

NEDA Philippine Development Plan

The Medium-term Philippine Development Plan is designed to provide a strategic plan that will be used as a basis for the countrys economic programs for the duration of the present administrations term. This plan sets goals that are projected to be achieved by the end of the term. The present Medium-term development plan is from years 2011 to 2016 under the present Aquino Administration. The general objectives of this plan are the following: 1. A high, sustained and broad-based economic growth of 7-8 percent each year; 2. Rapid economic expansion that takes into account the countrys large population, geographical differences, and social complexity; 3. A high economic growth that a. creates employment and draws the vast majority of the population into the economic and social mainstream; b. reduces mass poverty; and c. allows the pursuit of the other Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Reaction to the MediumTerm Philippine Development Plan and to the IBON Article As a reaction to the objectives of the plan, it is understood that their aims are for the well-being of the society. Anything that is aimed for the betterment of the country is good. But though their goals may be agreeable to the society, it does not equate that the society will agree with the programs they would align with these aims. The aims are most of the time good, but the question is, how will they be able to achieve these aims without endangering the other sectors? It is very easy to generate goals for the country. To envision a well-developed society is not hard, but to get there is the difficult part. There are challenges along the road of development. There are many temptations that should be avoided. To achieve the goals of development would require us responsibility, focus, perseverance, and gratitude. We have gone far as a country but we are not even close to being a well-develop country. According to the Philippine Civil Society, the Medium-Term Development Plan constructed by the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) has its five major components as its framework comprised of macroeconomic stability, governance, infrastructure, food security and health. They considered macroeconomics as the mother framework of the entire development plan. But throughout the considerable effort of the officials of NEDA in including the concerns of Filipino people in the implementation of Philippine Agenda 21 to the development plan of 2011-2016, it seems that making macroeconomics as the mother framework serves as a hindrance to mobilize sustainable development in the mainstream economy of the Philippines. The Philippine Agenda 21 serves as the countrys path for sustainable economic development; this agenda is responsible for the betterment of each individuals, families, households and communities. This is a plan concerning the nations ecosystem comprised of coastal, freshwater, upland, lowland, and urban as well as the ecosystems that interacts to the various land and lifescapes found therein. The advocacy is strictly imbued with respect to the empowerment of various social groups that manage economy, critical resources, culture and society, politics and governance in accordance with foreign relations. The instance of sterilization of the integration of sustainable development to the Medium-Term Development Plan of 2011-2016 has an enormous negative effect for the common good of people and environment. The immense pursuit of some personalities in NEDA for making macroeconomics as the mother framework of the entire plan is quite doubtful. The general objectives of maintaining macroeconomic stability are strictly concerned with the following: increasing of tax effort to at least 16 percent of GDP, increasing of the fiscal space and attain sustainable revenue and spending path, and the adjustment of the excise tax on alcohol, tobacco products and petroleum. The main idea is evident, some officials of the said institution is trying to have insurance for their own fiscal concerns as stated above. By the time the excessive value added tax will come to implementation, it will cause additional pain to the income of several employed Filipinos that already experiencing depleting condition together with the entire society. This clearly shows that macroeconomics (as the mother framework) is not in favor for the interest of the Filipino majority; otherwise, it reflects to the deceptive interest of few personalities behind the economic plan. In conclusion, the specific framework of the plan must be integrated in accordance with the objectives of the Philippine Agenda 21 together with the implementing of sustainable development framework to the mainstream economy of the country. It will be a good stepping stone for the betterment of Filipino

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 2
people if the macroeconomics as the mother framework will be replaced by the sustainable development. The abovementioned issues and concerns of the entire society of the country must be given efficient attention in the MTPDP 2011-2016. Aside from the replacement of the framework, the executive sector must have a brief discussion for the implementation of a national environmental plan of the Philippine government. The comments of the IBON Foundation to the Medium-term Philippine Development Plan of NEDA (National Economic and Development Authority) explained that there are inconsistent measures that are included in the MTPDP. According the IBON article (2011), Such a plan however poses serious problems for

the economy and the people. It misinterprets the countrys underdevelopment and, by insisting on the discredited free market development model, will not result in higher growth nor reduce poverty. It avoids redistributing the countrys resources and increasing the social and economic power of the poor majority. If anything it even exaggerates private profit-seeking as a means to social development to justify diverting public resources for private gain. The plan has low ambition and is not decisive in addressing the countrys poverty, backwardness and underdevelopment.

