















































Article 3262.indd


Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
91

American Journal of   
Environment and Climate (AJEC)

Cultivating Multifaceted Participation in the Community-Based Forest Management 
(CBFM) Program in Communities of  Northern Isabela

Marcial Tirso G. Tarun1*, Imee G. Gumiran1, Bondee L. Peṅafl or1

Volume 3 Issue 2, Year 2024
ISSN: 2832-403X (Online) 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajec.v3i2.3262
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: July 03, 2024

Accepted: August 06, 2024

Published: August 10, 2024

Communities’ participation has been the key strategy of  the Community-Based Forest 
Management (CBFM) Program to achieve its ultimate goal: improving the community’s 
socio-economic conditions and equal access to forest resources sustainably. This report 
cultivates the levels and forms of  participation in decision-making in the Masipi and 
Caligayan areas of  the Philippines, adapting the “Typology of  Participation” by FAO (2003). 
The quantitative data was collected through surveys,  while the qualitative data was gathered 
through Focus Group Discussions (FGD) among 186 community respondents from the 
Masipi East Upland Famers Association (MEUFA) and Tumauini Upland Farmers Greeners 
Association (TUFGA), as well as the 15 implementer respondents from the Department 
of  Natural Resources – Community Environment and Natural Resource Offi ce (DENR-
CENRO), and the Municipal Environment and Natural Resources (MENRO) of  Cabagan 
and Tumauini, Isabela. The report found that while government personnel were actively 
involved, community engagement was mostly limited to consultations. Indeed, further 
inclusive strategies are needed. The noticeable contrast between the active implementers 
and the more passive community engagements highlights the necessity for strategies that 
enhance community involvement. 

Keywords
Decision-Making Process, 
Participation Levels

1 Isabela State University, Philippines
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: marcialtirsoguingabtarun@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION 
Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) 
participatory methods require active engagement of  
local communities, stakeholders, and relevant authorities 
in making decisions regarding forest management. 
Approaches emphasize the integration of  various 
perspectives, local knowledge, and the active involvement 
of  individuals who depend on and interact with forest 
resources. Participatory approaches are designed to enable 
communities to assume ownership and accountability for 
the sustainable administration of  their forests Chambers 
et al. (2022). The national program of  the Philippines 
aims to promote reforestation and establish an effective 
mechanism for sustainable forest resource management 
(Denr-Cenro, 2011). This initiative represents a 
signifi cant shift from the previous ineffective state forest 
governance, which failed to ensure the sustainability of  
forest resources and equitable access to their benefi ts 
(Guiang, et al., 2001). Hence, CBFM programs are 
designed to engage local communities in the sustainable 
management and utilization of  forest resources. This 
shift from a top-down to a bottom-up approach aims to 
empower local stakeholders by giving them tenure rights 
and responsibilities (Aquino & Daguio, 2014; Dugan & 
Pulhin, 2023).  
The DENR-AO No. 2004-09 is the recognized 
community-based forest management strategy (CBFMS), 
was revised concentrating on the implementation of  EO 
263. Its primary intention is to strengthen, reinforce, 
simplify, and harmonize the processes in implementing 
programs and projects supporting the CBFMS. The 

document states the intention to improve people’s 
socio-economic conditions through the promotion of  
social justice, and equitable access to and sustainable 
development of  forest land resources. Active and 
transparent community participation and security of  
tenure are highlighted as crucial strategies for achieving 
these goals (DENR, 2004). However, according to Tarun-
Acay (2005), one of  the challenges faced by the People’s 
Organization (PO) members in the CBFM program is 
how they can orchestrate diverse interests to address the 
critical issues of  the low socio-economic status optimally 
and sustain the interest of  PO members in the CBFM 
project undertakings.
Although this major shift from industrial forestry to 
“community forestry” or “participatory forestry” greatly 
affects the direction of  forest resource management and 
governance (Rebugio, et al., 2010) seemingly, despite this 
modifi cation there are issues experienced differently 
across CBFM locations. Henceforth, in particular, 
this study examined the diverse levels and forms of  
implementers’ participation like the Department of  
Environment and Natural Resources – Community 
Environment and Natural Resources Offi ce (DENR-
CENRO), and the Municipal Environment and Natural 
Resources (MENRO) of  the Local Government Units 
of  Cabagan and Tumauini, Isabela; and PO participation 
in the decision-making process being reinforced in the 
Masipi East Upland Farmers Association (MEUFA), 
formerly Masipi East Multipurpose Cooperative 
Incorporated (MEMPCI) CBFM Project and Tumauini 
Upland Farmers Greeners Association (TUFGA). The 



Pa
ge

 
92

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

MEMPCI was awarded a Community-Based Forest 
Management Agreement (CBFMA) on October 18, 
1998, with Tenure No. 020216659 which expired on 
December 31, 2023. It has a GIS-generated total area 
of  5,000 hectares at barangay Masipi East, Cabagan, 
Isabela.  Furthermore, MEUFA was duly registered with 
the Department of  Labor and Employment (DOLE) 
on June 17, 2014, with Registration No. ISA-1527-2014 
(DENR Annual Report, 2014). On the other hand, the 
TUFGA was awarded a CBFMA on March 06, 1998 
Tenure No. 020219956. The Tumauini Watershed 
Forest Reserve has a total area of  6,107.73 at Caligayan, 
Tumauini, Isabela.   

LITERATURE REVIEW
Participatory Approach to Forestry
Forestry practices around the world are moving 
towards involving more people as it becomes clear 
that centralized and authoritative decision-making 
methods are not enough (FAO-SFM, n.d.). According 
to Hazard & Audouin (2022), a participatory method 
involves engaging individuals directly affected by the 
outcomes of  the problem-solving or innovation design 
process. When looking at the concept of  “participation” 
from a broader perspective, the Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO) emphasizes the various levels or 
forms of  people’s involvement in decision-making 
processes. At the highest level of  the spectrum, all 
members of  a group or community are fully informed 
about decisions after they have been made, and 
importantly, they are actively engaged in information-
sharing, analysis, and discussions, thus having the ability 
to infl uence decisions. It is widely recognized that the 
direct involvement of  the stakeholders at any stage of  a 
program is essential to establish a sense of  engagement 
and ownership.
It is important to remember the “Ladder of  
Participation” introduced by S. Arnstein in the USA 
in 1969. This model illustrates various levels of  citizen 
engagement and power in decision-making processes. 
The ladder consists of  eight rungs, categorized into 
non-participation, tokenism, and citizen power. Non-
participation includes manipulation and therapy, while 
encompasses informing, consultation, and placation. At 
the top of  the Ladder is citizen power, where individuals 
have the most infl uence over decision-making. This 
model highlights the importance of  empowering 
citizens and ensuring their meaningful involvement in 
community projects and decision-making processes 
(Gaber, 2019).

Levels and Forms of  Participation
It is vital to acknowledge the crucial role of  community 
members in enhancing their living conditions and 
effectively managing natural resources. The Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO) has devised a typology 
of  participation to gain a better understanding of  the 
diverse levels of  community involvement in decision-
making processes. This typology is particularly valuable 
for comprehending the extent of  local stakeholders’ 
engagement in initiatives, particularly in fi elds like 
forestry management and sustainable development. The 
primary levels of  participation, as defi ned by the FAO, 
are as follows:

Nominal Participation
Individuals are acknowledged as part of  a group but 
do not actively engage in decision-making. They are 
included in a project without taking an active role.

Passive Participation
People are invited to express their views on specifi c 
matters, but there is no guarantee that their input will 
infl uence the fi nal decisions. This category includes 
surveys and open forums for public feedback.

