“morning” - usaid

PROJECT

“MORNING”

FINAL REPORT

A Qualitative Exploratory Study on Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

pages

• •

•

•

•

•

•

INTRODUCTION i - x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Attitudes & Practices xii - xiv Communication xv - xviii

DETAILED FINDINGS

Part 1 ( The Community’s Way of Life) a. Farming Practices 3 b. Fishing Practices 4 c. Solid Waste Management Practices 5

Part 2 (Community Concerns) 6 - 7 a. Concerns of Farming Communities 8 - 13 b. Concerns of Coastal Areas 14 - 15 c. Solid Waste Management Issues 16 - 19

Part 3 (Current Experience of Governance vs. Desired Governance

20

-

23

a. Transparency 24 - 26 b. Accountability 27 - 28 c. Participatory Decision Making 29 - 31 d. Other Governance Index for the Residents 32 e. Implementor’s Desired Governance 33

Part 4 (Communication Channels) a. Main Channel of Communication 34 - 37 b. Other Communication Channels 38 - 40 c. Topics that Interests Target Communities 41 d. When is the Best Time to Mobilize? 41 e. Acquiring LGU’s Support 42

APPENDICES

Discussion Guide

INTRODUCTION

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page i

BACKGROUND •

•

•

•

•

•

Client, Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) is an international organization committed to developing sustainable projects geared towards improving people's quality of lives. One of the Philippine agencies that DAI established partnership with in program implementation is the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

In 1998, DENR and DAI instigated a program on forestry management that is based on community efforts – Community Based Forestry Management (CBFM). The main thrust of the program was to involve the community in safeguarding the protected areas by making them informed of the environmental implications as well as assist them in alternative livelihood.

In December 2001, DAI implemented a new program on Environmental Governance (EcoGovernance) again in cooperation with DENR with financial support from the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

The Environmental Governance program is based on the principle that sound environmental management requires transparent, inclusive and decentralized governance. In many countries, including the Philippines, authority for managing environmental and natural resources are concentrated in the national / central regional government. The approach presents several challenges particularly because regulators are far from the resources they are expected to regulate.

In particular, the EcoGovernance program in the Philippines supports two important trends in the country. - The move towards integrated resource management which addresses linkages and

resolves conflict between upland and coastal resources - The move toward decentralization, which empowers local governments and

communities to play bigger roles in managing their natural resources

The core values of EcoGov is promoting the principle of good governance: - Transparency - Accountability - Participatory decision- making

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page ii

•

•

•

The program aims to make these principles an integral part of local government and DENR governance efforts in the sustainable management and use of the country’s natural resources as well as solid waste management.

Specific to advocating informed decision making processes such as access to information, open, participatory and socially-negotiated allocation of rights to natural resources, implementers must be able to establish current beliefs and attitudes of the target communities and agencies.

In view of this information need, a qualitative exploratory Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) study was conducted among the key stakeholders and beneficiaries. The research framework is illustrated below:

Ec

Re

Findes

Devstra

ExQualita

What are What do t What are What is th

Governan

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practic

ploratory tive Research

their current issues? hey know? they doing? eir desired ce?

search to Help

etune program ign/approach

elop IEC tegies

es Study” Page iii

EcoGov Partner keyImplementors

National Agency Staff

(Field/ Frontline)
OpinionLeaders
LGUs
Sectoral
Group

oGov ProgramBeneficiaries

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES • Specifically, the following qualitative information shall be obtained from the study:

- What are the current environmental (including solid waste) problems and issues experienced?

- What are the expectations towards government agencies in addressing environmental

problems? - Awareness towards current environmental programs being implemented. - Attitudes and overall satisfaction with current environmental programs.

- Assess current knowledge and attitudes on the concept of transparency,

accountability, participatory decision making.

- What are their expectations towards the concept of transparency, accountability, participatory decision making.

- What are their expectations towards the key implementing agencies and institutions in

adopting transparency, transparency, accountability, participatory decision making.

- What are their general attitudes, overall satisfaction towards the key implementing agencies and institutions.

- What are the effective communication medium and channels for an information

campaign.

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page iv

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS • The study covered key stakeholders and beneficiaries of Environmental Governance

(EcoGov) programs. The stakeholders are divided into two sets, as follows:

Set 1: The General Public

1. Residents

Farmers, Fisherman, Wives of Farmers and Fisherman, Children -representing Youth.

2. Sectoral

Indigenous People and Youth Sector, Gender

3. Opinion Leaders

Barangay Officials/Leaders, Officers of Non-Government Organizations, Officers of Public Organizations, Members of Academic Institutions, Church Ministers

• By Economic profile, these respondents come from the lower income groups – Class E.

Main source of income is either farming or fishing.

Set 2: Key Implementors

1. Local Government Officials Mayor and Barangay Captain, Kagawads

2. National Agency Staff DENR, DA-BFAR, DILG, PNP (Local)

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page v

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY • Two qualitative research methodologies was employed according to the profile of

respondent.

Methodology 1: In-depth Interviews among Key Implementors

- This was in the form of one-on-one interview guided by a semi-structured questionnaire. This method is highly personal and apt for research with sensitive topics, discussion of contradicting beliefs and practices.

- The discussions was held at the respondents’ office or home (depending on

his/her preference).

Methodology 2: Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

- This is in the form of an unstructured group discussion wherein 6 – 8 respondents were invited. They are given freedom of expression and the participants are encouraged to say what they think and feel about the topics being discussed.

- A trained facilitator conducted the sessions. Facilitator speaks Tagalog and Cebuano. To ensure consistency, only one facilitator conducted the discussion. Simultaneous interpreter assisted the facilitator in areas wherein facilitator do not speak the local dialect. This was especially done in Muslim areas.

- Although the discussions was essentially conducted in a free-wheeling manner, a discussion guide was prepared to make sure that all pertinent topics were covered. The sessions were recorded on tape with full knowledge of the participants. The discussions were mostly held in barangay halls.

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page vi

DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS • Initial development was through brainstorming with client. • Pilot group in Solano was conducted to pre-test questionnaire/discussion guide. It was

observed that it’s hard to generate responses from the question “What’s a desired governance?” - They do not have the concept of process of designing and implementing a

program/activity. - They are not familiar with the concepts of transparency, accountability and

participatory decision-making. - At best, transparency is showing them where money goes, accountability is limited to

authorities, participatory decision-making is limited to meetings. • Hence, we resolved to get same responses indirectly :

- “What program implemented in their area do they consider the best”. It may be resource or non resource-based activity.

- Then we probed on elements that correspond to desired governance. • After conduct of 7 initial groups prior to conduct of study in Mindanao, a debriefing in

Cebu City on April 15 was conducted to primarily fine-tune the instrument in terms of issues to probe further.

• Client suggested further probes on communications channel particularly on word-of-

mouth. • Also based on observations of DAI-Ecogov during initial FGD’s, Client suggested having a

‘process manager’,

- A ‘process’ manager is an independent observer who notes the nuances in a group (which topics are they excited in, which gender dominates discussion, which part are they not interested in). This method is salient to how the communities would be approached and on IEC strategies.

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page vii

SURVEY AREAS/ AREAS COVERED AND NUMBER OF GROUPS • The study covered 12 target municipalities of EcoGovernance. These areas were pre-

selected by the client.

- Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya - Barangay San Isidro, San Francisco, Camotes Island - Banrangay San Agustin, Alcoy, Cebu - Barangay Malabugas, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental - Barangay Baganian, Tabina - Brgy Logpon, Tungawan, Zamboanga Sibugey - Brgy Diki, Malamawi, Isabela, Basilan - Brgy Lumoton, Lamitan, Basilan - Barangay Makilala, North Cotabato - Brgy Christian Nuevo & Brgy Basak, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat - Brgy Kadingilan and Brgy Katutungan, Wao, Lanao Del Sur - Brgy Capayangan, Banisilan, South Cotabato

• Most of the survey areas already have some intervention. Only about two areas were

future sites of EcoGov. • It was ensured that that all of the activities - Coastal Resource Management (CRM),

Forest Management (FFM) and Waste Management were represented in the site selection.