Their interpretation of the over-all concept of the MTPDP is credible because of what Filipinos have been experiencing in the past until the present time. The same concept of development has been practiced up to this time. As a country, we are spending so much but the wastes are larger. We continue to focus on economic development without bothering to resolve the problems of cultural and environmental degradation. The focus of the present economic framework remains on the privatization of capital. The free market that they say would develop us is also tearing us down. The free market system improves our macroeconomics but the micro remains down. The poor continue to thrive on little resources while the rich continue to celebrate in abundance. The IBON Foundation article also mentioned the ineffective free market system that has been practiced through the years in the Philippines. It is ineffective for it only brought profit to the business of export sectors to which foreign investors were delighted. The rest of the country has not clearly felt development because from the beginning, they were already deprived of development since they belonged to the lower class. Those who belong to the lower class would not feel the slight growth of the economy since they do not earn much and also, a growing economy does not equate to a growing income for employees. According to the IBON Foundation (2011), They are apparently meant to be leading sectors of some sort for the economy but, as conceived, none of them pertain to Filipino industrialization or reducing the countrys dependence on foreign capital. If anything the main focus is simply to attract foreign investors to exploit cheap Filipino labor (skilled and unskilled) and the countrys natural resources (mineral and agricultural). In this statement of IBON Foundation, it becomes clear that there is an ineffective policy-making by the government. The government continues to boast an increasing investment from foreign industries. They say that Filipinos would have available jobs because of these investments. But do they even think of what happens next? Their focus is only on the creation of jobs but not on the process of the work and how it is compensated. This only shows that the government remains to be inefficient for it only works in the short-run not in the long-run. The statement also points out the exploitation of our resources by the foreign investors. We have already been fooled by being unfairly compensated; ironically, we have also lost natural resources plus the danger we would face for destroying our environment. It may be a growth in the economy of the country but for the people, they suffer in poverty, they lose their share of resources in the world, then they continue to fall because of catastrophes. According to the IBON Foundation, So while the plan is replete with motherhood statements about creating jobs and reducing poverty it methodically avoids the most important and decisive measures for doing this. Creating jobs does not just mean giving free play for any business to make profits on the weak argument that they hire employees anyway. It also means deliberately encouraging Filipino-owned economic activity that creates long-term jobs and builds the national economy. Reducing poverty does not just mean giving emergency cash transfers. It also means redistributing income, wealth and assets from those who have accumulated these towards those who have been denied them. The statement points out the inefficiencies of the policy-making body of the country and the government departments concerned. They may have provided jobs for numerous Filipinos and have supported many citizens to engage in the local economy, but are the jobs provided stable or for the long-term or do they last only for a certain period and later on increase the unemployment again? Another question is, are these opportunities given by the government contributing to the populace rather than wasting the opportunity because their businesses failed? The government should not only give opportunities to the needy or the unemployed but also monitor them for the long-run and support them as they grow as a business. That will generally develop a local economy that is competitive enough in the global market. In addition, Cash transfer programs may be helpful to the poor Filipino family. But it should be properly carried out to the public. The government should secure the budget allocated to Cash Transfers from corruption. They should come up with plans that carefully monitor the distribution of this aiding program and also monitor how the budget will be used by the recipient of the aid so that the program will be effective.

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 3

II.

Analysis of the Sector: Forest and Mineral Resources 2.1 Present Situation

Review of present data available on the environmental quality and natural resource degradation in the Philippines leads that certain manifestations of the global climate crisis is already imminent at present. Harassing the interweaving socio-economic structure, the ailing state of the different ecosystems throughout the archipelago is already alarming. As identified by Coxhead & Jayasuriya (2002), the various Philippine environment and natural resource sectors, classified into five major interlinked and sometimes overlapping ecosystems: (1) the forest and uplands; (2) agricultural; (3) freshwater; (4) coastal and marine; and (5) urban ecosystems, already face squander and plunder of unprecedented levels. These set of ecosystems includes significant mineral and other natural resource stocks, others biodiversity, which makes it a significant concern. Consequently, the present situation of the Philippine environment illustrates significant and chronic resource depletion and severe environmental degradation problems. The Center for Environmental Concerns Philippines (CEC-Phils) (2009) revealed in their study that the long-term destruction of the Planet Earth has posit threats vis--vis with human rights and welfare of the population; thus, answerable for the chronic degree of poverty and hunger, unemployment, landlessness, and social unrest behind the inequalities besetting the society at large with the phenomenon of Climate Change. Tujan (2008) parallels that total human demand for natural resources both renewable and non-renewable has indeed become a cause of alarm when by some accounts it has already exceeded sustainable limit (p. 3). In the main, the climate realities recently experienced confirms both issues of the massive exhaustion of resource stocks and the worsening climate change emissions of greenhouse gases. Thereby, this paper will construct on the analysis of the present situation of the Philippine environment focusing on the two major areas of study: the forests and mineral resources sectors in the Philippines. 2.1.1 The State of the Philippine Forests The forests in the Philippines support one of the worlds richest plant and animal life which continues to be the life blood by supplying the ecological and economic requirements of the country. The forests have also supported and nurtured innumerable generations of tribal Filipinos whose lives depend on the forests well-being. (Sajise, et.al, 1996, p.22) In fact, the Philippines is identified by Conservation International as one of the biologically richest countries in the world. It has been considered as a top biodiversity hotspot for global conservation on account of the extent of its forests. Almost half of the total land area of this archipelagic country is covered by forests and upland ecosystems. Traditionally, this environmental sector has served a significant role in the economy of the country for the past decades, especially reaching its peak during the Martial law regime. It has substantially increased the GDP of the country, and considerably caused the economic growth during the Marcos era. However, according to Carandang (2008), through the years after the 1960s to 1970s when the logging industry boomed, the forestry sector in the Philippines continuously declined in three major fronts: physical in terms of resource depletion, economic in view of its declining economic contributions and environmental in terms of ecosystem degradation. Due to the continuing usage of its resources, the forests ecosystem in the country became imbalanced which caused the shortage of forest covers in the country. Table 2-1 shows the extent of loss in forest covers throughout the archipelago from the 1500s to 2008. It could be implied that the once profitable forests resources industry that greatly contributed to the wealth of the economy and the society before has now departed.