Activity-Specifi c Participation
Participants are involved in carrying out specifi c 
responsibilities related to the project. This level 
requires more hands-on involvement than consultative 
participation but remains limited to predefi ned tasks.

Functional Participation
This level involves a group of  individuals coming 
together to achieve specifi c objectives aligned with 
the project. Often, outside facilitators are involved, 
but these groups may develop the capacity to sustain 
themselves over time.

Interactive (Empowering) Participation
Participants engage in collaborative analysis and 
decision-making. This stage incorporates cross-
disciplinary approaches and structured learning 
processes, empowering participants to infl uence local 
decisions and maintain control over local systems 
(Pretty & Vodouche, n.d.).
  
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Description of  the Study Area 
The gathering of  data was scheduled from December 
2023 to March 2024. The selection of  the place of  
study is through convenient sampling due to its vicinity 
given the limited time frame. Hence, the study for the 
MEUFA will take place at Masipi Hall in Cabagan, 
Isabela, while the TUFGA is at Caligayan, Tumauini, 
Isabela. Meanwhile, LGU and DENR personnel will 
carry out their respective tasks at their offi ce addresses. 
Below is the location map of  the two (2) CBFM sites. 
The Masipi East, Cabagan, Isabela, and the Caligayan, 
Tumauini, Isabela, respectively.



Pa
ge

 
93

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

Respondents and Sampling Procedure
Total Enumeration was employed for DENR-CENRO 
and MENRO who are directly involved in the CBFM 
Project. While for the MEUFA and TUFGA total 
enumeration was employed for the offi cers. However, 
Cochran’s Formula was conducted, where n is the 
sample size, N is the population size, and e is the level of  
precision (e=0.05): 
n= N/ 1 + (Ne)2

n= 349/ 1 + (349*0.05)2

n= 349/ 1 + (349*0.0025)
n= 349/ 372
n= 186

Data Gathering
The data gathering was conducted in three forms. Firstly, 
the survey questionnaire was administered to CBFM’s 
various stakeholders, such as 39 MEUFA members, 147 
TUFGA members, nine (9) DENR-CENRO personnel, 
three (3) LGU Tumauini-MENRO, and three (3) LGU 
Cabagan-MENRO. These interviews were focused 
on understanding their perceptions of  participatory 
approaches, the challenges faced, and the decision-
making processes involved. Also, the level/forms of  
participation were evaluated during this phase. Secondly, 
the Focus Group Discussions (FGD) - Organized 
focus group discussions with representative groups of  

Figure 1: Location Map of  CBFM Masipi East, Cabagan, Isabela (DENR-CENRO, 2023)

Figure 2: Location Map of  CBFM Caligayan, Tumauini, Isabela (DENR-CENRO,)



Pa
ge

 
94

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

stakeholders to facilitate group interactions and capture 
diverse perspectives on participatory approaches in 
social forestry. This was also to support the quantitative 
data that this study exported. The survey schedule and 
FGD were on a separate date after the quantitative data 
had been tabulated and initially analyzed. Thirdly, the 
Document Analysis - Analyze relevant policy documents, 
reports, and project documents to understand the formal 
processes and frameworks for stakeholder engagement 
and decision-making in social forestry. Reports from 
DENR and MENRO were collected for this purpose. 
The data-gathering procedure involved seeking 
permission from the higher authorities. The researcher 
delivered a letter to DENR CENRO, and the same 

procedure was applied to the LGU-MENRO.

Data Analysis
The collected data were transcribed, coded, and thematically 
analyzed for qualitative data. Themes were identifi ed to 
explore patterns and variations in stakeholder engagement, 
decision-making processes, and perceptions of  the levels 
and forms of  participation in social forestry. On the other 
hand, quantitative data was used in the treatment using the 
mean, frequency counts, ranking, and percent values. The 
following scales were used for the descriptive equivalent, 
to wit: the respondents’ Typology of  Participation in the 
implementation of  the CBFM project in the barangay was 
measured using the Five Point Likert Scale;

Table 1: 5-Point Likert Scale
Scale Descriptive Equivalent (DE)
Scale Range Qualitative Description
5 4.21 – 5.00 Strongly Agree (SA)
4 3.41 – 4.20 Agree (A)
3 2.61 – 3.40 Neutral/Uncertain (N/U)
2 1.81 – 2.60 Disagree (D)
1 1.00 – 1.80 Strongly Disagree (SD

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Levels and Forms of  Participation Perceived by 
Implementer-Respondents in the Preparatory Phase 
of  the CBFM Program
Preparatory Phase 
Table 2 shows the level of  participation of  the 
implementer-respondents in the preparatory phase of  
the CBFM program, particularly on the creation of  the 
CRMF Facilitator’s team. The implementer-respondents 
agree that there were discussions and analyses made 
between them and the benefi ciaries on what they want 
to achieve in the project with a mean of  3.80, rank 1. 
This suggests an interactive (empowering) level of  
participation by the CENRO and MENRO respondents, 
based on the Typology of  Participation, in the creation 
of  facilitators in the CRMF. Per DENR Administrative 
Order No. 2003-11, applications for CBFMAs require 
endorsement from the Legislative Councils of  the 
Barangay, Municipal, and Provincial Local Government 
Units. To facilitate this process, the CENRO is mandated 
to conduct orientations for local executives to help 
them better understand the CBFM objectives, concepts, 
principles, and activities (FMB, n.d.) 
The next phase is the gathering of  related documents 
needed in the preparatory phase. The data shows that 
the implementer-respondents also agree that they were 
actively interacting with the team and their voice infl uenced 
the decisions in gathering important documents needed 
in CRFM, with a mean score of  3.60, rank 1, suggesting 
an interactive (empowering) participation by the CENRO 
and MENRO, as their ideas and opinions were taken into 
consideration.  

This section presents the level of  participation by the 
implementer-respondents in the preparation of  maps. 
It was also revealed that they agreed to participate in 
fi nalizing and printing the CBFMA maps, with a mean 
of  3.47, rank 1. This also suggests that the respondents 
believe their involvement in the preparation of  maps was 
signifi cant and contributed to the project’s overall success, 
making it classifi ed as an empowered participation in the 
Typology of  Participation. 
The segment of  the table presents the level of  
participation by the implementer-respondents in the 
coordination with the community and PO, as well as the 
reconnaissance survey. Overall, the respondents agree 
that they freely expressed their opinions and took other 
kinds of  initiative in scheduling and setting the venue of  
CRMF activities, including listing key informants, with a 
mean rating of  3.67, rank 1). This also falls under the 
interactive or empowered level of  participation. In general, 
the data suggests that the implementer-respondents 
had a moderate to high level of  participation in the 
coordination with the community and PO, particularly in 
activities where they could express their opinions and take 
initiative. However, there were instances where they did 
not participate or only served as an audience, indicating a 
lower level of  engagement in these activities. 
The last part of  this preparatory phase is the PO 
orientation/PO planning team’s training on CRMF. 
It revealed that they also agreed to participate in the 
orientation on the importance of  forest, CBFM, and 
CRMF formulation securing the preparation of  CRMF, 
expressed opinions, and took other initiatives (3.67, rank 
1). The CRMF is a key component of  the CBFM program, 



Pa
ge

 
95

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

as it “shall indicate, among others, the community’s and 
the PO’s mission, vision and objectives; a summary of  
situation analysis; the guiding principles to be followed 
in plan preparation; indicative community resource 
development and use plans; internal management 
arrangements including benefi t sharing; external supports 
needed; and internal monitoring and evaluation system 
to be adopted.” This comprehensive framework is crucial 
for guiding the sustainable management and utilization of  
forest resources by the local communities (DENR,1996). 