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page viii

• A total of 20 Focus Groups and 85 In-depth Interviews were conducted:

Intervention

Residents

Sector

KII In Depths

Respondent Profile

Region 2 - Northern Luzon Pilot – Solano Nueva Vizcaya

FFM, ISWM 1 1

Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya FFM, ISWM 1 1 Youth 8 Upland Farmers Base: CEBU CITY Region 7 – Central Visayas –

Camotes Island, Cebu CRM 1 1 Youth 7 Fishermen Alcoy, Cebu No Intervention

(future site) 1

1 Female 8 Farmers

Bayawan , Negros Oriental ISWM, FFM SWM/FFM

1 8 Lowland Farmers

Base: PAGADIAN CITY

Region 9 – Western Mindanao

Zamboanga del Sur – IBRA, Tabina

CRM 1 1 Female 7 Fishermen

Zamboanga Sibugay (Tungawan)

CRM 1 8 Fishermen

Base: ZAMBOANGA CITY ARMM Lamitan and Isabela City Landscape 1

(mixed Muslim and Christian)

1 Female Yakan 1 Male Yakan

8 Lamitan – Lowland Farmers

Isabela - Fishermen

Base: COTABATO CITY ARMM Makilala, North Cotabato ISWM

ISWM/FFM 1 1 youth 8 Lowland Farmers

Region 12 – Central Mindanao

Lebak, Sultan Kudarat, Landscape 1 (mixed Muslim and Christian)

1 Tiduray Youth

8 Upland, Farmers

ARMM Wao, Lanao del Sur FFM 1 1

Maranao 8 Upland Farmers

Banisilan None (future site)

1 7 Upland Farmers

TOTAL # OF GROUPS 20 GROUPS 12 8 85

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page ix

RECRUITMENT PROCESS • A mobilization plan was drafted with client. This outlines schedules of conduct of FGD

and interviews, travel itineraries and briefing arrangements with DAI-Ecogov regional teams.

• Before conduct of groups in an area, the following steps were undertaken:

- Courtesy call to Mayor to secure authorization to conduct survey. Also to ask referral on Barangays that fit our respondent profile.

- Courtesy call to the Barangay captain for a permit to conduct survey, arrange venue, facilitate and coordinate recruitment of residents.

- Pre-briefing with Ecogov regional team to provide them feedback on the progress and to obtain background information, tips regarding the community and other issues they may want probed

• Local Interviewers (they are familiar with the area and speaks the local dialect) were

utilized in the recruitment. • When recruiting, we ensure good mix of respondents:

- Members / Non members of associations - Spread of ages - For mixed gender groups, a good mix of males and females - For fishermen, mix of users of different fishing methods

• To generally control variation in group discussion one FGD facilitator conducted all

groups. A supervisor accompanied the moderator and coordinated all activities across the areas.

• In IP areas where Facilitator do not speak and understand the dialect, simultaneous

translators from the area were hired – Yakan and Tausug.

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page x

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES • One thing that must be understood about the target audience is that – they don’t exist in a

vacuum. Different ‘forces’ affect / influence the way they think and perceive things in their communities. The diagram below illustrates the different factors that influence an individual’s attitudes and perceptions towards their environment.

Implementors / Leaders

Source of

livelihood

Infra- structure

Topo- graphy

Income Level

RESIDENTSChristians Muslims Tidurays

Youth Women

Cultural Background

Educational Attainment

1. Educational Attainment particularly affects their level of understanding, and perspective.

2. Cultural background / affiliation (e.g., Muslim, Christian, Tiduray) particularly influences

their current practices and attitudes 3. Source of livelihood (e.g., farming, fishing) and Income level particularly affects their

way of life, their needs and priorities in life 4. Topography (e.g., physical conditions of the area like type of roads, how easy/difficult

to reach the area, etc.) particularly affects their economic conditions and way of life 5. Infrastructure (e.g., whether there’s enough farming or fishing technology or support,

roads, utilities, etc.) particularly affects their economic conditions and way of life

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page xii

• In particular, the profile / environment of specific community/target audience have large

influence on the following key areas of EcoGovernance implementation.

Desired Governance Measures

Communication Channels to be used to reach them

How critical resource problem are in their lives

Profile/ Conditions of the Environment

1 PROFILE

How Critical Resource Problems

Are

Desired Governance

Communications Channel

That Work Implementor/ Opinion leaders

• Higher educational attainment

Has macro perspective of environmental resources. More concerned with conservation of forest / coastal resources

Desire ‘active’ involvement (participation in the processes, involvement in all stages)

Perceived ideal tool for communication is via house-to-house, billboards in strategic locations, megaphone

Residents •

•

•

Most reached High school but some only elementary level.

Muslims tend to have lower educational attainment – some not even elementary

Very low income level highly dependent on either farming or fishing

Main concern is income.

Less concerned with conservation of forest / coastal resources since can’t see how it directly affect their lives.

When probed, Fishermen though tend to show more concern as they directly feel the effects of less catch

Desire less active involvement compared to implementors / leaders

Transparency - Be informed

Accountability – seeing a violator penalized without exceptions.

Participatory – consulted but not not necessarily participate in details

Effectively reached via Barangay leaders.

Religious leaders among Muslims is also key influencers.

Tidurays can also be reached via their cultural head

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page xiii

Resource Management

•

•

•

•

•

The Implementors / Opinion leaders being more educated, having better quality of life are expectedly able to look at things at a macro perspective (not only concerned with one’s welfare but also with that of the community as a whole). Thus, they are more concerned about the consequences of not managing the forest / coastal resources properly.

Meanwhile, Resident’s primary concern is providing for their day-to-day needs hence a a more micro perspective towards the environment. They tend to be concerned first with one’s own need / survival` before the community as a whole. Thus, they are not able to identify consequences of not managing the forest / coastal resources properly, unless it would directly affect their lives / survival at present.

Desired Governance

Implementors / Opinion leaders being more educated are more aware of the processes involved in governance and are more aware of their right to be ‘heard’. This is why they desire more active involvement in governance.

Residents whose main concern is day-to-day needs, tend to focus and prioritize their own and their families’ survival hence the desire for less active involvement. They prefer to be consulted, informed of the programs rather provide full participation in the whole process. They likewise, admit lack of knowledge on processes such that they will rely on proper authorities to take the responsibility.

Opinion of cultural heads among the Muslims are highly valued (Imam, Hadji) as they are considered role models and source of guidance having achieved higher status in the Islam religion. Thus, these opinion leaders hold strong influence in their decision making. To a certain extent, religious leaders are trusted to represent Muslim communities in some activities.

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page xiv

COMMUNICATION

•

•

•

•

•

Although Implementors / Opinion leaders recognize the usefulness of Barangay officials as communication channels, some still have the tendency to assume that billboards or print materials can work for all segments.

However, looking at the communication dynamics at the community level, print / billboard may not necessarily work for all segments, reading proficiency and topography of target communities has to be considered:

- Some of the Muslilms are barely literate (can’t read). Thus, print may not work for

them.

- Those who live in the uplands, far flung sitios seldom “go down” to the lowlands, barangay centers. Print communication would have limited reach. This is why house-to-house and word-of-mouth works better particularly for those who dwell in the uplands.

Considering differences in profile and environment of the target audience, results suggests that no standard roadmap can be used to approach these communities. Culltural, psychological, political, physical conditions of the area and social dynamics must be considered. One thing is clear though, any program must be linked towards upliftment of their current economic status -- particularly showing an impact on the development of their main source of livelihood.

According to Abraham Maslow, human needs are arranged in a hierarchical manner where lower needs have to be satisfied before realizing higher needs.

Lower needs have to be satisfied

before realizing higher needs

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page xv

•

•

Different needs are defined by Maslow, as follows:

To maximize one’s potential to the fullest

Self-esteem from mastery of task and self-esteem from recognition

Need to belong and be loved by others

Establishing security and stability

Physiological needs are the very basic needs such water,

food, shelter, etc.

Following Maslow’s framework, saliency of resources tends to be higher in coastal areas than in forest areas particularly because lack of coastal resource has a more direct day-to-day impact.

Coastal problems seem to bthe more urgent since it directly affects their day-to-day survival / basic needs while forest issues have impact which tend to be in the long term.

e

Programs that make the community ‘stewards’ of their own waters may be very compelling as “dayo”/non –community members are usually blamed for the declining size of fish catch.

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page xvi

•

•

•

Forest issues being more long term when realized therefore pose a greater challenge for authorities to open forest communities consciousness towards forest resource management. Management has to be directly linked to their basic need so that it would be compelling to them.