Figure 2-1. Forest Cover Change in the Philippines (1500-2008) Source: Google Docs https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iisd. org%2Fpdf%2F2010%2Fredd_hanoi_scope.pdf

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 4

The Philippines is already considered as one of the most endangered areas in the world. Historically logged for timber products, today, the forests are also being cleared for farming needs and for developments to accommodate the nations growing population. (http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org) For the recent past, forest destruction has been swift and massive . Based on the study of Lasco (n.d.) of the World Agroforestry Centre, forest cover in the country has considerably declined at a rapid deforestation rate. This marks that the rapid decline in forest cover in 2008 (7.8 m ha) from (27 m ha) in 1500 is already warning the future of the forest sector. Due to the continuing depletion caused by illegal loggers in the countrys forests and even foreigners who initiate this kind of system over our natural resources, for the economic expansion and satisfying the demands of the growing population particularly in the uplands and rural areas, our forests had been denuded intensively. Resource extraction for commercial logging both legal or illegal, the conversion of the uplands for shifting cultivation (kaingin system) and agricultural expansion as well as the influx of upland migration and population, and other activities of man, aside from natural factors, had been the major drivers of deforestation. Also, the system constraint being implemented by the government in national environment policies and programs to the lumber firms and other foreign corporations is equally responsible to the current situation of the Philippine forests. Forestry Issues Current climate change discussions measure forest issues as a controversial aspect nowadays. In fact, it is now being considered as the cheapest and fastest way to mitigate climate change. It is because, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions the main cause of climate change accounts to the incidence of deforestation and land use change (TauliCorpuz, 2010). Moreover this has already been discussed in the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries. Although the Philippines is not already yet a REDD state, its possibility in the country has already been determined. According to this framework, Total forest carbon stock determined by two factors: the total forest area, and the carbon per hectare of forest (carbon density). Furthermore, it was implied that deforestation reduces carbon stocks while reforestation increases it. This suggests that indeed, forestry issues are a major concern for government national policy frameworks to climate change mitigation. Like other major resource management problems, forest issues are inextricably bound to and ultimately rooted in population and poverty problems. Forest destruction is mainly an outcome of the cumulative effects of small-scale extractive activities of impoverished and expanding population in the uplands (Sajise, et.al, 1996, p.22). Certain other factors that create incentives for kaingin-making, improper mining procedures, overharvesting of forest products, forest or grassland fires and illegal logging are also considered to be one for the major causes of the destruction of natural forests in the country. Initially, commercial Logging per se is not considered a form of forest destruction by the government. (Sajise, et.al, 1996, p.38) It could be done in scientific and ecologically sound ways but there are some facets in the Philippines political, socioeconomic and technological life that make logging a primary agent of forest destruction and a perpetuator of social inequity. The weak and wrong policies implemented by the government are the reasons why forests are continually diminished in the Philippines. According to Arquiza (2009), commercial logging has been identified as the main reason for the steep decline in forests from the 1960 to mid-80s. (Magata, Guillao, Golocan and Rovillos,2010 ) Also, Illegal Logging is a persistent problem in Philippine forestry. This was identified as the cause of an increasing proportion of forest destruction during the late 1970s and 1980s according to the research by (Porter and Ganapin, 1988). Having sufficient knowledge on these factors concerning on the destruction of the forest resources in the country are important in order to do the proper reforestation of these bound resources needed by the people in the upcoming years. Forestry Policies Historical accounts of forest use in the Philippines reveal how massive deforestation has depleted the once lush tropical rainforests of the country. A century of plunder of the forest resource can be traced to factors such as conversion of forest to agricultural land, commercial logging and the pressures of population growth. However, one important thread ... that [runs] through most of these realities [is] power politics: the inuence of political power and vested interests on forest management policies and decisions as well as on their implementation. (Pulhin, 2002)