Overall, the implementer-respondents “agree” fall under 
interactive or empowered participation in the preparatory 
phase of  the CBFM program. This implies that the 
agreed result could be attributed to shared responsibilities 
among all stakeholders. The preparatory stage is very 
important to the success of  the CBFM program. It 
sets the foundation for the program’s implementation 
and ensures that the community is equipped with the 
necessary skills, knowledge, and resources to manage the 
forest resources effectively.

Table 2: Level of  Participation by the Implementer-Respondents in the Preparatory Phase 
Item Forms of  Participation Weighted 

Mean
Descriptive 
Equivalent 

Rank

Creation of  CRMF Facilitator’s Team 
1 I was only informed to be one of  the participants of  the Community 

Based Forest Management (CBFM) project
2.87 Neutral/ 

Uncertain (N/U)
3

2 The implementers asked my opinion about the CBFM but did not 
include me in the decision-making.

2.67 Neutral/ 
Uncertain (N/U)

4

Creation of  CRMF Facilitator’s Team 
3 There were discussions and analyses made between us and the 

implementers on what we wanted to achieve in the project. 
3.80 Agree (A) 1

4 I willingly and actively participated in the discussion of  the project 
during the planning stage. 

3.73 Agree (A) 2

Gathering of  Related Documents Needed
5 I was only a member of  the team and took no part in the gathering 

of  related documents needed for CRFM
2.60 Neutral/ 

Uncertain (N/U)
3

Gathering of  Related Documents Needed
6 I willingly took part in the gathering of  related documents needed 

for CRMF without an assurance that my ideas would infl uence the 
decisions.

3.47 Agree (A) 2

7 I was actively interacting with the team and my voice infl uenced the 
decisions in gathering important documents needed in CRMF. 

3.60 Agree (A) 1

Creation of  CRMF Facilitator’s Team 
8 I was tasked to take part in securing the maps 2.93 Neutral/ 

Uncertain (N/U)
3

9 I took the initiative of  participating in the fi nalization and printing 
of  the CBFMA maps

3.33 Neutral/ 
Uncertain (N/U)

2

10 My participation in the fi nalization and printing of  the CBFMA 
maps is valuable.

3.47 Agree (A) 1

Coordination with the Community and PO and Reconnaissance Survey  
11 I was part of  the team but took no part in the decision-making of  

the activities being done like scheduling and setting of  venue of  
CRMF activities including listing of  key informants  

3.40 Neutral/ 
Uncertain (N/U)

1

12 I was a member of  the team but did not participate or only an 
audience in the GPS reading, community mapping activities and did 
not familiarize myself  with the CBFM Area 

3.07 Neutral/ 
Uncertain (N/U)

3

Coordination with the Community and PO and Reconnaissance Survey  
13 I was included in the team however I served as a listener and 

audience on GPS reading, identifying areas of  community mapping, 
printing maps

3.20 Neutral/ 
Uncertain (N/U)

2

14 I am part of  the group however I did not participate in the creation 
of  a PO resolution or planning

3.00 Neutral/ 
Uncertain (N/U)

3



Pa
ge

 
96

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

Planning Phase 
Table 3 presents the level of  participation by the 
implementer-respondents in the planning phase of  
community mapping activities. The respondents agree 
that they were included in the updating of  the community 
map, asked for their opinions on a specifi c matter, and 
asked to undertake a specifi c task in the decision-making 
process with a mean score of  3.53. This gained an activity-
specifi c participation in the Typology of  Participation. 
This implies that participation is manifested in all actors 
of  the project, the community people, MENRO and 
CENRO. During the KII with the LGU Cabagan, she 
shared, and I quote; “As to our participation, yes, we are 
involved in the community organizing.” In like manner, 
the community people were also included in the mapping 
activities. Based on Oy (2023) engaging the community 
in the planning process from the beginning, ensures 
that they are aware of  the goals and objectives of  the 
project. It will likewise empower the local community 
to determine the assets, resources, and barriers that may 
arise in the implementation of  the CBFM program.
This segment reveals the level of  participation by the 
implementer-respondents in the validation of  community, 
and PO profi le. The data shows a mean rating of  3.53, 
agree, falls under activity-specifi c participation, meaning 
they were asked for their opinions on a specifi c matter 
and asked to undertake a specifi c task in the decision-
making process. The validation workshops are conducted 
for stakeholders to discuss and validate the community 
and PO profi les. This helps to ensure that all stakeholders 
are involved and their concerns are addressed (USAID-
ME, 2008).
Regarding the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and 
Challenges (SWOC) Analysis, implementer-respondents 

also agree that they were included in analyzing the SWOC 
of  the community, and the PO, and asked to undertake 
specifi c activities in the decision-making process with 
a mean rating of  3.67, classifi ed as activity-specifi c 
participation. SWOC analysis helps identify the internal 
and external factors that can impact the success of  the 
CBFM program. According to Nzunda & Manyanda 
(2023), collaboration between the community is essential 
for effective CBFM, and a long-term conservation of  
forest resources is ensured.  
In the section on defi ning the vision, mission, goals, 
and objectives, the data shows that respondents also 
agree with their participation with a mean rating of  3.73, 
indicating activity-specifi c participation. This suggests 
that some respondents only listened to the decision-
making process. The creation of  VMGO helps ensure 
that the organization stays focused on its objectives and 
makes progress toward achieving its vision, it also helps 
to create a sense of  identity and purpose within the 
organization, which is essential for inspiring employees 
to work towards a common goal (USAID-ME, 2008).
This part of  the activity also reveals that the implementer-
respondents agreed that they were included in the vision 
mapping and asked their opinions on a specifi c matter 
that infl uenced the decision-making with a mean rating 
of  3.73. This shows an activity-specifi c participation by 
the respondents. This activity is essential as it will give a 
clear direction for guiding the development strategies and 
activities (USAID-ME, 2008).
The last part of  this phase is the Formulation of  Strategies 
and Activities, wherein revealed an agreed participation by 
the implementer-respondents with a mean rating of  3.47 
making it an activity-specifi c level of  participation. While 
some respondents only listened to the decision-making, 
others were actively involved in the process, including 
providing opinions and undertaking specifi c tasks. This 
activity provides a framework for adapting to changing 
circumstances, ensuring that the CBFM program remains 
relevant and effective over time (Bacalla, 2006).

15 I was included in the team but did not take part in the setting of  the 
schedule and venues of  CRMF and identifying the key informants

3.07 Neutral/ 
Uncertain (N/U)

2

16 I freely expressed my opinions and took other kinds of  initiative 
in scheduling and setting the venue of  CRMF activities including 
listing key informants

3.67 Agree (A) 1

PO Orientation/PO Planning Team’s Training on CRMF 
17 I was included in the orientation on the importance of  forest, 

CBFM, and CRMF formulation including the preparation of  
CRMF but took no part in or only listened to the decision-making.

3.40 Neutral/ 
Uncertain (N/U)

2

18 I was included in the orientation on the importance of  forest, 
CBFM, and CRMF formulation including the preparation of  
CRMF expressed opinions, and took other initiatives.