Offering them land tenure is key (e.g., they can till the land and at the same time act as stewards) particularly because non-ownership of farming land is considered the main reason for not having enough income.

Of the three areas, the most challenging would be solid waste management. In particular, how to make solid waste management a salient problem to the communities.

Again approach must focus on showing them the direct impact on their livelihood and way of life.

Or, Safety need -- to prevent spread of diseases, polluting the waters.

Only in Malamawi was a probable causality between waste pand livelihood identified (water may pollute the seas, may then harm the fish, may then mean fish catch….) - -But they need more education on this.

Currently, solid waste concerns are largely inconvenience - for appreciation of clean surroundings - “beautification” can be relevant

roblems

less

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page xvii

Key Channels Of Communication

•

•

•

Successful communication lies in the understanding of the dynamics of the community.

Clearly, the endorsement and cooperation of the Barangay Captain be it a Christian, Muslim or Mixed community is very important. It adds credibility to any program or activity as well as it lends a communication network:

- House-to-house campaign

- Word of mouth among residents

Aside from Barangay Captain, informal leaders, religious leaders must be identified and tapped as well for the Indigenous Communities:

- For the Tidurays, tapping the Presidente is key since they are generally suspicious.

However, the Presidente has to be reassured that the proposed activity / program would incorporate Tiduray’s needs.

- Endorsement of religious leaders like the Imam. The Imam being a farmer or fisherman himself is seen as one of them. One who have the same needs and difficulties like them. He also provides moral guidance being more educated in Islam thus, his approval strengthens credibility of any activity.

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page xviii

Project “Morning- Exploratory Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Study” Page 1

DETAILED FINDINGS

PART 1:

THE COMMUNITY’S WAY OF LIFE


A. FARMING PRACTICES • There’s a gender-based division of labor in farming:

- Males do the major farming work (irrigate and plant)

- Females help their husband in clearing the land with weeds. They also sell the produce. They sometimes plant as well.

- Youth generally help their parents in the farmland. • Crops are usually palay, corn, vegetables, and coffee in some areas. • Kaingin is still practiced by many segments:

- Some Indigenous Peoples (Yakans and Tidurays) admit that they practice kaingin as an inherited tradition from their ancestors. They claim that they are not aware that kaingin is prohibited.

- Some Christian groups (Quezon, Bayawan) also practice kaingin even though it’s prohibited. The still practice kaingin since they want to clear the trees and plant crops that can be sold (vegetables and fruits) and, in the process, augment their income.

• Tidurays help each other in farming. Every week, Tidurays gather at the farm of one

Tiduray family and help them farm. This practice is called (Sutubong Tubong) or “bayanihan”.

• When the weather is not good for farming (summer, no rain), farmers resort to other

sources of livelihood to support daily needs:

- Raising of animals such as pig, goats and cow.

- Some farmers in Quezon would admit stealing rootcrops, selling timber in Solano (concsiously avoiding checkpoint)

- In some farming communities near coastal area (Alcoy, Bayawan), some also resort to fishing


B. FISHING PRACTICES • There is also gender-based division of labor when fishing:

- Male fishermen are usually the ones who fish. Male youth also assist their father in fishing. Fishing gears used in the areas covered are:

“Bingwit” in Malamawi (but with multiple bait) “Pukot” or “sudsud” in Tungawan “Pasol” in Baganian “Pasol”, “Pukot” and “Pana” in Camotes

- Wives’ role is primarily selling the catch and doing “panginhas” (gleaning) in order to

augment income. When there is few fish catch, fish will be used for family consumption only. Daughters sometimes help their mothers doing “panginhas”.

- Wives in Baganian, Tabina are taught by their husbands to fish at the deep sea since fish catch is very few. Wives also use the same fishing gear as their husband’s (“pasol”).

• When the weather is inclement, particularly during habagat, fishermen and their wives

resort to other sources of income:

- Agar-agar planting is a source of livelihood in Tungawan. Both males and females engage in this activity. LGU infused fund in this initiative by helping the establishment of agar-agar cooperative.

- In Brgy Diki, Malamawi, some cut “bakawan” trees. These “bakawans” are said to be made into furniture and floor wax

- In Baganian, Tabina, some would go on backyard farming

- In Camotes, other sources of livelihood are farming, construction, laborer -- hauling white sand.


C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES • Generally solid waste management is not yet in place. At best, solid waste management

in some communities covered are segregation, compost pit and more geared towards beautification -- Clean & Green.

- In Camotes, sacks showing segregation of waste are placed in many households.

Clean & Green programs (Pentakasi, contest) are active and residents tend to participate in these activities.

- In Alcoy, leaves are placed in a pit while bottles and plastics are thrown in a garbage can. Animal manure is used as fertilizer. Cleaning activities by SK and Barangay Health workers are conducted

- In Quezon, people segregate their waste since the Barangay Council checks compliance and fines are meted for non-compliance. Brgy Officials conduct seminars and even distribute toilet bowls.

- In Tabina, Brgy Captain has imposed fines on people who don’t comply in properly disposing waste.

• In some areas, burning of waste is still the most prevalent practice. In these communities, clean and green programs are not as active and there’s no fine/ penalty for non-compliance:

- Lebak - Wao - Banisilan - Tungawan - Malamawi - Bayawan - Makilala - Brgy Lumoton, Lamitan

• Waste management is generally perceived as domestic activity. Wives are the ones who

clean the surroundings and participate in clean and green activities:

- she acknowledges that her husband is busy earning a living and it would be unfair to burden her husband more

- she is the one who stays at home most often

• The youth (mostly females) help in cleaning the house when they are not in school (e.g., during Saturdays, after school).


PART 2:

COMMUNITY CONCERNS


• Poverty is seen as the most pressing problem in all of the areas covered. Earnings from

their main source of livelihood are not enough. Poverty is mainly attributed to the following:

For All Areas:

1. Low educational attainment - Most are either elementary or high school graduates. This is seen as the reason why people stick to farming / fishing and cannot look for other sources of livelihood.

2. Lack of other sources of livelihood - In the areas covered, there are no factories /

offices that would provide other sources of livelihood:

Areas covered are far from the city / isolated. Thus, inaccessible to investors

In some areas in Mindanao, investors are afraid to put up business due to fears of Abu Sayyaf / MILF

-

For Farming Areas:

3. High price of fertilizers, low selling price of produce 4. Most are not owners of the land where they farm

For Coastal Areas:

5. Lessening of fish catch 6. In Malamawi, inadequate fishing gear

7. Some areas covered are adversely affected by problems on peace & order and infrastructure:

- Peace & Order - Concern in most areas in Mindanao (MILF/Abu) & Bayawan (NPA) - Infrastructure

- Concern of Upland Areas: scarcity of water, rough roads

- Concern of Lumoton (Lamitan) & Capayangan (Banisilan): lack of electricity


A. CONCERNS OF FARMING COMMUNITIES • Most of the farmer respondents interviewed do not own their lands. Thus, they have to

pay rent or give a share of their harvest. Note that perception of ownership differs by sector.

• Christian farmers don’t own the land. Owners are either parents / in-laws of few prominent

families. They either rent the land or give a share of their harvest to the landowner:

- In Quezon, only about 10 families own the land

- In Alcoy, most of the lands are said to be owned by rich families from nearby town (Dalaguete).

- In Banisilan, Bayawan, Lebak, and Wao, the original Ilonggo and Ilocano settlers own most of the land.

• IP farmers believe that they are the original and rightful owners of the land:

- Yakans claim that the land was stolen from them during the martial law. When their parents returned, they only own small parcel of land. Siblings usually rotate use of land (i.e., one will use it for 3 months, earnings will be used to support themselves and the other siblings.). They plant at other areas now occupied by DENR SECAL or Cocoland. In view of this belief, Yakans do not understand community taxes.

- In Lebak, Tidurays believe that some sectors took advantage of their low educational attainment by producing land titles, then grabbing their land. They are seeking the help of someone learned in legal matters to reclaim their lands.

- In Wao, Maranos claim that their land was stolen during the 70’s. Upon return, they are now given only a small parcel of land. That is why they have to rent a land where they could farm.


• Meanwhile, Implementors / opinion leaders view reasons for poverty more due to:

(although this is considered by residents as secondary factors too.)