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 5
The government banned the export of unprocessed hardwood logs in 1986 in an effort to stimulate domestic processing of raw lumber into finished products. Initially this policy was successful, and products such as wood veneer became important exports. However, illegal logging and unsuccessful reforestation programs depleted the hardwood forests, and output from lumber-processing industries declined. (Steinberg, 2009) The 1997 data on land classication show that 15.88 million hectares of the countrys total land area are classied as forest land. Of this gure, about 15 million hectares (94 percent) have been classied into various categories, while the remaining .88 million hectares remain unclassied (Forest Management Bureau 1998). In 1901, the United States Commonwealth Government issued the General Order No. 50 and strengthened by the Forestry Act of 1904 which concedes the locals to legally cut trees adjacent to their place. After 16 years, Nakpil retrieved from Makil (1982) states The Forest Law of 1917, or Act No. 2711 established communal forests and pastures for the use of communities. The 1987 National Reforestation Program (NFP) under the Aquino administration promulgated a new reforestation policy offering market incentives and involving communities, families, NGOs and corporations in management initiatives. In addition, a policy decision to ban all logging in old growth forests was implemented in January 1992, shifting the production of timber to residual forests which Nakpil retrieved from Sajise (1992) ; Vitug (2000). The issuance of Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 22 in 1993 by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) established the Community Forestry Programme (CFP). Among its objectives were the initiation of community-based forest development and utilization of natural resources, and protection of the remaining primary forests with the help of local communities. (Sajise, 1998) Much of later policies plotted a greater restoration process along the forestry systems here in the Philippines which allotted much more focus on preventing the depletion of rainforest from civilians and foreigners. Early implemented laws issued the basic incomes from woodlands to United States in order to retain the sufficiency of wood products to Mother Commonwealth. Today, Philippine Forestry Policies became strict to individuals; hence, they encouraged a number NGOs and individuals to start the restoration of the losing Sustainable Environment of the country. 2.1.2 The State of the Philippine Mining Industry

The Philippines is an archipelagic state known for its richness of natural resources. It is a country magnificently endowed in mineral resources. Internationally, it is among the top exporters of copper iron, chromite, nickel, zinc, silver and gold. In fact, the metallic mineral industry has been consistently among the top foreign earners (Probing our Futures: the Philippines 2000 A.D, 1980). Mining is one factor in the Philippine economy which contributes to the strong fiscal performance of the country. The continuous exploration of these resources is becoming vital to the countrys export progress. Moreover, the country is already among the worlds great mineral producers. It has been a major source of minerals for Japan, and other industrialized countries. Considered as one of the largest mining countries, it has about 7.1 billion metric tons (BMT) of metallic mineral reserves and 51 BMT of non-metallic deposits. As government claims, the countrys mineral wealth, valued to be from $840 billion to $1 trillion (about ten times our GDP and 14-17 times our external debt). Figure 2-2 shows the Philippine minings contribution to GDP in PhP million at current prices.

Figure 2-2. Philippine Minings GDP share from 1980-2006 Source: http://www.philippinesforum.com/resources/research/files/PMN_0 70806.