3.67 Agree (A) 1

4.21 – 5.00 - Strongly Agree (SA)
3.41 – 4.20 - Agree (A)
2.60 – 3.40 - Neutral/Uncertain (N/U)
1.80 – 2.60 - Disagree (D)
1.00 – 1.80 - Strongly Disagree (SD)



Pa
ge

 
97

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

Implementation Phase
Table 4 the key points regarding the level of  participation 
of  the implementer-respondents in the implementation 
phase of  the CBFM program in Masipi East, Cabagan, 
and Caligayan, Tumauni, Isabela. The fi rst activity in this 
phase is to focus on the integration/ consolidation of  
outputs for the packaging of  CRMF. It seems that the 

implementer-respondents agreed with the 3.53 mean 
rating, that they were included in the packaging of  CRMF 
such as validated community and PO profi le, updated 
community CRFM areas, statement of  VMGO, and the 
25-year and the-year matrix of  strategies and activities, 
and took part in a specifi c activity that infl uence the 
decision. This resulted in an activity-specifi c level of  
participation of  the respondents. This activity serves as 
a comprehensive framework that guides the sustainable 
management and utilization of  forest resources by the 
local communities (DENR, 1996). The data implies 
varied participation by the CENRO and MENRO, while 

Table 3: Level of  Participation of  the Implementer-Respondents in the Planning Phase  
Item Forms of  Participation Weighted 

Mean
Descriptive 
Equivalent 

Rank

Community Mapping 
1 I was included in the updating of  the community map but took no 

part or only listened to decision-making.
2.87 Neutral/ 

Uncertain (N/U)
2

2 I was included in the updating of  the community map and asked for 
my opinions on a specifi c matter and asked to undertake a specifi c 
task in the decision-making process.

3.53 Agree (A) 1

Validation of  Community and PO Profi le 
3 I was included in validating the community and PO profi le but took 

no part or only listened to decision-making. 
2.67 Neutral/ 

Uncertain (N/U)
2

Strengthens Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges (SWOC) Analysis
4 I was included in validating the community and PO profi le and 

asked for my opinions on a specifi c matter and asked to undertake 
a specifi c task in the decision-making process.

3.53 Agree (A) 1

5 I was included in analyzing the SWOC of  the community and the 
PO but took no part or only listened in the decision-making.

2.53 Neutral/ 
Uncertain (N/U)

2

6 I was included in analyzing the SWOC of  the community and the 
PO and asked for my opinions on a specifi c matter and asked to 
undertake a specifi c task in the decision-making process.  

3.67 Agree (A) 1

Defi ning the vision, mission, goals, and objectives  
7 I was included in defi ning the vision, mission, goals, and objectives 

but took no part or only listened in the decision-making.
2.53 Neutral/ 

Uncertain (N/U)
2

8 I was included in defi ning the vision, mission, goals, and objectives 
and asked for my opinions on a specifi c matter, and asked to 
undertake a specifi c task in the decision-making process.  

3.73 Agree (A) 1

Vision Mapping
9 I was included in the vision mapping but took no part or only 

listened to the decision-making.
2.47 Neutral/ 

Uncertain (N/U)
2

10 I was included in the vision mapping and asked for my opinions 
on a specifi c matter related to mapping and asked to undertake a 
specifi c task in the decision-making process.

3.73 Agree (A) 1

Formulation of  Strategies and Activities
11 I was included in the formulation of  25-year strategies and activities 

and a fi ve-year work Plan but took no part or only listened in the 
decision-making.

2.67 Neutral/ 
Uncertain (N/U)

2

12 I was included in the formulation of  25-year strategies and activities 
and a fi ve-year Plan and asked for my opinions on a specifi c matter 
related to strategies and activities and asked to undertake a specifi c 
task in the decision-making process.

3.47 Agree (A) 1

4.21 – 5.00 - Strongly Agree (SA)
3.41 – 4.20 - Agree (A)
2.60 – 3.40 - Neutral/Uncertain (N/U)
1.80 – 2.60 - Disagree (D)
1.00 – 1.80 - Strongly Disagree (SD)



Pa
ge

 
98

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

this level requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders 
to ensure that the CFMF is aligned with the community’s 
needs and priorities and that the local stakeholders are 
committed to its successful implementation. However, 
based on Asad, et al. (2024) it is very challenging 
to successfully implement a plan that requires the 
collaborative participation of  government agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and local communities.    
This section pertains to the consultation and ratifi cation 
of  CRMF. The data indicates that the average score 
for this activity is 3.60, falling within the agreed-upon 
descriptive range. This suggests that the implementer-
respondents actively participated in the process to ensure 

that the CRMF would be benefi cial for the sustainable 
management and utilization of  forest resources by local 
communities. The level of  participation in this section 
is specifi c to the activity, based on the typology of  
participation. Furthermore, it seems that the participation 
ranges from passive to active in the consultation and 
ratifi cation of  the CRMF, indicating the need for 
empowered participation to be observed.
On the affi rmation of  CRM, Issuance, and Approval of  
CRMF, the respondents also agree with a mean score 
of  3.67 that they took part in the specifi c task and their 
opinions were valid in the decision-making process. 
Making this an activity-specifi c participation.

Table 4: Level of  Participation of  Implementer-Respondents in the Implementation Phase  
Item Forms of  Participation Weighted 

Mean
Descriptive 
Equivalent 

Rank

Integration/ Consolidation of  Outputs for the Packaging of  CRMF
1 I was included in the packaging of  CRMF such as validated community 

and PO profi le, updated community CRFM areas, statement of  
VMGO, and the 25-year and the-year matrix of  strategies and 
activities but took no part or only listened in the decision-making.

2.67 Neutral/ 
Uncertain (N/U)

2

Integration/ Consolidation of  Outputs for the Packaging of  CRMF
2 I was included in the packaging of  CRMF such as validated community 

and PO profi le, updated community CRFM areas, statement of  
VMGO, and the 25-year and the-year matrix of  strategies and 
activities and asked for my opinions on a specifi c matter and asked to 
undertake a specifi c task in the decision-making process.

3.53 Agree (A) 1

Consultation and Ratifi cation of  CRMF
3 I was included in the ratifi cation of  CRMF but took no part or only 

listened to the decision-making.
2.80 Neutral/ 

Uncertain (N/U)
2

4 I was included in the ratifi cation of  CRMF and asked for my 
opinions on a specifi c matter and asked to undertake a specifi c task 
in the decision-making process.  

3.60 Agree (A) 1

Affi rmation of  CRM, Issuance, and Approval of  CRMF
5 I was included in the affi rmation of  CRMF but took no part or only 

listened in the decision-making.
2.73 Neutral/ 

Uncertain (N/U)
2

6 I was included in the affi rmation of  CRMF and asked for my 
opinions on a specifi c matter and asked to undertake a specifi c task 
in the decision-making process.    

