Developing and testing an Indigenous community development planning framework: a case study from Mindanao, Philippines
Jayson Ibanez Stephen Garnett
Research Institute for Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University
Introduction
• Global recognition of IP role in NRM (CBD 1992, UNDRIP 2007)
• RA No. 8371- Philippine Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) recognizes ownership of ancestral domains
• Traditional owners must make an Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP) to:
Maintain ecological balance Restore denuded areas Platform to exercise bundle of rights (IRR, IPRA. Article 4, Sections 1-3)
ADSDPP
• By 2011, 156 Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles awarded
• 95 ADSDPPs completed
Criticisms:• “ADSDPP process is defective…[and] is being
implemented for compliance sake, instead of coming up with meaningful plans that are identified by Indigenous peoples themselves…” (IP resolution 2010)
• “ a heavy emphasis on investment generation at the expense of the protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights and culturally appropriate processes” (IWGIA 2012, pg. 275)
Broad aim: Contribute to a more meaningful Indigenous planning policy and practice
Specific objectives:
•Identify desired qualities of an Indigenous planning system
•Derive and field-test an Indigenous planning process framework
•Compare the proposed framework with the government planning framework
Research Goals
Study Area
Indigenous groups:
Talaandig Dulangan - Manobo
Higaonon Bagobo-Tagabawa
Mansaka Obu-Manuvu
Dibabawon Matigsalug-Manobo
Mandaya Matigsalug
Philippines
Darwin
Theoretical guides and methods
• “Constructivist” theoretical perspective
• Critical Social Theory
• Mixed Methods Approach
Community planning: 3 villages
• Consents, protocols, co-researcher training, village chief exposure trips
•
• Facilitators: primary researcher, Indigenous co-researchers, 2-3 NGO staff, IPO officers
Framework assessment: survey questionnaire & interviews
• How well framework met 13 process and 10 outcomes criteria using Likert-scale
• Open-ended questions
Co-researcher Dante Tumanding facilitating a community time-line workshop
Danny Catihan and Airene Umbaoy of Pang-uandig: Community Planning Launch by the Obu Manuvu community
Manobo chieftain Badang Layuran at the Manobo Kulamanon workshop in Sultan Kudarat
Manobo Chieftains Layuran and Antayan Baguio at the Mandaya workshop in Davao Oriental
Manobo Indigenous co-researcher Jimmy Ubay at the Bagogo Tagabawa workshop in Davao City
RESULTS: Number of focus group participants
Women
Men
Age of participants in workshops
• Clear vision• Clear objectives• Clear actions• Factual base• Performance monitoring
RESULTS : Focus groups and ranking
HEradicate hunger
Skills to manage resourcesFormal education & literacy
Maternal & child healthGender concerns NS
P/F
C
Clear process of decision-making
Policies against corruptionInstitutions that aid plan actions
Activities that build unityNetwork building
Biodiversity conservationForest restorationLocal tenure map
Indicator monitoring Indigenous forest guards
Infrastructure support Farming support
Support to off-farm livelihoodsEmployment wages
Worldview describedIndigenous issues prioritizedEnhance indigenous culture
IEK describedIEK used in the plan
Radical Planning (principles)
Equitable • Community-based • Transactive
• Innovative • Normative• Social learning approach
to knowledge and policy• Re-localization of
primary production and infrastructure
Strategic Planning (process)
Sequence of steps: from general to specific • Focuses on priority
outcomes • Environmental scan and self audit to know
community strengths & opportunities • Pursues
long-term goals and adapts to changing circumstances
Indigenous Community Development Planning
Holistic, inclusive and equitable • Underpinned by Indigenous worldviews and aspirations • Sequence of steps, focused
actions • Continuous, reflective, and iterative process
The Indigenous Community Planning Model
Indigenous Planning (principles)
Upholds Indigenous worldview • Holistic
development viewpoint • Incorporates traditional knowledge and cultural
identity • Sustains communal land tenure
Tools:• Categorizing social & well-being groups • Transect walks• Timeline • VENN
• Seasonality • Oral histories • Long-term trends • Semi-structured interviews • Participatory mapping
Tools: Photovoice SWOT Analyses Ranking method Focus-group discussionsIdentify context,
conditions and trends
Set (adjust) desired plan outcomes
Set objectives & means to get there
1. Describe system 2. Rural livelihood analyses3. Define Indigenous worldview
4. Identify (adjust) desired outcomes
5. Reconcile and prioritize outcomes6. Setting the vision
7. Set (adjust) objectives
8. Identify strategies 9. Plan the actions
10. Define indicators & collect baselines11. Assess progress 12. Disseminate and get feed-back
Tools:Group workshops
Tools: Brainstorming Community surveys & monitoring Feed-back sessions
Monitoring &Measure success
Indigenous community development planning process framework
Indigenous Community Development Planning Period
Village Planning lead Planning periods Sitio Pang-uandig,
Ganatan, Arakan, North Cotabato
Pang-uandig Lumadnong Panaghiusa (PALUPA)
September 20 – October 15, 2011
Sitio Enamong, Datu Ladayon, Arakan, North Cotabato
Nagkahiusang Manobo sa Datu Ladayon (NAMADLA)
October 27 – Nov 26, 2011
Sitios Kayupaton, Napunangan, Bagtok and Nassot, Tumanding, Arakan, North Cotabato
Sinaka Eagle Bagtok, Napunangan, Kayupaton Association (SEBNAKA)
January 6 – 10, 2012
ENAMONG(n = 47)
elementary 92 %
PANG-UANDIG(n = 48)
high school17 %
none11 % high school
4 %
none4 %
none13 %
high school12 %
college 3 %
elementary 72 %
TUMANDING(n = 40)
Income (Aus $)
23 .00 73.00 60.00
F/M ratio 2:1 0.7:1 0.5/1
Demographics
A. Process B. Outcome
Village 1 (Enamong) : Percentage Agreement
Strongly agreeSomewhat agree
A. Process B. Outcome
Village 2 (Pang-uandig): Percentage Agreement
Strongly agreeSomewhat agree
A. Process B. Outcome
Village 3 (Tumanding): Percentage Agreement
Strongly agreeSomewhat agree
The ADSDPP and the Indigenous Community Development Frameworks
ADSDPP (NCIP Admin Order No. 1, Series of 2004 and in practice)
Indigenous CDP process framework
Wide geographic scope Local/village-based
Unified and centralized –Community Working Group plans on behalf of community and sectors they represent
Localized and inclusive, everyone who wants to can attend the planning and are supported
Problems/needs-based approach (negative)
Asset-building approach (positive)
Indigenous worldview implicit Indigenous worldview explicit
“Tsinelas lang ang among kinahanglan pero abi nila sapatos ang among gipangayo-
‘We only wanted slippers (thongs) yet they thought shoes are what we needed.’…
Lito Namansila – Manobo Tinananon and former chairman and now BOD member of PALUPA
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples – Region XIPALUPA • NAMADLA • SEBNAKAResearch Institute for Environment and Livelihoods - CDU • Aus-AID • Philippine Eagle Foundation • Foundation for Philippine Environment• MATTCI • MITA • OMTCA • FEMMATRICS – Arakan • BUHITA • MILALITTRA • SKT • KLC • MMTRPCDI • KMDO
Acknowledgement Acknowledgement
What is the nature of contemporary indigenous plans in the Philippines?
•What are the literature criteria for a good indigenous plan with respect to advancing community empowerment and indigenous knowledge integration?
• How well do contemporary plans meet the criteria in terms of content?
Review of Philippine indigenous plans
Thanks for your attention!