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 6
On the other hand, the cost of depletion in our mineral reserves due to its rapid rate of exhaustion has also put the economy in a backward direction. Although, these resources are commercially significant to the industrialization and economic development of the country, its exploitation and globalization has also put the archipelagos natural wealth at stake. The activities related to mining disturb the existing balance in the environment. According to Sajise, et.al (1996), the very nature of mining operations entails extensive use of land, air and water (p. 48). This is the reason why the mining industry has also exacerbated the present situation of the economy despite its strong GDP contribution. Activities such as open pit mining, quarrying and ground preparation result in large scale disturbances of environmental processes by altering land forms and physiography, disrupting the hydrologic regime, discharging wastes into rivers, polluting water bodies with toxic wastes, and destroying prime agricultural lands. The mining industry, in general, entails four major activities namely: exploration, mine development, extraction, and initial processing. With this, according to Tujan (2002), the Philippine mining industry is not fully integrated, and is basically extractive and export-oriented (p. 41). For this reason, destroying the balance of the ecosystem is the final result if mining has not followed the correct guidelines in terms of its exploration and utilization of the mineral resources. In addition, despite of the other natural resources, the countrys mineral resources are non-renewable which indicates that the mineral have a certain life span after which they are exhausted and utilized. The reserves of various minerals in the country also vary from adequate to insufficient. However, according to (http://www.economywatch.com, n.d.), at present, the mining industry is facing a decline due to low metal prices, high production costs and change in mining laws. To sum up, in the words of Tujan & Guzman (2002), the present situation of the countrys neocolonial mining trade has put the whole sector as one of the worlds top export industry until the global decline in recent years. But in the effort of monopoly capital to expand areas for trade and investment, mining has not escaped the juggernaut of liberalization, deregulation and privatization which are the hallmarks of neoliberal globalization. Mining Issues The Philippine Development Plan pursued by the Aquino administration continues to flare a heated debate in the issue of globalization of mining in the Philippines. The present regime adhered to continue the framework for development of the past administrations. For this reason, the Aquino government still prioritizes the mining industry as a strong basis of industrialization and development. Historically, however, foreign corporations have been in direct control of the mining industry since the age of globalization began. This kind of industrialization leading to international monopoly capitalism in the world has put the Philippine economy a target market for long until now. The rationale behind the issue of mining in the Philippines is that it has served the neoliberal interests of countries with insatiable greed for capital accumulation and profitseeking. The economic reality behind the commercialization and liberalization of the Philippine industry is that it has only worsened the state of the countrys environmental sector. According to Tujan (2008), the neoliberal globalization has only exacerbated the neo-colonial plunder of the natural wealth in the third world. This means that the rich-poor economic agreements and promise of long term economic growth is quite unreal in present conditions. For instance, large-scale mining and export one of the most significant economic sectors of the semi-feudal and semi-colonial economy of the Philippines have not been able to convert the natural endowments of the countrys natural wealth to sustained economic growth; instead, it has only caused the unsustainability state in the Philippine economy. Because, the mining sector is not yet a fullyintegrated industry, it is anchored only on import-dependence. Instead of providing the country a strong industry for mining, its export-oriented resource extraction, with rathr limited linkages to the domestic economy, has only provided the greater portion of value-added to the industrialized countries (Tujan, 2008). Besides, this kind of industrialization provided by the extractive mining industry, has been the major cause of some major issues today, namely: economic and social dislocation, environmental destruction, national patrimony. Take for instance, the Marcopper disaster of 1996 it has caused the destruction of the Philippine ecosystems vital to the subsistence and survival of communities living near these ecosystems. These are the reasons why the Filipino civil societies and groups are against the transnational mining corporations exploitation of the countrys mineral resources. Mining Policies The Philippines is endowed with rich mineral resources. Astounding as our mineral wealth may seem, there is little reason to believe that the government, under its program to liberalize the industry, can ever realize its dream. This is, mainly because the utilization of this endowment has been geared to supply neither

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 7
the basic needs of our people nor the need to address the economys backward, agrarian and pre-industrial state. Mining has long been a major contributor to the Philippine economy. The country ranks among the worlds top 10 countries in the production of gold, copper, nickel and chromite. As for mineral endowment, the Philippines is ranked second to South Africa in gold ore deposits, and ranks third in the world in terms of copper resources. In 1974 and 1980, mining accounted for 20.37 and 21.34 percent of the countrys total export receipts, respectively. For the period 1980- 1993, mining contributed about P 4.3 billion in tax revenues (www.saprin.org, 2006). In accordance with the International Monetary Fund (IMF)s structural adjustment program, the Ramos administration batted for the full liberalization of the mining industry. It passed the Republic Act 7942 in 1995. This law, otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, allowed foreign access and control in every aspect of the local mining activity from exploration, development to utilization. The most common Mining Policy today is the Mining Act of 1995 or RA 7942 in which it states that there are specific conditions to be considered: Local Government Empowerment Wherein it states that the LGUs have the power to over watch the natural resources of the certain area without the interruption from the government. LGUs have the power to abstain or give provisions to individuals in order to gain income. But the Mining Act of 1995 indicates that private corporation shall follow strict restrictions to control the mining field. Respect and concern to certain indigenous individuals Since most of the mining activities are based on mountain side, many indigenous groups are affected. Because of this, Private miners shall provide appropriate respect to locals in order to retain their activities and if failure to comply will result to cease of all activities that is related to mining. Equitable sharing of benefits of natural wealth Every mineral retrieved from mountains are obliged to show or present to officials in order to gain benefits on the affected individuals from mining. And LGUs shall impose tax to provide more programs to the affected community. Economic demands of present generation while providing the necessary foundation for future generations Mining Industries shall limit their use of the mountain minerals in order to provide adequate supply to future situation of economic demands and to provide minerals in order to gain beneficial products that shall provide adequate jobs. Worldwide trend towards globalization After dollar, the gold is one of financial currencies in order to pay or buy import products which value rather depends on the situation of international market. Most of the minerals are used to be export to sustain many trends in global community. Protection for and wise management of the environment Since these sources are scarce, the Government provide ample load of programs which power is to control or secure the amount of minerals mined to protect the said mined area. The government, especially the DENR, undermines its own laws such as NIPAS and IPRA whenever it wants to facilitate mining in the communities. Where there is strong unity and opposition from the community against mining TNCs, these TNCs and the Philippine government shift to more violent means and employ militarization to quell the peoples resistance. These actions result to more human rights violations, as well as the displacement and loss of livelihood among the mining-affected people such as in the case of ClimaxArimco in Nueva Vizcaya and Toronto Ventures Inc., in Zamboanga del Norte. Mining operations have further aggravated poverty in the country. Upon the entry of mining TNCs into their communities, people have been displaced not only physically but economically as well. The degradation of their local environment such as rivers, croplands and forests because of mining operations has led to income loss, food insecurity and health problems. Still the policy implemented by the central government doesnt secure the mineral sources of the Philippines from the foreign businessman in which later there will be no appropriate supply of it to use for the sake of the country. Many policies have been provide by the civil societies and NGOs in which that is sought to be act as a helping unit to secure or protect the area but there power is too small to create strict implementations hence they have to create alternatives to recover areas which is mined. There is an urgent need to protect the mineral resources of the country due to its limited capacity so proper and strict policies must be implemented by the government to have an enough supply of minerals in the near future. One concrete example of the implemented law is the Mining Act of 1995 or also called as RA No. 7942 which identifies areas where mining explorations can be done (Magata, Guillao, Golocan and Rovillos, 2010). Unfortunately, timberlands and forest-land areas covered by tenure arguments such as the