3.67 Agree (A) 1

4.21 – 5.00 - Strongly Agree (SA)
3.41 – 4.20 - Agree (A)
2.60 – 3.40 - Neutral/Uncertain (N/U)
1.80 – 2.60 - Disagree (D)
1.00 – 1.80 - Strongly Disagree (SD)

Levels and Forms of  Community-Respondents in 
Decision-Making Processes
Preparatory Phase 
The data shows the community respondents rate their 
level of  participation in the Community-Based Forest 
Management (CBFM) program in various steps of  
the preparatory stage. Kinyili (2023) pointed out that 
conservation management plans are increasingly seeking 
to integrate the perspectives of  local communities. The 

CBFM creation of  the facilitator’s team indicates that 
most respondents do not feel included in the decision-
making process, with 2.42 and 2.07 being the average 
ratings for the fi rst two statements. However, with a 
rating of  2.71, the third statement received a higher 
rating, indicating a more neutral response. Based on 
Jallah, et al. (2017), this can be attributed to several 
factors such as lack of  representation, resources lack, and 
capacity lack. The fourth statement received the highest 
rating of  4.02, indicating that most respondents actively 
or collaboratively participated in the discussion of  the 
project during this stage, based on the “Typology of  
Participation”.  According to FAO (1998), participation is 
crucial to ensure that planning refl ects the priorities and 



Pa
ge

 
99

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

interests of  all major groups and that they are committed 
to translating planning into action. The President of  the 
MUEFA shared their experience during the creation of  
the CRFM Team, below is his statement:
“Kami po ang nagdetermine ng offi cers, kasi yung team 
na binuo namin, ako yung magdedecide pero siyempre 
pinagbotohan lapa namin. Ang DENR ang nagfacilitatie. 
Andito naman ang board of  directors namagdesisyon sa 
mga gagawin namin na projects.” (We determined the 
offi cers, the team we created, I was the one who decided 
but it was still undergone voting facilitated by the DENR. 
The Board of  Directors (BOD) are the ones to decide for 
the project that we are going to pursue). 
The President of  TUFGA stated:
“Dakami ti nagboto ti offi cers’ Sir. Pero adda ti DENR 
nga nagfacilitate diyay eleksiyon. Isuda ti nagpreside. 
Mabuti at active ang support ng LGU at DENR sa amin 
Sir. Sa katunayan madami na kaming miyembo.” (We 
are the ones who voted Sir but the DENR was there to 
facilitate the voting of  offi cers. We are glad that the LGU 
and DENR are very supportive of  our association. In 
fact, our members were increased).
On the aspect of  gathering related documents needed to 
facilitate the contract for CBFM. These responses indicate 
that most individuals did not feel fully involved in the 
gathering of  related documents for the CBFM project. 
The fi rst statement received a neutral rating (3.31), 
suggesting that some individuals were merely present but 
did not actively participate. The second statement received 
a disagree rating (2.33), indicating that most individuals 
did not feel their ideas were taken into account during the 
gathering process. A neutral rating of  2.90, was received 
by the third statement, suggesting that some individuals 
were involved but their voices were not infl uential. 
The results indicate that some people were involved in 
gathering related documents, while others did not feel 
fully included. This shows the need for more inclusive 
and participatory approaches to forest management. 
According to the Typology of  Participation, this only 
qualifi es as “consultative participation.” This means, 
accordingly, that the decision-making lies in the hands of  
an external group. Mohan (2008) suggests that involving 
the individuals who stand to benefi t from development 
programs can lead to increased sustainability and success 
in the execution of  such projects. 
The result suggests that most individuals did not feel 
fully involved in the map preparation process. The fi rst 
statement received a neutral rating of  3.39, indicating 
that some individuals were assigned specifi c roles but did 
not feel fully engaged. The second statement received a 
disagree rating (2.55), showing that most individuals did 

not take the initiative to participate in the fi nalization and 
printing of  the maps. The third statement received a neutral 
rating (2.92), suggesting that some individuals felt their 
participation was valuable but did not feel fully included. 
Based on the data, it revealed that their participation was 
likewise a “consultative participation”. It means that their 
participation is not a guarantee that infl uences the decision-
making processes. However, based on the FGD with the 
offi cers they shared at random:
“Kasama po kami sa mapping, pumunta kami sa area tapos 
nagworkshop po kami gamit ang manila paper at ginuhit 
namin kung saan banda ang mga kahoy, mga gulay at iba 
pa pong meron sa aming komunidad. Siyempre tinulungan 
po kami ng tiga DENR” (We are included in the mapping 
activity, we went to the area after which we had our 
workshop using manila paper, we drew the location of  the 
trees, crops and other forest and community resources).
On the coordination with the community and PO and 
reconnaissance survey. The dominant or rank 1 statement 
with a 4.04 rating is “I was included in the team however 
I served as a listener and audience on GPS reading, 
identifying areas of  community mapping, and printing 
maps. This means that the level of  participation by the 
benefi ciaries in this activity is “passive participation”. 
They do not form part of  the decision-making or the 
so-called ex-post facto (FAO, 2003). Nevertheless, the 
sixth statement received an agree (3.81, rank 2) rating, 
suggesting that some individuals freely expressed their 
opinions and took other kinds of  initiative in scheduling 
and setting the venue of  CRMF activities including listing 
key informants. This means that this group of  participants 
has “active (collaborative) participation.” 
The last section of  Table 15 presents the PO Orientation/
PO Planning Team’s Training on CRMF. These responses 
indicate that most individuals were included in the 
orientation on the importance of  forest, CBFM, and 
CRMF formulation, including the preparation of  CRMF. 
However, there is a difference in the level of  participation 
and engagement. The fi rst statement suggests that some 
individuals were included in the orientation but did not 
participate in decision-making (3.85, Agree), while the 
second statement suggests that some individuals not only 
participated in the orientation but also expressed opinions 
and took other initiatives (3.51, Agree). A study released in 
the Journal of  Environmental Management (2019) revealed 
that involving the community in forest management can 
result in more sustainable and effi cient outcomes. The 
research concluded that “community involvement in 
forest management can enhance the effectiveness of  forest 
management by garnering greater community support and 
minimizing confl icts among various stakeholders”.

Table 5: Level of  Participation of  Community Respondents in the Preparatory Phase  
Item Forms of  Participation Weighted 

Mean
Descriptive 
Equivalent 

Rank

Creation of  CRMF Facilitator’s Team
1 I was only informed to be one of  the participants of  the Community 

Based Forest Management (CBFM) project
2.42 Disagree 3



Pa
ge

 
10

0

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

2 The implementers asked my opinion about the CBFM but did not 
include me in the decision-making.

2.07 Disagree 4

3 There were discussions and analyses made between us and the implementers 
on what we wanted to achieve in the project. 

2.71 Neutral 2

4 I willingly and actively participated in the discussion of  the project during 
the planning stage. 

4.02 Agree 1

Gathering of  Related Documents Needed
5 I was only a member of  the team and took no part in the gathering of  

related documents needed for CRFM
3.31 Neutral 1

6 I willingly took part in the gathering of  related documents needed for 
CRMF without an assurance that my ideas would infl uence the decisions.

2.33 Disagree 3

7 I was actively interacting with the team and my voice infl uenced the 
decisions in gathering important documents needed in CRMF. 

2.90 Neutral 2

Preparation of  Maps
8 I was tasked to take part in securing the maps 3.39 Neutral 1
9 I took the initiative of  participating in the fi nalization and printing of  

the CBFMA maps
2.55 Disagree 3

10 My participation in the fi nalization and printing of  the CBFMA maps is 
valuable.

2.92 Neutral 2

Coordination with the Community and PO and Reconnaissance Survey   
11 I was part of  the team but took no part in the decision-making of  the 

activities being done like scheduling and setting of  venue of  CRMF 
activities including listing of  key informants  

2.89 Neutral 4

Coordination with the Community and PO and Reconnaissance Survey   
12 I was a member of  the team but did not participate or only an audience 

in the GPS reading, community mapping activities and did not familiarize 
myself  with the CBFM Area 

3.30 Neutral 3

13 I was included in the team however I served as a listener and audience 
on GPS reading, identifying areas of  community mapping, printing maps

4.04 Agree 1

14 I am part of  the group however I did not participate in the creation of  a 
PO resolution or planning

2.70 Neutral 5

15 I was included in the team but did not take part in the setting of  the 
schedule and venues of  CRMF and identifying the key informants

2.63 Neutral 6

16 I freely expressed my opinions and took other kinds of  initiative in scheduling 
and setting the venue of  CRMF activities including listing key informants.

