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
Review to identify
desirable qualities
of an Indigenous
planning system
process
resources
plan content

SLF capitals (human,
social, natural,
cultural, financial or
physical)
Literature
review

Focus groups to
know desired
attributes of an
Indigenous planning
system:
process
resources
plan content
Focus
groups

Ranking of literature
criteria by Focus
Group participants
& then scoring ranks
Ranking &
scoring of
criteria
Deriving the Indigenous planning
framework
Ranking
literature
criteria
Review of
planning
literature
Focus
groups with
10 tribes
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Indigenous Group
RESULTS: Number of focus group participants
Women
Men
Age of participants in workshops
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

>64
51-64
41-50
31-40
30
Resources
Processes
Content
Adequate financial support
Indigenous facilitators
External partners
Local leaders/elders
Planning framework


Adequate consultations
Local leaders/elders involved
Inclusive
Based on unity & cooperation
Adequate preparation
Indigenous rituals/ceremonies




Clear vision
Clear objectives
Clear actions
Factual base
Performance monitoring


RESULTS : Focus groups and ranking
H
Eradicate hunger
Skills to manage resources
Formal education & literacy
Maternal & child health
Gender concerns

N
S
P/F
C
Clear process of
decision-making
Policies against corruption
Institutions that aid plan actions
Activities that build unity
Network building


Biodiversity conservation
Forest restoration
Local tenure map
Indicator monitoring
Indigenous forest guards


Infrastructure support
Farming support
Support to off-farm livelihoods
Employment wages


Worldview described
Indigenous issues prioritized
Enhance indigenous culture
IEK described
IEK 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 discussions
Identify context,
conditions and trends
Set (adjust) desired
plan outcomes
Set objectives &
means to get there
1. Describe system
2. Rural livelihood analyses
3. Define Indigenous
worldview
4. Identify (adjust)
desired outcomes
5. Reconcile and
prioritize outcomes
6. Setting the vision

7. Set (adjust)
objectives
8. Identify strategies
9. Plan the actions
10. Define indicators
& collect baselines
11. 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
elementary
72 %
ENAMONG
(n = 47)
elementary
92 %
PANG-UANDIG
(n = 48)
high school
17 %
none
11 %
high school
4 %
none
4 %
none
13 %
high school
12 %
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
0 25 50 75 100
Purpose & Incentives
Inclusive
Voluntary
Clear Roles & Rules
Equitable
Trust & Teamwork
Cultural sensitivity
Respect
Flexible & Adaptive
Planning information
Time Limits
Plan Implementation
Process Handling
0 25 50 75 100
Seen as Successful
Agreement
Conflict Reduced
Effective method
Creative & Innovative
Understanding
Social Capital
Information
2nd-order Effects
Community Interest
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
A. Process B. Outcome
Village 2 (Pang-uandig): Percentage Agreement
0 25 50 75 100
Purpose & Incentives
Inclusive
Voluntary
Clear Roles & Rules
Equitable
Trust & Teamwork
Cultural sensitivity
Respect
Flexible & Adaptive
Planning information
Time Limits
Plan Implementation
Process Handling
0 25 50 75 100
Seen as Successful
Agreement
Conflict Reduced
Effective
Creative
Understanding
Social Capital
Information
2nd-order Effects
Community Interest
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
0 25 50 75 100
Purpose & Incentives
Inclusive
Voluntary
Clear Roles & Rules
Equitable
Trust & Teamwork
Cultural sensitivity
Respect
Flexible & Adaptive
Planning information
Time Limits
Plan Implementation
Process Handling
0 25 50 75 100
Seen as Successful
Agreement
Conflict Reduced
Effective method
Creative
Understanding
Social Capital
Information
2nd-order Effects
Community Interest
A. Process B. Outcome
Village 3 (Tumanding): Percentage Agreement
Strongly agree
Somewhat 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 XI
PALUPA NAMADLA SEBNAKA
Research 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!