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 8
TLA, CBFMA and IFMA as dictated by law are open to mineral agreements or for financial assistance agreements and others are open to mining operations. Also, according to the study entitled Exploiting Natural Resources: Growth, Instability, and Conflict in the Middle East and Asia, the mining industry was identified as one major cause of deforestation and forest degradation, as the valuable minerals are often located in the ground beneath forests (Ibid.). This results from the clearing of the forest to access mineral deposits and to open remote forest areas for miners. As embodied in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article 12 of Section 2, The exploration, development and utilization of natural resources are under the full control and supervision of the State. It means that the government has full supervision of all the natural resources in the country. No foreign entity shall supervise the utilization of the mineral resources without the necessary laws implemented by the government. Hence, proper laws and regulations must be implemented by the government in order to conserve the limited mineral reserves in the country accompanied with the concept of sustainable development so that the future generation may be able to use these mineral reserves for their betterment too. Indeed, this mining-oriented development framework has been functional since the postMartial law era. But despite the adherence to this development plan, nothing substantial has happened yet while until now the present regime continues to employ the same roadmap in its economic policies. 2.2 Conclusions

In the final analysis, both in the forests and mineral resources sectors of the Philippines, one thing is in common, the rapid change of a globalization-kind of industrialization, allowing foreign corporations and their partners in the Filipino society especially those who owned the large firms, to exhaust our natural wealth and amass the economic capital of the country derived from our environmental resource and riches. The economic cost of environmental destruction due to the massive depletion of the quality of our forests and mineral reserves and the excessive resource utilization has aggravated the tragedy of the commons in the Filipino society in contrary with the increased GDP performance of the countrys economy. Economic capitalization at the expense of the present climate change crisis continues to cause the destruction of the Planet Earth, from the limitless abuse and greed of mankind to satisfy the requirements of the expanding economy to the growing demands of industrialization side-by-side with the ever increasing needs of the global population influx. Environmental degradation is already felt in the face of mankinds shock amidst the increasing consciousness, urgency and realization of the global climate crisis vis--vis the global economic crisis and financial down turn and the struggle of societies, particularly of the underdeveloped/Third world states at present. The neoliberal philosophy of an exploitative globalization arising between the rich and poor countries is accountable to the current environmental crises. The irony behind this neoliberalism industrialization is that as the economy improves, the more infortunes harass the situations of the poor. This is how the economy works under the present economic framework. In the main, forest and mineral resources must still be utilized in the mainstream economy but not at the detriment of the society, who at large is put in danger to the unsustainability and underdevelopment state of the Philippine environment in relation to industrialization and economic development. III. Sectoral Plan 3.1 Objectives The following are the general objectives of the sectoral plan recommendation for the forest and mining sectors: To ensure the strict implementation, assessment and monitoring of forests and mineral resources management laws, policies and programmes towards a sustainable environment. To address malpractices in the forest and mining sectors (e.g. illegal logging and mining, kaingin system, etc.) through joint government, corporate, and community or civil-based involvement in the protection and conservation of these natural resources. To develop programmes that will enable the integration of sustainable resource utilization, environmental stewardship and conservation among the different sectors. 3.2 Programmes Nationalization of the Forest and Mining Sectors