- Farming facilities and support services

- Infrastructure – water supply and electricity

Farming facilities

- Farmers in most of the areas covered are bothered by the high price of fertilizers and other services (tractor, use of horse or carabao). Added to this is the low selling price of their produce. Thus, they are left with small earnings from harvest:

In Quezon, the price of fertilizers is P 480 per sack, which is even higher than the traders’ selling price for 1 sack of palay (P 300 per sack). They feel that NFA should be the one selling palay to protect them from traders. Other farming problems in Quezon are “golden kuhol” and absence of irrigation in the area.

Both Tiduray and Christian farmers in Lebak also feel they are being abused by the Chinese traders since their palay harvest is being sold at a low price. Fertilizer is also very expensive; thus, some would resort to lending money to buy fertilizer.

Farmers in Bayawan are forced to loan in a local multipurpose cooperative (20% interest) due to the high price of fertilizers. Another problem is the lack of demand for their vegetable produce since most of the homes in Bayawan have backyard gardens.

In Banisilan, they are forced to buy fertilizer, even though it’s very expensive, since their land is acidic. Some also rent tractor, which means additional expense of P 1,500 per harvest

In Makilala, price of fertilizers and medicines for their farm are very expensive. They also lament that there’s a low demand for their vegetable produce since most have backyard gardens

In Wao, both Christians and Muslims feel they are being abused by the traders who sell their mais and palay at a very low price. Add to this is the high price of fertilizers. Maranaoans also pay for animals to carry their produce (use of carabao or horse is P 150 per harvest).


Infrastructure

- Infrastructure is also considered another necessity they do not have. This do not only affect their livelihood, but their way of life as well:

In Alcoy, there’s scarcity of water, making it difficult for them to farm, feed the animals. Residents have to go to the poblacion in order to buy water (P 8 per barrel). To do that, they either have to ride a tricycle (P20 per ride) or carry the drum on top of their heads and walk a few kilometers of rough road.

Brgy Lumoton is a few kilometers of rough road from Lamitan. In order to get there, fare is P 100 for a “habal habal” ride. This makes it difficult for the Yakans to have access to basic institutions (hospital, school, market) and sell their produce. Electricity is scarce (only during mornings; at times, none the whole day). Water is also scarce; they get it from the creek -- which is roughly 2 kilometers’ walk

The 18 kilometer rough road from Banisilan poblacion to Brgy Capayangan is very difficult to traverse, making it hard for residents to reach market, hospitals and sell their produce. Only habal habal and tractors are said to be able to pass there. Electricity is also scarce since it is generator-fed only. Electricity is only supplied during evenings.

In Quezon, the farm-to-market road is difficult to traverse, making it difficult for farmers to transport produce / harvest. Efforts to build a cemented farm to market road is under way, but have been stopped due to lack of funds. There’s also lack of irrigation in the area which could have provided water to the plants during summer

In Brgy Basak, one has to pass few kilometers of rough roads in order to go to Lebak, making it harder for residents to sell their produce. Add another 2 kilometers of rough road in order to reach the home of the Tidurays.

In Brgy Kadingilan where the Maranaos live, one has to pass 6-7 kilometers of rough, very bumpy ride from Wao. This makes it difficult for them to sell their produce

In Brgy Kisante, Makilala, the farm-to-market road is rough, making it difficult for them to go to the market, bring their produce. There’s also scarcity of water since it’s only coursed through pipes. There are leaks in the pipes at times. It is said that there are times when only the residents fix the leak.


• While farmers do not immediately mention resources as their most salient problem, it is,

however, seen as one of the factors of limited income.

• In most upland areas covered, the forestlands have been denuded due to illegal logging and “kaingin”. This is attributed to:

- Ancestral practice

- Trespassing of outsiders (non-community residents or other cultural groups). • In some areas, residents have only their ancestors to blame for forest denudation.

When their ancestors / parents settled in the land, they just continue cutting trees and practicing “kaingin”. The Implementors / Leaders agree that the fault lies with the original settlers:

- In Banisilan, forest cover is already denuded. Residents say there’s nothing more to

log or “kaingin” since the trees have been logged by their ancestors. They are feeling the effects of soil erosion and flooding; some even feel that scarcity of water may be due to forest denudation. DECS and LGU have organized tree planting activities. However, LGU and DECS lament there’s no support from DENR

- In Bayawan, forest is said to be denuded already. Forest denudation began during the 60’s when timber companies are actively cutting trees. During the 70’s, forestlands were converted by LGU to agricultural lands (due to clamor of the people). Thus, there’s massive logging and kaingin. Some residents are bothered by the loss of trees for future generations. However, there are some who continue logging and practicing kaingin -- saying, if they don’t do so, they would have nothing to feed their family. Residents say they don’t report illegal logging or kaingin of “kababayans” out of pity.


• In some upland areas, the residents blame denudation of forest to outsiders. This could

either be due to cultural clashes (Muslims vs. Christians, Tidurays vs. Christians) or loyalty / affinity to cultural group:

- In Wao, Maranaos say it’s the Christians who do illegal logging while the Christians

say it’s the Muslims. This blaming may be an offshoot of the conflict in land ownership between the Christians and the Muslims.

- In Lebak, forest cover is also denuded due to massive logging before the DENR’s ban

prohibiting these activities. Soil erosion is quite commonplace in Lebak. Christians say Muslims have developed creative ways of timber poaching (Muslims evade checkpoint by coursing logs, by sea, going to Cotabato City). Tidurays blame the Christians for illegal logging maybe as an offshoot of the land ownership conflict between the two groups.

- In Quezon, denudation of the forest is blamed by residents on Solanons & Quirinoans. Some are said to be paying bribe money to the DENR. However, one forest ranger interviewed admits that he has a soft spot for his “kababayans” -- which is why he doesn’t apprehend “kababayan” violators. He pities his “kababayan” since he may have nothing to feed his family. Pinning blame on outsiders may be due to residents’ strong affinity to their “kababayans”.

• There are areas where forest problems are less felt by the residents since their forest cover is not as denuded and there are active programs to address these. Thus, they don’t feel the effects of soil erosion and flooding.

- In Lumoton, Lamitan, DENR SECAL has prohibited planting, kaingin and cutting of

trees. The Yakans, though, are very angry since this is where they used to plant upon paying 50 pesos. They also believe that they used to own the land now occupied by DENR SECAL Some say that Cocoland (owned by Enrile) guards even shoot at those who attempt to cut trees.

- In Brgy Kisante, Makilala, barangay officials are very active in patrolling the area. They even have ‘spies’ not known to the residents. Thus, illegal logging is very minimal.

- In Alcoy, the reforestation programs (DENR’s Community Forest Program & Cebu Upland Program, an NGO) have prevented denudation of forest. Residents appreciate these programs not necessarily because these have prevented forest denudation, more so because these offer livelihood support (salary for planting, establishment of cooperatives, selling of timber, seminars on farming).

• Expectedly, Implementors / Opinion leaders are the ones more concerned with the denudation of forest because of the effects to the entire community (soil erosion, flooding, warming of climate).


• There are some areas where implementors tend to blame each other for lack of support

on forest activities:

- In Alcoy, LGU says DENR does not give updates on forest management activities. LGU says it may be due to situation where there is only 1 DENR office covering the municipalities of Dalaguete, Argao, and Alcoy.

- In Banisilan, LGU and opinion leaders blame DENR for not supporting their tree planting activities. The DENR says their tree-planting activities have not been supported / funded by the LGU.

- In Lumoton, some opinion leaders blame the LGU for corruption, saying there are funds for forest activities but these have not been used

• Some implementors / opinion leaders in Mindanao also cite peace and order problem as

deterrent for improvement as its drives away investors, tourists, and even residents out of the community:

- The Abu Sayyaf hostage-crisis is believed to have scared prospective investors in

Lamitan.

- In Wao, some opinion leaders say Wao is the MILF’s ‘hiding place’ when running from military. This may be a cause for alarm.


B. CONCERNS OF COASTAL AREAS • Lack of fish catch is seen as the most pressing problem in most of the coastal areas

since it directly affects residents’ income / source of living. Main reasons cited were:

- Intrusion of outsiders particularly commercial fishing in the municipal waters

- Illegal fishing.