3.81 Agree 2

PO Orientation/PO Planning Team’s Training on CRMF
17 I was included in the orientation on the importance of  forest, CBFM, 

and CRMF formulation including the preparation of  CRMF but took no 
part in or only listened to the decision-making.

3.85 Agree 1

18 I was included in the orientation on the importance of  forest, CBFM, 
and CRMF formulation including the preparation of  CRMF expressed 
opinions, and took other initiatives.

3.51 Agree 2

4.21 – 5.00 - Strongly Agree (SA)
3.41 – 4.20 - Agree (A)
2.60 – 3.40 - Neutral/Uncertain (N/U)
1.80 – 2.60 - Disagree (D)
1.00 – 1.80 - Strongly Disagree (SD)

updating the community map, but there were varying levels 
of  participation. The fi rst statement implies that some 
individuals were involved but didn’t actively contribute to 
the decision-making process with a rating of  2.62 (neutral), 
while the second statement suggests that some individuals 
were both involved and actively participated in making 
decisions (3.88, Agree). This reveals that respondents agree 
that they have an “activity-specifi c participation”, based on 
the Typology of  Participation. Based on the FGD they also 
revealed their participation in this: 

Planning Phase 
The text below explains the phases of  planning in the 
CBFM program, highlighting eight sub-activities that will 
be discussed to assess the level of  participation by the 
respondents. It seems that most people were involved in 



Pa
ge

 
10

1

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

“Ang ginawa po namin ay community mapping, kung saan 
dinrowing po naming kung saan ang school, residential 
areas, church, lalong lalo ng po ang CBFM sites. Linagyan 
naming ng marka kung saan ang mga puno at crops 
ganun sa mga bahay at iba pang nakatayo sa aming 
komunidad” (What we made was community mapping, 
we drew the school, residential areas, church, and most 
especially the CBFM sites. We made markings where are 
the trees, and crops, houses and other infrastructures in 
the community).
The participatory planning process fosters trust within 
your organization, among the community, and the 
individuals involved. This trust forms a solid foundation 
for future community development and actionable 
initiatives FAO (2003); Tufte & Paolo (2009) It is 
recommended that active participation from local citizens 
and other stakeholders during the design stage should 
improve the quality and relevance of  the proposed 
interventions.
The second activity revealed that the benefi ciaries have a 
neutral rating (3.36) on the statement “I was included in 
validating the community and PO profi le and asked for 
my opinions on a specifi c matter and asked to undertake a 
specifi c task in the decision-making process”. On the other 
hand, some respondents were included in the validation 
process but did not participate in decision-making with 
a 2.77 or neutral rating. This activity was revealed to 
have “activity-specifi c participation” by the respondents. 
This implies that the respondents’ participation is being 
assigned to them because of  the nature of  the activity. 
It requires indigenous knowledge about the community.
The data reveals the responses of  respondents on their 
levels of  participation in the Strengthens Weaknesses, 
Opportunities, and Challenges (SWOC) Analysis 
conducted in the community. These responses indicate 
that most individuals were included in the analysis process, 
but there is a difference in the level of  participation 

and engagement. The fi rst statement suggests that 
some individuals were included in the analysis but did 
not participate in decision-making (2.75, Neutral, rank 
2), while the second statement suggests that some 
individuals were included and actively participated in 
decision-making (3.53, Agree, rank 1). This activity falls 
under “activity-specifi c participation” wherein they were 
asked to undertake specifi c tasks during the conduct of  
SWOT analysis. 
This portion tackles the participation level of  the 
respondents in defi ning the vision, mission, goals, and 
objectives (VMGO) of  their association. Based on the 
data, respondents “Agree (3.36, rank 1) that they were 
included in this activity and asked for their opinions 
to arrive at a decision. On the other hand, 3.02 or 
Neutral, rank 2 responded that they only listened in the 
conceptualization of  their VMGO. This data shows that 
they have activity-specifi c participation. 
On the aspect of  vision mapping, the data revealed that 
3.86 of  the respondents agreed that they asked for their 
opinions related to vision mapping and took part in the 
decision-making processes, while 3.06 of  the respondents 
were neutral saying that they were included in the 
vision mapping but took no part or only listened to the 
decision-making. This shows that have activity-specifi c 
participation in the vision mapping sessions. 
This section on the formulation of  strategies and activities 
presents the responses as follows: 3.37 individuals agreed 
that they were included in the formulation of  25-year 
strategies and activities including the fi ve-year plan and 
asked for my opinions on a specifi c matter related to 
strategies and activities and asked to undertake a specifi c 
task in the decision-making process. On the other hand, 
2.75 or neutral revealed that they form part of  the 
planning but as a listener in the process. This likewise 
reveals that respondents demonstrate a specifi c activity 
participation. 

Table 6: Level of  Participation of  Community Respondents in the Planning Phase  
Item Forms of  Participation Weighted 

Mean
Descriptive 
Equivalent 

Rank

Community Mapping 
1 I was included in the updating of  the community map but took no part or 

only listened to decision-making.
2.61 Neutral 2

2 I was included in the updating of  the community map and asked for my 
opinions on a specifi c matter, and asked to undertake a specifi c task in 
the decision-making process.

3.88 Agree 1

Validation of  Community and PO Profi le
3 I was included in validating the community and PO profi le but took no 

part or only listened to decision-making. 
2.77 Neutral 2

4 I was included in validating the community and PO profi le and asked for 
my opinions on a specifi c matter and asked to undertake a specifi c task 
in the decision-making process.

3.36 Neutral 1

Strengthens Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges (SWOC) Analysis  
5 I was included in analyzing the SWOC of  the community and the PO 

but took no part or only listened in the decision-making.
2.75 Neutral 2



Pa
ge

 
10

2

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

6 I was included in analyzing the SWOC of  the community and the PO 
and asked for my opinions on a specifi c matter and asked to undertake a 
specifi c task in the decision-making process.  

3.53 Agree 1

Defi ning the vision, mission, goals, and objectives 
7 I was included in defi ning the vision, mission, goals, and objectives but 

took no part or only listened in the decision-making.
3.02 Neutral 2

8 I was included in defi ning the vision, mission, goals, and objectives and 
asked for my opinions on a specifi c matter, and asked to undertake a 
specifi c task in the decision-making process.  

3.63 Agree 1

Vision Mapping
9 I was included in the vision mapping but took no part or only listened 

to the decision-making.
3.06 Neutral 2

10 I was included in the vision mapping and asked for my opinions on a 
specifi c matter related to mapping and asked to undertake a specifi c task 
in the decision-making process

3.86 Agree 1

11 I was included in the formulation of  25-year strategies and activities and a 
fi ve-year work Plan but took no part or only listened in the decision-making.