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 9
This program aims to promote and promulgate the rights of the Filipinos over the natural resources of the Philippine archipelago. This program recommendation based on this research seeks the constraining of foreign exploitation and dominion over the countrys forest and mineral resources. What are for Filipinos must be for the Filipinos. There are significant policies that are directed to the preservation of natural resources but little has been done to implement and materialize these into concrete actions. This program recommendation is just a reiteration of existing sectoral policies that are directed towards the socio-economic welfare of the Filipino society as well as the preservation of the Philippine ecosystems. The following are the proposed specific procedures to attain sustainable development in the forest and mining sectors of the country:

Figure 3-1. This is the

recommendation of a Nationalization Programme towards a Sustainable Development Framework in the Forests and Mineral Resources Sectors of the Philippines, which is a strengthening of the present sustainability development efforts of the government, community and corporate arm. It seeks to underline the Sustainability development framework in the Philippine ecosystems and socioeconomic context.

On the Governmental or National Level (Management function) To guarantee the full legislation, critical analysis or evaluation, and the scrupulous monitoring of existing and revised environmental policies as well as the functional constitution and enacting of appropriate directives towards a greener revolution in the Philippine socio-economic and ecological change which must also be strictly and properly implemented throughout all means. The latter must be constituted on the basis of a determined political will through the inclusive encouragement and campaign of the State by means of allocating necessary funding, support and carrying out of specific, feasible and realistic measures regarding sustainable ecological management objectives and plans. The national government must as well be able to capacitate other institutions to enforce their goals at the executive, legislative, or departmental towards the positioning of an integral and reorganized national sustainability framework as incorporated to the mainstream of the political, economic, social, cultural, and moral standpoint.

On the Corporate and Institutional Arrangement (Responsibility function) To cooperate with government policy changes for sustainable forest and mining management through corporate social responsibility and accountability including institutional roles and responsibilities in their actions.

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 10
On the Civil and Community-based Structure (Participatory function) To act in participatory with the government and institutional efforts to conserve and preserve the archipelagos natural wealth while maintaining in balance the overall economic welfare of the State and the socio-cultural well-being of the whole populace. That is, incorporating community contributions in national environmental policies through involved sectoral decentralization of management responsibilities. To act as the resisting interest group of the whole functioning paradigm and thus assume the role of check-and-balances between conflicting governmental and corporate points-of-view as well as putting on the forefront the general well-being of the societys interests.

PLAN OF ACTION 1. Nationalize the forest and mineral resources sectors in the Philippines by establishing an integrated stateowned and community-based scheme to serve in balance and justify the conflicting national and foreign interests via constraining to alternative function or non-equity conformity the direct control and full involvement of foreign enterprises in the overall economic self-determination and national patrimony of the country. 2. The encouragement of corporate social responsibility and institutional roles as a vital stepping stone to the realization of government and civil societys effort of recognizing the peoples rights, cultural equality and social equity and in the improvement of environmental quality in which these people depend their lives on. 3. Recognize the civil societys resistance to the shadows of economic liberalization and neo-colonial theory adopted by the past and present regimes as the developmental model of the country with their reforms for a new and more appropriate paradigm shift towards a true nationalistic industrialization side by side with sustainable development. 4. Square the economic as well as ecological functions of development by integrating in the mainstream both the accumulation of capital and profit-seeking of the globalization of interests and the environmental measures as a rather constraint system to the negative impacts of industrialization based on capitalist monopolist mechanisms by protecting the rights of the nationalist interests to assess and scrutinize foreign ownership and engagement in the national economy, particularly in the exploitation and utilization of the countrys natural resources (forest and mineral). 5. Prioritize instead the tenural rights of indigenous peoples and the Filipinos themselves over their natural resources against the present insistence of the Regalian Doctrine and state ownership of the ancestral domains and communally owned land whereas it is being replaced by foreign capital and the local elitist appropriations to carry out investments. 6. Consider more practical and traditional practices of forest resource utilization and management instead of industrial logging, whereas appropriate government assistance must be given out for the benefit of the upland and rural community. 7. Regard less destructive and less disruptive small-scale mining as an alternative to extractive large-scale mining practices and the commercialization and globalization of mining to foreign investments. Likewise, the state must also initiate government incentives to locals in the process of localizing mining. However, integrating mining under present conditions is still unachievable so nationalization efforts must still entail balanced national-foreign interest considerations. 8. Capacitate employment of the Filipino poor to the advantage of the forest and mining sectors in the context of national interests. That is to encourage business opportunities to local Filipinos whose priority is to build sustainable development and able to lessen or suffice immediate labor problem. Subsidies may only favor to those who are willing to prolong the entity of forestry and mining area around the archipelago. 9. Address budget deficiencies and non-prioritization of national objectives to sustainability economics paradigm, strengthen weak institutional capacity and resolve government accountability and transparency problems related to the sustainable forest and mineral resource management.