- For fishermen in Malamawi, inadequate fishing gear • Intrusion of outsiders and illegal fishing:

- In Camotes, fish catch is reduced from 20-30 kilos in 1986 to 2-3 kilos presently. Lessening of fish catch is attributed to intrusion of commercial fishermen who are said to be mostly from other areas (e.g., Manila, Bohol, other nearby provinces).

These commercial fishermen use illegal fishing methods (dynamite, superlight) and freed upon payment of P 50,000 to Bantay Dagat volunteers.

Fishermen who used to be Bantay Dagat volunteers left because commercial fishermen are caught, but immediately freed the next day. Even the opinion leaders, DA-BFAR staff, and Barangay Captain are aware of commercial fishermen who continue to flout the law.

The mayor, on the other hand, blames the use of illegal fishing methods (both by outsiders and residents) for the lessening of the fish catch.

- In Baganian, residents blame the pirates for lessening of fish catch (from 10-15 kilos to

1-3 kilos) since they use illegal fishing methods (pudpud or bumping of stones, dynamite). Pirates also steal their pumpboat, fishing gear (“pasol”), and petrol gas. These pirates are said to be MILF or NPA rebels who are armed. However, LGU, DENR and other opinion leaders also say that even the residents themselves are using dynamite in order to increase their fish catch.

- In Tungawan, commercial fishermen from other areas (Zamboanga, Ipil, Naga) are

blamed by the residents for the lessening of fish catch (from 20-30 kilos to 3-5 kilos). It’s a good thing that residents have other sources of livelihood (planting of agar-agar). However, implementors / leaders also attribute the lessening of fish catch to increasing number of fishermen. Intrusion of commercial fishermen to municipal waters have lessened upon deployment of CAFGUs and 33rd Infantry Batallion.


• In Malamawi, their few fish catch is attributed more to the inadequacy of their fishing

gear. Badjaos who have more efficient fishing gear (“pukot” and motorboat) tend to have higher fish catch:

- Residents believe that their bangka and “bingwit” are inadequate for them to fish at the

“lawud” (deep sea). They prefer “pukot” and motorboat -- although they don’t have the money to buy these. Even LGUs and opinion leaders feel that the fishermen need support in terms of better fishing gear.

- Pirates and commercial fishermen are also blamed by the residents for the use of illegal fishing methods (dynamite fishing) which resulted in the lessening of fish catch. They say that the commercial fishermen are Badjaos and are non-residents of Brgy Diki.

• Implementors / leaders feel that peace and order problems in some coastal areas in

Mindanao are critical since these drive away investors and cause fear among residents:

- MILF / Abu Sayyaf presence is noted in Tungawan & Malamawi

- Residents of Tabina are said to have just recently returned to their homes since they fear the reprisal of MILF rebels who were shot in Tabina

- In Malamawi, the presence of Abu Sayyaf sympathizers (Abu Sabaya’s house is in Malamawi) is seen to drive away potential investors

- In Tungawan, a bomb has just recently exploded, and it is said to be a handiwork of the MILF

• In Camotes, other coastal resource problems are a cause for concern for some

Implementors / leaders as these may harm the environment:

- Building of commercial resorts has harmed the seas / corals.

- Illegal logging in the mangroves may mean no homes for the fish

- Use of “tubli” (poisonous rootcrops) as a fishing bait by some residents in the upland may cause the death of fishes


C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES • Solid waste seems to be not a critical problem in all of the areas covered. In fact, it is not

spontaneously mentioned as one of the pressing problems. Interviewer had to aid / force the question “Is there a problem in solid waste?”.

• In most cases, it’s the DENR staff who consider solid waste a problem since managing it is a part of their work.

• In most areas, there seems to be a difference with regards how crucial solid waste problems are seen by the residents vs. other sectors (Opinion leaders, LGU, DENR).

- Residents would only show concern when they experience inconveniences

- Christian youth would be more bothered as they are more aware of long term effects as taught in school.

- Expectedly implementors show more concerned as they anticipate the consequences of poor waste management.

• Residents generally feel that solid waste is not crucial since the volume of waste is

not that high -- such that they would feel the consequences / problems associated with it (e.g., foul smell, diseases). There are also active programs in some areas that address solid waste problems:

- In Quezon, older residents are forced to use proper disposal methods (segregate

waste and place in closed pits) due to the fine imposed by their Brgy Captain (1st offense 50 pesos, 2nd offense P100, 3rd offense P 150, 4th offense imprisonment).

- In Brgy Capayangan, Banisilan, residents feel that the volume of waste is low since there are only a few inhabitants in the area. Moreover, they are satisfied with their current waste disposal method (burning of waste), believing the smoke drives away mosquitoes.

- In Bayawan, residents believe that the garbage in their area is not as pervasive and foul smelling (unlike in Manila) since households segregate their waste or place it in a close pit. Besides, they are currently given free toilet bowls by the Belgian government and there are seminars conducted by Barangay Health Workers on segregation of waste

- In Alcoy, residents believe that the volume of waste is not high and their surroundings are clean due to clean & green programs by SK & DECS and seminars teaching them to segregate their waste

- In Camotes, older residents feel that waste is not pervasive due to active clean and green program where they are required by teachers to beautify and clean their surroundings

- In Makilala, Wao, Tabina, and Lebak, Muslim and Christian residents believe that waste is not pervasive and foul smelling.


• In some IP areas, there is the cultural mindset that “the land is ours and we can do

anything with it”, which makes the throwing of waste anywhere “acceptable”:

- Yakans believe that “their land is wide” and they can throw waste anywhere. Some throw waste in the nearby forest -- thus waste is far from being an eyesore and foul smelling in their area.

- Tiduray youth feel that the land is theirs and their ancestors and they can throw anywhere. Besides, most of the households burn their waste

• Residents would only be somewhat bothered by the waste problem if they can directly

experience the effects:

- In Tungawan, residents are bothered by the foul smell in the area where the central garbage can of the community is located. There are some who attribute the indiscriminate throwing of waste at the sea as the cause of the death of agar-agar.

- In Malamawi, residents are bothered by throwing of waste at sea because garbage is strewn about the place when it’s low tide. It becomes foul smelling and unsightly. They say that at the rate Badjaos throw waste at the sea, fish might soon die

• The Christian youth segment seems to be more bothered than their elders over the

possible consequences of throwing waste anywhere -- to their parents’ livelihood and to the environment. Teachers are key in instilling this mindset:

- Youth in Camotes feel that fish might soon die at the rate people throw garbage at

sea. The ‘culprits’ are said to be visitors and kids.

- Youth in Quezon feel that the ozone layer would be affected due to the practice of some of the residents who just burn plastic waste. They say they have learned this bit from school. They admire the practice of some households in Solano which recycle plastic and make it into “magic pillow” (plastic wrappers are made to form a pillow). “Magic pillow” is said to be a source of livelihood for some Solanons.


• It is the Implementors / leaders that are generally more concerned on the waste

problem since this might soon have negative consequences (diseases, clogging of waste, killing of fish) if not managed properly:

- In Alcoy, the mayor is worried that garbage in Alcoy poblacion might clog the sewers if

not managed. This is why he is planning to put up a dumpsite in the future. The opinion leaders and DENR in Alcoy also feel the same way. However, the Brgy Captain in Alcoy feels there’s no waste problem in San Agustin since volume of waste is low and animal manure is used as fertilizer.

- In Camotes, implementors / leaders are bothered by the throwing of garbage, in the sea because the fish might die.

- In Malamawi, implementors / leaders feel that throwing garbage at sea could harm the fish. The Brgy Captain has pledged he would start teaching the segregation of waste which he has just learned from seminar.

- In Quezon, some opinion leaders are bothered by the throwing of waste at the river, causing pollution and siltation. However, the Barangay Captain says that there’s no more improper waste disposal ever since he imposed fines

- In Lebak, implementors / leaders feel bad about the throwing of waste at the river, rendering it foul smelling.

- In Makilala, implementors / leaders are bothered by some residents who still throw anywhere. They fear that this might pollute the waterpipe.

- In Bayawan, there are still hardheaded residents (“gahi”) who throw waste anywhere. The Barangay Captain attributes this to the disinterest of some people (mostly males) to attend seminar on proper waste disposal. She says Bayawan residents are lured only by free food and money.

