ACTORS
IN UPLAND GOVERNANCE
Antonio
C. Antonio
July 4,
2013
QUESTIONS:
(1) Do you believe in the FAO Framework that only the government, private
sector, and civil society are the only actors in upland governance? (2)
Aside from the PO's of course, who else do you think can act as civil society
who can be effective partners in upland governance? (3) How can we avoid
the problem of PO's doing corrupt practices, is there a way to fix this
issue? (4) How about the role reversal among the 3 actors, is this
possible? If so, what can the present and future generation do to correct it?
(Professor Renato A. Folledo, Jr.)
I must
admit that I’m a little bit torn between agreeing with the FAO that the
government, private sector and civil society are the more important actors in
upland governance and opting to include other stakeholders or interest
groups. There is an old adage that says:”the more, the merrier” but,
adversely, there is another one that says: “too many crooks (este, “cooks”
pala… LOL) will spoil the broth”. However, if I were to include another
actor, I would always choose the academe.
Many
plans and programs of government in the upland areas are laudable.
Problems arise, however, due to the following reasons (to mention a few):
1. Lack of
funds to pursue the project to its success stage;
2. Lack of
commitment from the actors;
3. Lack of
genuine concern from the actors;
4. Lack of
motivation from the actors;
5. Too much
selfish interest from the actors;
6. Lack of
feedback/monitoring and evaluation mechanisms;
7. Lack of
oversight mechanism;
8. Graft
and corruption;
9. Incompetence
on the part of the actors; and,
10. Lack of
knowledge.
Among
the above-listed reasons, I should say that No. 10 is very critical. Lack
of commitment, genuine concern, motivation, selfish interest, monitoring,
evaluation and oversight mechanisms, graft and corruption, and incompetence can
be solved with proper training and knowledge. But this is quite hard to
achieve considering that education and learnedness is a long process… so I
still believe that the active participation of the academe will infuse the
much-needed knowhow (technical, theoretical, clinical, etc.) that is oftentimes
sorely lacking. People have a tendency to have genuine concern and become more
committed to any undertaking when they are well informed and knowledgeable of
the task at hand.
Corruption
could also be curbed when all the actors become aware of the expectations that
go with their respective assignments. Acts of graft and corruption are
born out of ignorance… it will be hard for people to wheel and deal when others
are in the know. Academicians could create this awareness in the actors
and motivate them to properly set up to the challenges ahead.
The
normal practice in upland governance is to organize “multi-sectoral taskforces/committees”
to deliberate, implement and monitor programs and projects and (oftentimes)
bestow upon them extra-ordinary police, administrative and controlling
powers. These taskforces/committees are usually composed of the
following:
·
DENR representatives from the National, Regional, Provincial and
Community Offices;
·
Local Government Unit (LGU) representatives from the Provincial
and Municipal Governments;
·
People’s Organizations (PO) representative (more often) coming
from the Indigenous People’s organization/community (IPs) in the affected
areas;
·
Civil Society representatives (more often) coming from the
environment advocacy groups; and,
·
The private proponents or investors.
This
sort of power is very dangerous in the hands of people to know less of what is
expected of them. Please consider the following possible scenario:
·
The DENR representatives, perceived to be corrupt, will often
leave glitches in the system to create opportunities for corruption;
·
The LGU representatives are politicians, are easily swayed by
populist considerations and could have been elected because of popularity… not
knowhow, skill and intelligence;
·
The IP representatives are just there for a ride and would not
really know what’s going on;
·
The Civil Society/environmentalist organization representatives
are often inflexible and would always take a very militant stance… the “basta”
attitude. They are often quoted as saying: “Basta! We object!”… and
when asked to lay the basis for their objections, they will simply repeat their
rehearsed refrain: “Basta! We object!”
·
The private sector representatives, also representing business
interest, will always want to put one over the others.
All
these characters put together is a perfect formula for disaster. And the
cost for such failure and incompetence would translate to certain and sometime
irreversible and irreparable damage to the environment.
Role
reversal, in my simple mind, cannot be achieved in this situation. The
question that comes to our mind would be… “How could an actor assume the
role of the other actors when he does not even know his own original role as an
actor in upland governance?.” If at all this can be done, it will be a
very good "mirror" exercise for the actors to be able to see
themselves in the role of others, gain some degree of self-realization and
self-actualization... get to look at things from a different perspective and,
perhaps, get to understand the other actors better.
Just my
little thoughts…
REACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Elizabeth
Villezar (July 5, 2013): “Yes, somehow, I do believe in FAO framework as it
wouldn’t be described there if it was not studied/ researched well as
Philippines is also represented in the establishment of the framework.
But I think they should add more actors. I would be adding the academe
(Sir Anton) and the research institutions in upland governance as they also
play an important role in protecting and conserving it. So long as the
three actors in upland governance do their roles religiously to benefit the
many not just the few since the framework defined the roles and responsibility
of each actor. We have to work together in order that the
upland governance will be successful and beneficial.”
Jennifer
Morantte (September 1, 2013): “May
I suggest adding an 11th item: Lack of effective communication process that
shall transport the essential technologies and scientific principles to the
people who are supposed to execute/demonstrate/implement/practice the best
techniques/ appropriate technologies to areas in most need. Perhaps, more
are still to be learned but the learnings that are at hand only needs to be
properly disseminated, so the sooner it is in place the faster the
recovery/rehabilitation of our demolished ecological sites/areas (not just the
upland). The question to add, then, is "Who's role among the actors
it is to spread the knowledge where it is needed (Government, private sector,
civil society, academe, or all of the above)"? Thank you for your
Great little thoughts...”
Antonio
C. Antonio (September 2, 2013): “Hi,
Jen... Thank you so much. Yes, I agree to your addition (Item No. 11).
You actually completed the cycle. Communicating good stuff to the
all the stakeholders is also an important element. And, to answer your
question "Who's role among the actors it is to spread the knowledge where
it is needed?", I believe it is the responsibility of ALL the actors.
This responsibility should not be left on the shoulders of a particular
actor. Everyone should get involved. That’s what Civil Society is
all about. Again, thanks for the positive commentaries.”
Oscar
Sarmiento, Jr. (September 24, 2013): “Nice
point regarding the academe, Mr. Antonio. I agree. The experts could provide
valuable information to all the actors so that everyone can make an informed
decision.”
No comments:
Post a Comment