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 11
10. Increase the consciousness by conducting studies and research for other recommendations for further forest and mining sectors conservation and sustainable use. 11. Coordinate the different sectors of the society to develop a position in the macro-level decision-making of the State. 12. Enable the establishment of an integrated national model for policy-making, community involvement and institutional structuring for a more unified nationalization framework in economic development anchored on the sustainability of the Planet Earth.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
A BRIFER ON THE MEDIUM TERM PHILIPPINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 2011-2016. (2011). Ledac Meeting, (p. 14). Africa, J. E. (2011, July 22). Governance. Retrieved September 15, 2011, from CenPeg: http://www.cenpeg.org/2011pages/governance/july2011/Aquinomics_What_development_roadmap.html Balisacan, A. M., & Hill, H. (2003). The Philippine economy: development, policies, and challenges. Oxford; New York : Oxford University Press. Conservation International. (2007). Hotspots Philippines. Retrieved September 17, 2011, from Biodiversityhotspots: http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/philippines/Pages/default.aspx Coxhead, I., & Jayasuriya, S. (2002, June 24). Environment and Natural Resources. FAO. (n.d.). Corporate Repository Document. Retrieved September 17, 2011, from FAO: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7740e/w7740e02.htm Probing our Futures: the Philippines 2000 A.D. (1980). Manila: PREPF. www.saprin.org/philippines/research/phi_mining_sum.pdf. (2006). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from The Impact of Investment Liberalization and the Mining Act of 1995 on Indigenous Peoples, Upland Communities and the Rural Poor, and on the Environment: Summary Report: www.saprin.org/philippines/research/phi_mining_sum.pdf Ibon Foundation. (2011, June 21). Retrieved September 15, 2011, from Ibon Foundation: www.ibon.org/includes/resources/IBON_pdp2011-2016.pdf Ibon Foundation. (2011, June 29). Ibon Features. Retrieved September 15, 2011, from Makabayan: http://makabayan.net/node/122 Ibon Foundation. (2011, June 2). Ibon News . Retrieved September 15, 2011, from Ibon Foundation: http://www.ibon.org/ibon_articles.php?id=149 Ibon Foundation. (2011, June 29). Ibon Reads. Retrieved September 15, 2011, from Word Press: http://ibonreads.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/philippine-development-plan-pdp-2011-2016-weakening-domesticeconomy/ Ibon Foundation. (2011, June 22). Policy Critique. Retrieved September 15, 2011, from Ibon Foundation: http://www.ibon.org/ibon_articles.php?id=153 Indigenous peoples, forests and REDD plus state of forests, policy, environment and ways forward. (2010). Baguio City: Tebtebba Foundation. Lasco, R. D. (N.D.). Google Docs. Retrieved September 21, 2011, from Google: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iisd.org%2Fpdf%2F2010%2Fredd_hanoi_scope.pdf Legasto, A. J. (2009). A nation's blueprint to true prosperity : antidote to financial meltdowns. Quezon City, Philippines: Prosperitwithdignity Books. Philippine Industry Sectors. (n.d). Retrieved September 17, 2011, from Economy Watch: http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/philippines/industry-sector-industries.html Philippine Business Leaders Forum Inc. (2007, August 4). Retrieved September 17, 2011, from Philippines Forum: http://www.philippinesforum.com/resources/research/files/PMN_070806.pdf Philippine Civil Societies. (2011). THE MEDIUM TERM DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2011-2016) OF THE AQUINO GOVERNMENT: Areas of Concern. Manila. Pulhin, J. M. (2002). Trends in Forest Policy of the Philippines. College of Forestry and Natural Resources. University of the Philippines, Los Banos, College, Laguna, Philippines. Sajise, P. E. (1996). Baseline assessments: the state of the Philippine environment . Diliman, Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Steinberg, David Joel. "Republic of the Philippines." Microsoft Encarta 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2008. The Partido Kalikasan ng Lahing Kayumanggi. (2011). Raging controversies emanating from the consultation process and framework of the plan. Manila.

Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil and Community (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics 12
Tujan, A. A. (2008). People & planet over profits : people's sovereignty over natural resources. Quezon City: IBON Books.