12/07/2026
PALAWAN FOREST GONE IN 30 YEARS. That is the preliminary analysis cited by Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) Executive Director Teodoro Jose Matta.
According to Director Matta, (geometric) satellite imagery showing the distinct pattern of forest clearing in Palawan indicates that population and social pressures is the province's major driver of deforestation.
Specifically, PCSD recent data shows that 44,698 hectares, or 77.4 percent, of the total forest loss recorded over a 22-year period were attributed to kaingin.
That is what the satellite images tell him.
The thing is, long before modern civilization reached Palawan, kaingin was already the primary means of sustenance for the province's Indigenous Peoples (IP), alongside hunting and fishing.
Yet for centuries, Palawan's forests remained largely pristine.
Only when population grew and the economic value of the island's natural resources became the focus of development did the dynamics of forest destruction begin to change.
From the perspective of the geometric rate of forest clearing, PCSD believes kaingin has caused more forest loss than mining operations.
Again, that is what the satellite images tell them.
But with an annual budget of around ₱120 million, this policy-making government agency appears to be relying mainly on satellite imagery from different organization to determine what is more destructive to Palawan's forests.
To date, PCSD itself has not presented a comprehensive scientific study comparing the actual ecological impacts of kaingin farming and large-scale mining beyond what satellite images reveal.
Because what a satellite image measures is forest cover, not the intensity of destruction beneath it.
Obviously, the destruction caused by mining on a single hectare of forest is vastly different from that of a one-hectare kaingin area.
Mining removes entire landscapes. Mountains are excavated, hundreds of meters of earth are displaced, watersheds are altered, and ecosystems that took centuries to develop are permanently transformed.
Kaingin is destructive, but after a few years, natural vegetation can regenerate if the land is left undisturbed. A mined-out area rarely returns to its original ecological condition.
Both activities destroy forests to varying degrees.
The difference is that mining primarily benefits investors and large corporations, while the environmental costs are borne by surrounding communities. Kaingin, on the other hand, directly benefits Indigenous Peoples, not to enrich them economically, but simply to sustain their way of life.
Perhaps the bigger question is not what the satellite images show, but whether satellite images alone are enough to define the true extent and nature of destruction in Palawan's forests.
As Palawan's foremost authority on ‘sustainable development’, the PCSD should know whether mining can genuinely be considered sustainable, or whether its role has become nothing more than providing policy justification for high-impact environmental degradation in the province.
