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!