In Tungawan, leaders / implementors share the residents’ displeasure over the indiscriminate throwing of waste onto the sea, rendering it polluted and harming the fishes. The LGU bared that construction of dumpsite is on-going and there are plans to impose fines on improper waste disposal


• In some areas, even the Implementors / leaders are not bothered by the waste management because there is compliance by the residents, volume of waste is very low, and there are tools to handle waste

- In Banisilan, the volume of waste is very low and people tend to put their waste in

closed pit due to seminars the Barangay Captain and Barangay Health Workers conducted

- In Lamitan city, each household is said to have a garbage can

- In Baganian, Tabina, implementors / leaders feel there is low volume of waste in the area. Fines are also issued by the Barangay Captain to ensure residents comply


PART 3:

CURRENT EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNANCE

vs DESIRED GOVERNANCE


Method of Ascertaining Desired Governance Areas • Qualities of desired governance were derived from questions on:

- characteristics of preferred resource or non resource based program (based on pilot group, residents cannot answer the question “what would be the qualities of an ideal resource management program?”)

- direct probing on different governance areas (e.g., planning, budgeting, procurement of services, issuance of permits, monitoring) if not mentioned

- strengths / weaknesses / suggestions on existing resource-based program (to relate governance with resource issues). The following more popular resource oriented programs were evaluated on the aspects of EcoGovernance indicators.

- Bantay Dagat - Bantay Kalasangan / Forest Patrol - Clean & Green


Bantay Dagat • Bantay Dagat is deputizing patrols / lookouts against illegal fishermen and pirates • Variations as to who is deputized to patrol:

- In Camotes, fishermen volunteers

- In Tungawan, CAFGUS and military

- In Malamawi, military • No Bantay Dagat in Baganian, Tabina since implementation is derailed by politics

(Barangay Captain & Mayor belong to different political parties). Male fishermen in Tabina are very eager to be made a Bantay Dagat volunteer in order to minimize their suffering at the hands of pirates. In fact, a Muslim male attended our FGD uninvited just to tell us to push for the creation of Bantay Dagat.

• For the residents, desired program is one where the objective is attained. Thus, a good

Bantay Dagat program is one where violators are caught and use of illegal fishing methods are stopped / minimized

• Residents of areas where military personnel are deputized (Tungawan, Malamawi)

appreciate Bantay Dagat since the military has been effective in lessening the number of pirates and users of illegal fishing methods. Military is effective because:

- They are better equipped

- They are armed and feared • In some areas, Bantay Dagat is ineffective since pirates and commercial fishermen who

use illegal fishing methods still prosper:

- In Camotes, commercial fishermen who use illegal fishing methods are allegedly freed upon payment of bribe money


Bantay Kalasangan / Forest Patrols • Bantay Kalasangan / Forest Patrols is by DENR, in coordination with DILG and LGU. • Generally, it’s an activity geared towards forest protection:

- Ordinance on selective log ban (trees can be cut upon securing permit only)

- Forest patrols deploying DENR & DILG personnel or, in some instances (Makilala), barangay councilors

Clean & Green • Clean & Green is a program by LGU & Dep Ed. • Generally, it’s an activity geared towards cleaning & improvement of solid waste disposal:

- Pentakasi -- every household, government employees, teachers are tasked to clean their surroundings for a day

- Seminars by Barangay Health Workers or Barangay Captain with regards proper solid waste disposal

- Giving free toilet bowl / “kasilyas” • However, the Clean & Green in Camotes is a mix of cleaning (Pentakasi), improvement of

solid waste disposal (lectures of teachers), & beautification / decorations • Clean & Green seems to be non-existent in Basilan area (Lumoton & Malamawi). In

Malamawi, Barangay Captain says he has just arrived from a solid waste disposal seminar and he has not yet cascaded learnings. In Basilan, burning of waste is prevalent.

• Although there’s Clean & Green in Lebak, Wao, & Banisilan, waste disposal method being

taught (leaves to be burned) is improper


To have a clearer understanding on the desired governance of different segments, this section discusses desired governance side by side with proposed Transparency, Accountability, and Participatory Decision Making (TAP index) and current governance. A. TRANSPARENCY • There is a large gap between Ecogov’s proposed transparency indicator and what

actually happens based on programs implemented. In current programs, residents are not made aware of the different stages of governance (e.g., planning, budgeting).

• Resident’s desired level of transparency is for them to be informed and updated in

almost all stages in order for them to act accordingly. • There is also a gap between residents’ desired level of transparency and Ecogov’s

proposed transparency indicator. Ecogov’s suggested means of informing the residents (e.g., posted in public places, “available to citizens upon demand) may not work for the residents since they want to be told / informed by somebody – not them having to search / look for that information.


Proposed Transparency Indicator

Planning Budget Procurement of Services

Issuance of Permits Monitoring

Plans developed publicly with citizen participation Plans available to citizen upon request have to be publicly developed or available

Budget is posted in public places and available to citizens Executive budget is available to citizens for analysis during budget deliberations and available to citizen upon demand

LGU officials regularly communicate with citizens and the media on procurement results Results of bidding shall be posted in public places and is available to citizen upon demand

Ordinances providing for system of issuing permits, licenses and utilization rights available to citizen upon demand

Ordinances and executive orders penalizing crimes exist, posted in public places and available to citizens upon demand Information on statistics on crime and violators posted in public places and available to citizens upon demand

Current Practice/ Experience on Transparency

Planning Budget Procurement of services


For all programs, plans are not developed publicly

For all programs, budget is not posted in public places. Not sure if available upon demand

For all programs, not communicate with public on procurement results

For Bantay Kalasangan, they know of system of issuing permits (go to DENR, pay a fee) Fishermen don’t know of any permits to be acquired

Residents are usually informed of the ordinances. However, in Bayawan, residents claim they were not informed: - In Bayawan, some

residents only know of the log ban when they were apprehended


Proposed vs. Desired Level of Transparency Proposed Transparency Indicator

Planning Budget Procurement of Services


Plans developed publicly with citizen participation Plans available to citizen upon request have to be publicly developed or available

Budget is posted in public places and available to citizens Executive budget is available to citizens for analysis during budget deliberations and available to citizen upon demand

LGU officials regularly communicate with citizens and the media on procurement results Results of bidding shall be posted in public places and is available to citizen upon demand

Ordinances providing for system of issuing permits, licenses and utilization rights available to citizen upon demand

Ordinances and executive orders penalizing crimes exist, posted in public places and available to citizens upon demand Information on statistics on crime and violators posted in public places and available to citizens upon demand

Desired Level of Transparency

Planning Budget Procurement of services


Informs them what the plans are so that they won’t be ignorant

Informs them of the budget so that they won’t be ignorant

Informs them what materials / services are bought to see if materials they need are included (e.g., pumboat, salary)

Informs them of the requirements so that they know how to qualify / avail

Informs them of laws so that they can act accordingly


B. ACCOUNTABILITY • There is a large gap between Ecogov’s proposed Accountability index and actual

practice of accountability. In current programs, residents are not aware of the procedures for ensuring accountability (e.g., not aware if there are grievance committee, signatures of public officials in public documents).

• It appears though that resident’s definition and measure of accountability is very basic –

making sure and showing them that those who violate the law are being punished regardless of his position in the community.

They appear not be critically concerned about signatories on permits, access to grievance committee, etc. The “territorial/ clannish/familial mentality works against the practice reporting / complaining to authorities about violators. This further indicates larger implementor responsibilities particularly in monitoring violations and implementing penalties.

Proposed Accountability Indicator

Planning

Budget

Procurement of services

Issuance of Permits

Monitoring

Ordinance state entities accountable and rewards for implementation

Budget submitted to show signatures of officials

Grievance Committees to hear complaints about procurement

Permits and licenses issued, showing signatures of authority

Violators are penalized and apprehended

Current Practices/Experience on Accountability

Planning

Budget


Issuance of Permits

Monitoring

All of the programs state who are accountable / culpable

For all programs, residents are not aware of any budgeting process

For all programs, residents are not aware of any procurement requirements in the first place . Consequently they are not aware of groups they can raise their complaints with

For all programs, residents are not aware of the signatories, only general agencies such as DENR,, mayor’s office, etc.

