Developing and testing an Indigenous community development planning

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)

Research Goals 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

Study Area Philippines Darwin Indigenous groups: Talaandig Dulangan - Manobo Higaonon Bagobo-Tagabawa Mansaka Obu-Manuvu Dibabawon Matigsalug-Manobo Mandaya Matigsalug

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) • Focus groups to know desired attributes of an Indigenous planning system: • process • resources • plan content Focus groups Literature review • Ranking of literature criteria by Focus Group participants & then scoring ranks Ranking & scoring of criteria

Review of planning literature Focus groups with 10 tribes Ranking literature criteria Deriving the Indigenous planning framework

Field-testing the framework 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 • • Co-researcher Dante Tumanding facilitating a community timeline workshop How well framework met 13 process and 10 outcomes criteria using Likert -scale Open-ended questions

Manobo Indigenous co-researcher Jimmy Ubay at the Bagogo Tagabawa workshop in Davao City Manobo Chieftains Layuran and Antayan Baguio at the Mandaya workshop in Davao Oriental Manobo chieftain Badang Layuran at the Manobo Kulamanon workshop in Sultan Kudarat Danny Catihan and Airene Umbaoy of Panguandig: Community Planning Launch by the Obu Manuvu community

RESULTS: Number of focus group participants Women Men 30 25 20 15 10 5 TR I M DO KM PC ID I C M M M FE Indigenous Group KL AT RI CS AG SK d an BU HI TA an M u- TT uv C u IT A M Ob M AT TC I 0

KM DO DI C KL CS CI IP TR M M RI AT AG C TT u A uv SK d an M M FE A HI T BU M an u- Ob M IT TC I M AT Number of participants Age of participants in workshops 30 25 20 15 10 5 >64 51 -64 41 -50 31 -40 ≥ 30 0

RESULTS : Focus groups and ranking 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

H S Eradicate hunger Skills to manage resources Formal education & literacy Maternal & child health Gender concerns Clear process of decision-making Policies against corruption Institutions that aid plan actions Activities that build unity Network building P/F Infrastructure support Farming support Support to off-farm livelihoods Employment wages N Biodiversity conservation Forestoration Local tenure map Indicator monitoring Indigenous forest guards Worldview described Indigenous issues prioritized Enhance indigenous culture IEK described IEK used in the plan C

Radical Planning (principles) Strategic Planning (process) Indigenous Planning (principles) Equitable • Communitybased • Transactive • Innovative • Normative • Social learning approach to knowledge and policy • Re-localization of primary production and infrastructure 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 Upholds Indigenous worldview • Holistic development viewpoint • Incorporates traditional knowledge and cultural identity • Sustains communal land tenure 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

Tools: • Categorizing social & well-being groups • Transect walks • Timeline • VENN Identify context, conditions and trends 1. Describe system 2. Rural livelihood analyses 3. Define Indigenous worldview • Seasonality • Oral histories • Long-term trends • Semi-structured interviews • Participatory mapping Tools: Photovoice SWOT Analyses Ranking method Focus-group discussions Set (adjust) desired plan outcomes 4. Identify (adjust) desired outcomes 5. Reconcile and prioritize outcomes 6. Setting the vision Tools: Group workshops Monitoring & Measure success Set objectives & means to get there 10. Define indicators & collect baselines 11. Assess progress 12. Disseminate and get feed-back 7. Set (adjust) objectives 8. Identify strategies 9. Plan the actions Tools: Brainstorming Community surveys & monitoring Feed-back sessions Indigenous community development planning process framework

Indigenous Community Development Planning Period Village Sitio Pang-uandig, Ganatan, Arakan, North Cotabato Sitio Enamong, Datu Ladayon, Arakan, North Cotabato Sitios Kayupaton, Napunangan, Bagtok and Nassot, Tumanding, Arakan, North Cotabato Planning lead Pang-uandig Lumadnong Panaghiusa (PALUPA) Nagkahiusang Manobo sa Datu Ladayon (NAMADLA) Sinaka Eagle Bagtok, Napunangan, Kayupaton Association (SEBNAKA) Planning periods September 20 – October 15, 2011 October 27 – Nov 26, 2011 January 6 – 10, 2012

Demographics none 11 % high school 17 % college 3% none 4% high school 4% none 13 % elementary 92 % ENAMONG (n = 47) Income (Aus $) F/M ratio 2: 1 elementary 72 % PANG-UANDIG TUMANDING (n = 48) 23. 00 (n = 40) 73. 00 0. 7: 1 high school 12 % 60. 00 0. 5/1

Village 1 (Enamong) : Percentage Agreement Purpose & Incentives Seen as Successful Inclusive Agreement Voluntary Clear Roles & Rules Conflict Reduced Equitable Effective method Trust & Teamwork Creative & Innovative Cultural sensitivity Understanding Respect Flexible & Adaptive Social Capital Planning information Information Time Limits 2 nd-order Effects Plan Implementation Community Interest Process Handling 0 A. Process 25 50 75 100 0 B. Outcome 25 50 75 100 Strongly agree Somewhat agree

Village 2 (Pang-uandig): Percentage Agreement Purpose & Incentives Seen as Successful Inclusive Agreement Voluntary Conflict Reduced Clear Roles & Rules Equitable Effective Trust & Teamwork Creative Cultural sensitivity Understanding Respect Flexible & Adaptive Social Capital Planning information Information Time Limits 2 nd-order Effects Plan Implementation Community Interest Process Handling 0 A. Process 25 50 75 100 0 B. Outcome 25 50 75 100 Strongly agree Somewhat agree

Village 3 (Tumanding): Percentage Agreement Purpose & Incentives Seen as Successful Inclusive Agreement Voluntary Clear Roles & Rules Conflict Reduced Equitable Effective method Trust & Teamwork Creative Cultural sensitivity Understanding Respect Flexible & Adaptive Social Capital Planning information Information Time Limits 2 nd-order Effects Plan Implementation Community Interest Process Handling 0 A. Process 25 50 75 100 0 B. Outcome 25 50 75 100 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) Indigenous worldview implicit Asset-building approach (positive) Indigenous worldview explicit

“Tsinelas lang 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

Acknowledgement 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

Review of Philippine indigenous plans What is the nature of contemporary indigenous plans in the Philippines? Thanks for. What are the literature criteria for a good indigenous plan with your • respect to advancing community empowerment and attention! indigenous knowledge integration? • How well do contemporary plans meet the criteria in terms of content?