Evaluation of selected integrated social forestry projects in Northern Luzon, Philippines, a case of effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

The ISFP [Integrated Social Forestry Projects] was found effective both in social and ecological aspects but not on the economic aspect of the program. It was also found on the social impacts that there was contentment among the participants in terms of tenure of the ISF farms and the way the ISFP was implemented. This pointed out that the participants have adopted the policy change and that a wide area of development and participation among the participants are expected in the future. Likewise, the ISFP had positive ecological impacts as reflected by: a) the changes in land-use systems from kaingin to permanent cropping system with high multiple cropping index and a random mix cropping patterns, b) decongestion of population pressure by strong tenure of property, c) the positive changes in the vegetation of the farms through diversity of up to 15 species, d) the positive changes in the productiveness of the farms coupled by the adoption of soil and water conservation measures, better pest and diseases prevention, and better tree protection. T-test on the indicators of economic impacts used showed no appreciable difference between the participants and the nonparticipants during a decade of ISFP implementation. From the points of view of the participants, the ISFP was found efficient in the two study sites. The La Union project was more efficient (BCR = 51.97) than the Ilocos Sur project (BCR = 6.78). Moreover, both projects were profitable in the view of the society but not to the view of the implementing agency. The net present worth of La Union project was P3,229,012.96 which was higher than the Ilocos Sur project with a present worth of P203,230.47 at 12 percent rate of interest. Moreover, La Union project was more efficient (BCR = 3.63) than Ilocos Sur (BCR = 1.12) at 12 percent discount rate. In spite of the changes in benefits by -20 percent and costs by +20 percent, the projects were still profitable and efficient in the view of the farmers. Nevertheless, access to resources was equitable between the participants with higher income and those with lower income.