Most of the residents observation is that violators are not apprehended: - Commercial

fishermen are not caught in Camotes

- Pirates are not caught in Tabina

- In Tungawan, violators are oftentimes freed

- In Lebak, Muslim poachers are not caught

- In Quezon, violators are freed by payment of bribes


Proposed Accountability Indicator

Planning

Budget


Issuance of Permits

Monitoring

Ordinance state entities accountable and rewards for implementation

Budget submitted to show signatures of officials

Grievance Committees to hear complaints about procurement

Permits and licenses issued, showing signatures of authority

Violators are penalized and apprehended

Desired Level of Accountability

Planning

Budget


Issuance of Permits

Monitoring

Program implementors should also be penalized if found violating

Those who misuse the funds should be penalized

Those found guilty of bribery / kickbacks should be penalized

Those found guilty of accepting and paying bribe money just to be issued permits should be penalized

Law is applied – all violators apprehended – regardless of their position “(Walay igsoon-igsoon)”


C. PARTICIPATORY DECISION-MAKING •

•

•

There is a gap between Ecogov’s proposed Participatory Decision Making indicator and actual practice of Participatory Decision making based on actual programs. In most of the areas covered, residents were not able to participate in all governance areas (e.g., planning, budgeting, etc.)

It is only in Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya where some consultation was done on punishments

for violation but only concerning monitoring processes.

Note that resident’s idea and preference of participation is merely consultation as opposed to the proposed standard of participating in the whole process. (e.g., crafting of permits, inspection of implementation, public consultations, etc.). Their measure of participation is being heard, considered and not necessarily engage in dialogue or debate. They admit their lack of knowledge on processes and that implementors are in the better position to craft programs and activities.

“Dapat sila na (LGU, DENR) ang mag-iisip kung ano gagawin, wala naman kaming alam tungkol sa mga bagay-bagay (programs) na yan. Basta lang ma-konsulta kami kung ano ang gusto namin”.

Some difference may be noted by Sectors:

- Christians and Tiduray tend to desire more involvement.

- Other Muslim Groups, Yakan, Tausog and Maranao, prefer less involvement – trusting the wisdom of their Imam / Muslim LGU to represent them.


Proposed Participatory Decision Making Indicator

Planning

Budget


Issuance of Permits

Monitoring

No qualified citizen shall be excluded for participating

Public consultations on budget hearings

Periodic inspection of implementation of programs includes citizens

Crafting of permits with citizen participation

Penalties and enforcement mechanisms formulated with participation of citizens

Current Practices/ Experience on participatory Decision Making

Planning

Budget


Issuance of Permits

Monitoring

In all programs, citizens are not invited during planning

In all programs, residents are not aware whether there are consultations on budget hearings

In all programs, residents are not invited for the periodic inspections on procurement of services

In all programs, Permits are not crafted with citizen participation

Penalties not usually formulated with participation of citizens Residents were consulted by the Brgy Captain about what fine to mete those who do not have compost pits


Proposed Participation Indicator

Planning

Budget


Issuance of Permits

Monitoring

No qualified citizen shall be excluded for participating

Public consultations on budget hearings

Periodic inspection of implementation of programs includes citizens

Crafting of permits with citizen participation

Penalties and enforcement mechanisms formulated with participation of citizens

Desired Level of Participation

Planning

Budget


Issuance of Permits

Monitoring

Christians and Tidurays want to be invited during planning to know if the plan considers their needs Muslims feel that their imam / Muslim brgy official can represent them in planning since he knows what they need

They want to be consulted what items to include in the budget, especially if it affects their livelihood (e.g., some volunteers of Bantay Dagat would want faster pumpboat and arms to catch the pirates).

They want to be consulted on what services / materials should be purchased, especially if it affects their livelihood

They want to be consulted on drafting of permit, especially if it concerns their livelihood so that they can suggest what they want (e.g., if gmelina is within their own land they can cut it)

They want to be consulted so that they can say whether penalty is fair or not


D. OTHER GOVERNANCE INDEX FOR THE RESIDENTS • Apart from indicators indentified by EcoGov, communities are also looking for an

‘accessible’ and down-to-earth leader. Someone who would:

- patiently and clearly explains to them / no technical terms

- doesn’t look down on them (“hindi matapobre”)/ not too authoritative

- leads by example (would be at the forefront of the activities)


E. IMPLEMENTOR’S DESIRED GOVERNANCE • It appears that DENR / Opinion leaders’ desired governance is almost the same as that of

the proposed TAP indicators except that: - Stress on multi-sectoral – not only residents or LGU, but other influential sectors as well

(e.g., teachers, etc.). - In addition, DENR / Opinion leaders seem to always reiterate the importance of

funding, knowing that some projects are delayed due to inadequacy of funds Desired Level of Transparency

Planning

Budget


Issuance of Permits

Monitoring

Plans to be developed by both residents, LGU and other sectors

Informing them of the details of the budget in order to know if it’s sufficient

Informing them about details of bidding (e.g., duration, etc.) to know the feasibility

Informing them about system of issuing

Informing them of ordinances and executive orders

Desired Level of Accountability

Planning

Budget


Issuance of Permits

Monitoring

Ordinance state accountable entities

Budget should show signature of officials

Committee to review bidding process (PBAC)

To penalize officials who give permit upon payment of bribes

Strict enforcement – no exemptions to the law

Desired Level of Participation

Planning

Budget


Issuance of Permits

Monitoring

Should involve all sectors concerned / affected

Public consultations

Involving different sectors on what to procure

All sectors involved to be consulted

All sectors to be consulted, even the residents


PART 4:

COMMUNICATION CHANNELS


A. MAIN CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION • Generally, it’s the Barangay Captain or Key officials like the First Kagawad who

disseminates information. • This is reinforced by word-of-mouth among residents particularly for areas far from the

Barangay Center. Information when considered relevant is passed on to other community members.

RESIDENT

Brgy Captain

Tasks Purok leadersor Brgy Councilor

to inform via house to house or

send letter

Also announces in bulletin board

In Camotes, roving megaphone

In Wao, Brgy Councilor calls fellow Maranaos by whistling

Resident who has just attended

assembly/seminar

Resident receiving any message


• In programs that particularly involve the youth and the housewives, educators are also

key channels. Particularly Clean & Green activities spearheaded by Dep Ed (Camotes, Alcoy), it’s the teachers who disseminate information.

• Again, word-of-mouth serves as reinforcement

Residents Youth and Housewives

Teacher

Students to inform parents

Also announces in bulletin board Resident who has just attended

assembly/seminar

Resident receiving any message

• Barangay Health Workers are also very helpful channels in disseminating information as they usually utilize a house-to-house campaign, therefore wider reach.

Residents

Residents

Residents

Barangay Health Worker


• Among the Muslims and the Tidurays, cultural and religious heads tend to be the more

major channels for information dissemination:

- “Presidente” or tribal head of the Tidurays

- “Imam” or “Hadji” among the Muslims.

Residents

Residents

Residents

“Presidente” among the Tidurays

“Imam” or “Hadji”

among the Muslims


B. OTHER COMMUNICATION CHANNELS 1. Word-of-Mouth : Chatting, “Tsismis Grapevine” • For the residents, word-of-mouth (“Tsismis”/ Kwentuhan) is one of the main information

source if not reached via house-to-house – usually neighbors.

• For the males, “kwentuhan” usually occurs after work. Topics usually talked about are related to their livelihood and how to secure other sources of income. Chat usually occurs in the place where they farm / fish, in their house, or in a “tambayan” (near barangay hall, sari-sari store, carinderia or drinking spot, basketball courts, volleyball court in Brgy Lumoton).

• For the females, “chismis” usually occurs after they have finished doing household chores (afternoon and evening). Topics revolve around where to get other sources of livelihood, chismis about neighbors, problems / difficulties in life. The place of interaction is usually in their neighbors’ houses.

• Muslims are prohibited from making “chismis” since it is prohibited in their religion. “Chismis” for them is anything bad said against another person.

The offended party would go to the Imam and demand that the one who made the “chismis” pay a penalty (usually P 500 penalty). Chatting is acceptable and also practiced as long as topics are not against another person.


2. Key Opinion Leaders • Muslims are easily mobilized with the Imam’s or hadji’s endorsement. These two religious

figures are looked up and respected.