2.78 Neutral 2

12 I was included in the formulation of  25-year strategies and activities and 
a fi ve-year Plan and asked for my opinions on a specifi c matter related 
to strategies and activities and asked to undertake a specifi c task in the 
decision-making process

3.87 Agree 1

4.21 – 5.00 - Strongly Agree (SA)
3.41 – 4.20 - Agree (A)
2.60 – 3.40 - Neutral/Uncertain (N/U)
1.80 – 2.60 - Disagree (D)
1.00 – 1.80 - Strongly Disagree (SD)

Implementation Phase
This phase consisted of  three major sub-activities such 
as the integration/ consolidation of  outputs for the 
packaging of  CRMF, consultation and ratifi cation of  
CRMF, and affi rmation of  CRM, issuance and approval 
of  CRMF. The responses in this activity indicate that 
most individuals were included in the packaging process, 
but there is a difference in the level of  participation and 
engagement. The second statement in the activity ranks 
1 with a 3.86 mean with a descriptive rating of  agree by 
the respondents. It states that respondents were included 
in the packaging of  CRMF such as validated community 
and PO profi le, updated community CRFM areas, 
statement of  VMGO, and the 25-year and the-year matrix 

of  strategies and activities and asked for my opinions on a 
specifi c matter and asked to undertake a specifi c task in the 
decision-making process, while 3.47 also agreed on their 
participation as merely listener of  the decisions about this 
matter. If  we look into the level of  participation, they 
performed activity-specifi c participation. 
Consultation and ratifi cation of  CRMF was one of  the 
activities in this phase, it has revealed their participation as 
activity-specifi c participation because they only undertake 
a specifi c task with a mean rating of  3.86 (Agree). But 
then a 2.67 mean rating (Agree) revealed that they took 
no part in the decision-making.  
For the ratifi cation of  CRM, issuance, and approval of  
CRMF, a 3.73 mean rating (Agree) has responded stating 
that they were tasked to perform a specifi c undertaking 
that infl uenced the decision falls under activity-specifi c 
participation. On the other hand, 2.68 (Neutral) shows 
that their participation is nominal or took no part in the 
decision.

Table 7: Level of  Participation of  Community Respondents in the Implementation Phase  
Item Forms of  Participation Weighted 

Mean
Descriptive 
Equivalent 

Rank

Integration/ Consolidation of  Outputs for the Packaging of  CRMF
1 I was included in the packaging of  CRMF such as validated community 

and PO profi le, updated community CRFM areas, statement of  VMGO, 
and the 25-year and the-year matrix of  strategies and activities but took 
no part or only listened in the decision-making.

3.47 Agree 2

2 I was included in the packaging of  CRMF such as validated community 
and PO profi le, updated community CRFM areas, statement of  VMGO, 
and the 25-year and the-year matrix of  strategies and activities and asked 
for my opinions on a specifi c matter and asked to undertake a specifi c 
task in the decision-making process.  

3.86 Agree 1



Pa
ge

 
10

3

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

Consultation and Ratifi cation of  CRMF
3 I was included in the ratifi cation of  CRMF but took no part or only 

listened to the decision-making.
2.67 Neutral 2

4 I was included in the ratifi cation of  CRMF and asked for my opinions on 
a specifi c matter and asked to undertake a specifi c task in the decision-
making process.  

3.64 Agree 1

Affi rmation of  CRM, Issuance, and Approval of  CRMF
5 I was included in the affi rmation of  CRMF but took no part or only 

listened in the decision-making.
2.68 Neutral 2

6 I was included in the affi rmation of  CRMF and asked for my opinions on 
a specifi c matter and asked to undertake a specifi c task in the decision-
making process.   

3.73 Agree 1

4.21 – 5.00 - Strongly Agree (SA)
3.41 – 4.20 - Agree (A)
2.60 – 3.40 - Neutral/Uncertain (N/U)
1.80 – 2.60 - Disagree (D)
1.00 – 1.80 - Strongly Disagree (SD)

CONCLUSION
The CBFM implementation at Masipi East and Caligayan 
by the DENR-CENRO and MENRO showed strong 
engagement in creating the CRMF Facilitator’s team, 
gathering documents, preparing maps, and coordinating 
with the community and PO. Active participation also 
appeared in community mapping, profi le validation, 
SWOC analysis, defi ning VMGOs, and formulating 
strategies. While in the implementation phase, 
implementers were involved in integrating CRMF 
outputs, consulting and rectifying CRMF, and issuing and 
approving CRMF.  
On the contrary, the community members had limited 
involvement in the decision-making processes for creating 
the CRMF team, gathering documents, and preparing maps.  
Mainly, their participation was passive. However, they are 
involved in validating profi les, updating CRMF areas, and 
formulating strategies, but still, their authority is limited in 
the decision-making. were community’s participation in 
consulting and ratifying CRMF were also low, especially 
during the ratifi cation, issuance, and approval of  CRMF. 
Based on the study’s fi ndings, it is noticeable that more 
inclusive strategies are needed. The obvious contrast 
between the active implementers and the more passive 
community respondents’ engagement highlights the 
necessity to enhance community involvement.   
Encouraging them to be actively involved in decision-
making  from  the preparatory, planning, and 
implementation phases is given emphasis. Support 
and nature of  their engagement by providing training 
and necessary resources to empower them to take on 
more responsibilities within the program. Organize 
regular training sessions to equip participants with the 
skills and knowledge needed for effective engagement. 
Establish continuous feedback mechanisms to capture 
and incorporate participant input and adjust the 
program accordingly. It’s crucial to create a collaborative 

environment where participants feel that their 
contributions are valued and impactful, particularly 
in mapping and community coordination activities. 
Encouraging active engagement and enhancing the 
capacity of  community members is essential for inclusive 
participation. Prioritize transparency and communication 
efforts to ensure that decision-making processes are clear 
and that participants’ inputs are used to build trust and 
foster empowered participation. Additionally, increase 
the representation of  stakeholders in decision-making 
forums to refl ect the diverse perspectives and needs of  
the community.

Novelty of  Research
The research introduces a fresh perspective by highlighting 
the contrast between the active involvement of  
implementers and the relatively passive role of  community 
members in implementing the Community-Based Forest 
Management (CBFM) program. The fi ndings emphasize 
the necessity of  more inclusive strategies that prioritize 
and empower community participation in decision-
making processes from the preparatory stages, planning 
stages through to the implementation phase.  
The study underscores the importance of  promoting 
active community involvement by providing training, 
and necessary resources, and fostering a collaborative 
environment where their contributions are valued. It 
recommends the organization of  regular training sessions 
to equip participants with the skills and knowledge 
required for effective engagement, the establishment 
of  feedback mechanisms to capture and integrate 
participant input, and the prioritization of  transparency 
and communication efforts to build trust and ensure clear 
decision-making processes. 
By advocating for enhanced capability building, 
empowered engagement, and increased stakeholder 
representation in decision-making forums, the research 
underscores the signifi cance of  fostering inclusive 
participation within the CBFM program.  This approach 
seeks to empower community members, enhance their 
decision-making authority, and create a more inclusive 
and impactful environment for sustainable forest 



Pa
ge

 
10

4

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

management practices. 
Contribution to Knowledge
This study contributes signifi cantly to the existing 
body of  knowledge in several ways. It emphasizes 
the disparity in engagement, underlining the contrast 
between active (empowered) implementers and passive 
community members, and stresses the importance of  
addressing power imbalances in conservation programs. 
Furthermore, it advocates for inclusive strategies that 
empower community participation in the three phases of  
carrying out the program: the preparatory, planning, and 
implementation phases, addressing a gap in the current 
literature. The research also highlights the importance 
of  capability building, training, and the creation of  
a collaborative environment to enhance community 
engagement initiatives. Additionally, it emphasizes 
the vital role of  transparency and communication in 
building trust, clarifying decision-making processes, and 
improving conservation outcomes. By advocating for 
increased stakeholder representation in decision-making 
forums, the research recognizes diverse perspectives and 
aims to create a more inclusive environment. Overall, this 
study provides valuable insights into community-based 
forest management, emphasizing the signifi cance of  
inclusive participation, capability building, transparency, 
and stakeholder engagement in promoting sustainable 
practices.    

Fulfi llment of  Research Gap
This research addresses a critical gap in the current 
literature by examining the dynamics of  community 
engagement in conservation programs. It emphasizes the 
imbalance between active (empowered) implementers and 
passive community members, highlighting the importance 
of  addressing power differentials. By advocating 
for inclusive strategies, the research accentuates the 
signifi cance of  empowering community participation 
during the preparatory, planning, and implementation 
stages, thus fi lling a notable void in the existing literature. 
Moreover, it reinforces the need for capability building 
and training to establish a collaborative environment that 
enhances community involvement in sustainable forest 
management.  The study likewise identifi es transparency 
and communication as crucial for building trust, clarifying 
decision-making processes, and improving conservation 
outcomes. By promoting increased stakeholder 
representation in decision-making forums, the research 
recognizes the value of  diverse perspectives and aims 
to cultivate a more inclusive environment.  In summary, 
this study offers valuable insights into community-
based forest management (CBFM) stressing the roles of  
inclusive participation, capability building, transparency, 
and stakeholder engagement in promoting sustainable 
practices.    

Acknowledgement
Sincerest thanks are bestowed to the agencies and 
associations who have helped the author to administer 

the survey and focus group discussion in their offi ces 
and barangays: the Department of  Environment and 
Natural Resources – City of  Environment and Natural 
Resources personnel (DENR-CENRO) headed by For. 
Dionisio C. Deundo, and Gladys M. Balisi; the Municipal 
Environment, Natural Resources (MENRO) Offi cers, 
namely: Mr. Lucky Jay Limbauan, and Ms. Maja-Layne Z. 
Edejer, EnP; the Masipi East Upland Farmers Association 
(MEUFA) and the Tumauini Upland Farmers Greeners 
Association (TUFGA) presidents namely: Hon. Leovino 
Rambac and Hon. Reynaldo Fenix, respectively. 

REFERENCES
Asad, T., Ahmed, M., Malik, S., & Zarouni, A. A. (2024). 

Assessing the effectiveness of  UNDP’s climate action 
initiatives at the local level: A thematic analysis of  
implementation strategies and outcomes. American 
Journal of  Environment and Climate (AJEC), 3(1), 18-24. 
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajec.v3i1.2571

Aquino, A., & Daquio, C. R. (2014). CBFM: A national 
strategy for sustainable forest management. FFTC 
Agricultural Policy Platform (FFTC-AP), 605. https://
ap.fftc.org.tw/article/714

Aquino, A. P. (2014). FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform 
(FFTC-AP). FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform. https://
ap.fftc.org.tw/article/714

Bacalla, D. T. (2006). Promoting equity: A challenge 
in the implementation of  community-based 
forest management strategy in the Philippines. 
ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/237720242_Promoting_Equity_A_
Challenge_in_the_Implementation_of_Community-

Chambers, J. M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. L., Ryan, M., 
Serban, A., Bennett, N. J., Brennan, R., Charli-
Joseph, L., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Galvin, K. 
A., Goldstein, B. E., Haller, T., Hill, R., Munera, 
C., Nel, J. L., Österblom, H., Reid, R. S., Riechers, 
M., Spierenburg, M., . . . Rondeau, R. (2022). Co-
productive agility and four collaborative pathways to 
sustainability transformations. Global Environmental 
Change, 72, 102422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2021.102422. Journal Article

Dugan, P., & Pulhin, J. M. (2023). Forest harvesting in 
community-based forest management in the Philippines: Simple 
tools versus complex procedures. FAO. https://www.fao.
org/4/ag131e/ag131e03.pdf

Department of  Environment and Natural Resources 
(DENR). (1996). DENR Department Administrative 
Order No. 96-29, October 10, 1996. Supreme Court 
E-Library. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/
thebookshelf/showdocs/10/46009

Department of  Environment and Natural Resources - 
Community Environment and Natural Resources 
(DENR-CENRO). (2011). Department of  Environment 
and Natural Resources - Community Environment and 
Natural Resources annual report.

Department of  Environment and Natural Resources 
(DENR). (2004). DENR-Administrative Order No. 



Pa
ge

 
10

5

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 3(2) 91-105, 2024

2004-29. Quezon City, Philippines: August.
FAO. (1998). Planning in Government Forest Agencies How to 

Balance Forest Use and Conservation: Agenda for Training 
Workshop. UN: Food and Agriculture Organization. 
https://www.fao.org/4/W8961E/w8961e05.htm. 
Book

FAO. (2023). Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) 
Toolbox. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture 
Organization: https://www.fao.org/sustainable-
forest-management/toolbox/modules/participatory-
approaches-and-tools-for-sfm/basic-knowledge/
en/. Toolbox

Gaber, J. (2019). Building “A Ladder of  Citizen Participation”: 
Sherry Arnstein, Citizen Participation, and Model Cities.
Journal of  the American Planning Association, 188. https://
www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.
php?id=21024&section=4.1#:~:text=Arnstein’s%20
ladder%20of%20participation%20consists,they%20
relate%20to%20non%2Dparticipation. Journal Article

Guiang, E. S., Borlagdan, S. B., & Pulhin, J. M. (2001). 
Community-Based Forest Management in the Philippines: A 
Preliminary Assessment. Manila: Institute of  Philippine 
Culture, Ateneo De Manila Universisty. Article 

Hazard, L., & Audouin, E. (2022). Dictionary of  agroecology (dico AE).
Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/26993442/
Community_Based_Forest_Management_in_the_
Philippines_A_Preliminary_Assessment

Jallah, C. K., Amoakoh, A. O., & Nortey, D. D. (2017). 
Community participation in forest management in the 
Bleih Community Forest, Nimba County, Liberia. North 
Asian International Research Journal Consortium. https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/312627001_
community_participation_in_forest_management_in_
the_bleih_community_forest_nimba_county_liberia

Kinyili, B. M. (2023). Forest adjacent community 
perception on fencing for forest conservation around 

Western Mt. Kenya Forest. International Journal of  
Forestry and Ecosystem (IJFE), 1(1), 1-8. https://
journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ijfe

Mohan, G. (2008). Participatory development. In The 
companion to development studies (p. 47). Publisher.

Nzunda, E. F., & Manyanda, B. J. (2023). A SWOT analysis 
of  community-based forest management policy as a 
basis for REDD+ in Tanzania. GSC Advanced Research 
and Reviews, 15(3), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.30574/
gscarr.2023.15.3.0157

Oy, M. (2023). A comprehensive guide to community mapping 
for planning professionals. Maptionnaire. https://www.
maptionnaire.com/blog/guide-to-community-
mapping-for-planning

Pretty, J. N., & Vodouche, S. D. (n.d.). https://www.
fao.org/. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/4/
w5830e/w5830e08.htm. Article

Rebugio, L. L., Carandang, A. P., Dizon, J. T., & Pulhin, J. 
M. (2010). Promoting sustainable forest management 
through community forestry in the Philippines. In 
Proceedings of  the International Union of  Forest Research 
Organizations (pp. 355-368). International Union of  
Forest Research Organizations. https://www.iufro.
org/download/fi le/5906/4668/355-368_pdf/

Tarun-Acay, F.Z. Attributes of  People’s Organizations 
and the institutional viability of  selected Community-
Based Forest Management projects in Northern 
Luzon. Small-scale Forestry 4, 101–116 (2005). https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11842-005-0007-8. Journal Article

Tufte, T., & Paolo, M. (2009). Participatory communication: A 
practical guide. The World Bank. https://documents1.
worldbank.org/curated/en/682081468166154717/
pdf/499270PUB0comm101Offi cial0Use0Only1.pdf

USAID-ME. (2008). Tools for Data Demand and Use 
in the Health Sector. Carolina: USAID-Measure 
Evaluation Manual.