• IMAM, there is particularly high regard for IMAM being a more learned in the Muslim religion. He has undergone religious studies and is familiar with the Koran cover to cover. He is therefore usually consulted on moral issues and conflicts. Although IMAM is not seen as an authority when it comes to community government, should conflict arise between LGU and Imam, the Imam will be favored.

“ Buhay o patay, Imam!” [Imam baptizes and Imam makes the final blessing when they die.]

• HADJI, - gain high respect from fellow Muslims due to the fact that they have been to

Mecca and have gone transformation.

• Cultural Head among Tiduray– Presidente .

• The Tidurays are generally suspicious of people around them (government officials, residents) who they blame for grabbing their lands.

• We had difficulty looking for Tidurays. However, when we were able to find the cultural head (Presidente) and informed him of the purpose of our research, assuring that we are not part of the government, he led us to where the Tidurays are residing.

• He said he accommodated us because we might be able to help them in reclaiming their land.


3. Print Materials

• Primers or any other print materials may work only for specific areas.

• In particular, it is not a recommended communication channel among Muslims who are barely literate. Many cannot even sign or write their name.

“No grade sir” “Still kinder at 55 years old” - when a topic on education was touched.

• In Lamitan, some of the respondents joked that they are still kinder -- studying ABAKADA

courtesy of a Yakan resident who now a professional, volunteered to teach them. This was driven by the desire not to be cheated during elections (representative are said to write not their candidate’s name).


C. TOPICS THAT INTERESTS TARGET COMMUNITIES

• Males on anything concerning main source of livelihood - On topics that concern livelihood (farming, fishing, Bantay Dagat, seminars on farming / fishing), it’s the males who are usually interested and the ones who attend.

• Females on other sources of income and domestic concerns and solid waste mangement- If topic concerns other sources of livelihood (weaving, domestication of animals) and clean & green, it’s the females who usually attend. Wives say they are the ones who attend / participate in clean & green as their husbands are tired or are out for work.

However! ……permission from husbands is a requirement to avoid suspicions of “nanlalalake” or

“pabaya”. If husbands don’t oblige, they will not attend to avoid conflict.

• For the Muslims, wives have to finish their household chores before they can attend activities outside the home. In attending seminars, they have to seek permission and approval of husbands. If their husband is not present or already deceased, they have to seek the permission of their in-laws or elders in the household.

HENCE, it is particularly important that relevance of women focused activities must be communicated and emphasized to husbands first, be it Christian or IP communities.

D. WHEN IS THE BEST TIME TO MOBILIZE? • For Christians, preferred time is morning (before work) • For Muslims, preferred time is also before work, but should not be scheduled during their

mass, time for prayer (Fridays, 12-1 PM daily) • For Tidurays, should not be scheduled during their time of worship (Friday, 3 PM) • Lead time of 1 week should be given:

- those from far-flung areas can be reached via ‘word of mouth’

- to allow residents to schedule their activities


E. ACQUIRING LGU’S SUPPORT • For the LGU, they would easily support a proposed program / activity if it has sense of

legitimacy, sustainability, & support the most pressing needs of the community

- A sense of legitimacy is required if it has the nod of both MAYOR & BRGY CAPTAIN. For the Muslim groups, a stronger sense of legitimacy would be acquired if it has both mayor’s and barangay captain’s nod

- Sustainability is mainly a budget issue. If there’s a strong budget / funding, then the more likely will it be sustainable

- Support for the more pressing needs of the community would be appreciated / would get the nod of the implementors / leaders (e.g., support on livelihood, infrastructure (farming equipment, better roads, irrigation, etc.)



APPENDICES

FGD ON ECO GOVERNANCE (Discussion Guide for Coastal – version March 28, 2003)

Introduction / Warm-up (10 minutes) Thank respondents for coming Introduce research agency (PSRC-RI) Explain purpose / importance of the activity

o Understand the way of life in the community o Their idea / opinion is, thus, very important

Laying the ‘ground rules’

o Very informal; “like talking with friends” o Importance of hearing each one’s opinion / views o No right or wrong answers o Importance of telling what one honestly and genuinely feels / believes o No quarrelling / respect for others’ opinion o Audio tapes to aid moderator in capturing all pertinent information / won’t be given to the Client

Moderator to introduce self Letting respondents briefly introduce themselves

o Age o Civil status o Occupation o Hobbies / Interests

II. General Issues/Concerns in Community (20 minutes) Objective: To determine the saliency of addressing resource-related issues to their community, their lives What are the problems, issues and concerns affecting your community?

o If not mentioned, probe if waste and coastal resources are concerns Let’s talk about some of the issues in more detail…Probe on coastal and solid waste management

issues:

Coastal Issues o What are the more common coastal resource issues in your community? o When did your community begin experiencing these coastal resource issues? How did it evolve through

time (e.g., worsened or the same?) o Who do you think were affected by these problems / issues? o Why are these problems / issues a concern in your community? In what way is this a concern? o Is this issue being addressed right now? If yes how is this issue being addressed right now? Solid Waste Issues (Assuming this is a concern of the community) o What, if any, are the waste / garbage-related issues / concerns of the community? o What are the current waste disposal methods of the community? o When did your community begin experiencing the waste / garbage-related issues? How did it evolve

through time (e.g., worsened or the same?) o Who do you think were affected by these issues / concerns? o Why are these problems / issues a concern in your community? In what way is this a concern? o Is this issue being addressed right now? If yes how is this issue being addressed right now?

After having talked about their community’s concerns / issues, ask them to rank the concerns from most to

least bothersome. Obtain reasons for ranking


III. Evaluation of Activity/ Program Implementation (60 minutes) Objective: To determine elements of a successful program – be it resource management or non resource management program as perceived by the community. At this point, indications on level of transparency, participatory decision making, and accountability will be obtained. (Refresh them on the community’s issues / concerns they mentioned) What are being done to address

these problems, issues and concerns? Both resource and non-resource management issues. o Who initiated these activities to address the problem? o Innovations – if they mention mostly government or institution initiated activities probe: As residents, are

there any activities they do to address the issues / concerns? This may be formal or informal like through their People’s Organization, i.e., Cooperative, Farmers’ association

Please categorize these activities you mentioned in terms of whether you LIKED or NOT LIKED (Includes

all activities whether initiated by institutions or by the residents themselves)

o Discuss in general the reasons for LIKING and NOT LIKING the activity o Ask the respondent which among the LIKED activities is their TOP 1 o Discuss the TOP 1 activity and discuss in-depth the different elements (TAP indicators on Planning,

Budgeting, Procurement of services, Permits, Monitoring, Innovation, Incentives) ASK FOR THE TOP 1 PROGRAM / ACTIVITY (This may be resource or non-resource related activity or

program. However, if non-resource related program is NOT LIVELIHOOD-BASED, e.g., crime, discuss very briefly) o What do you know about it? What is it all about? What was its purpose?

What were the things it aimed to do What were the policies enforced

o Source of Information: Where did you learn about it? (Probe on media such as radio, TV, newsletter, or

barangay / purok assembly, house to house, etc.)

o Can we take a look at the program itself? (Check: What do they know, who are involved, what is their involvement)

Planning:

What do you think are the things, activities they plan for? If aware of what is planned for, how did you know about this?

When do they schedule planning activities? If aware of schedule of planning sessions, how did you know about this?

Who are involved / responsible for planning? What did the implementor do? What was your participation? What are the duties and responsibilities of those involved? (Check who sets agenda, discusses it, plans/identifies strategies and option, etc)

Who started it and what did they do? How is the final plan/mode of action arrived at:

o Consensus? Hierarchy? o Mindful of gender and culture, sectors?


Budgeting: Are you aware if there were budget allotted for this activity? If yes:

o Is there a budget prepared for this activity? Where did the budget come from (e.g., mayor’s office, provincial, DENR, etc.)?

o What is the allocation of budget and how much is being allocated? If aware, what is your source of information?

o When do they formulate / develop the budget? If aware, how were you made aware of when they formulate their budget?

o Who are involved in formulating the budget? Prior to final formulation, who were consulted? Is it mindful of gender and culture? Are the residents consulted?

How did final budget come about? Who decided?

Issuance of permits / tenure instruments

What are the qualifications / requirements for one to join the program? Who can avail / participate / qualify in this activity? Who were involved in determining who

should qualify or not? If aware of who can avail / participate, how did you know about this? What are the duties and obligations of those qualifying? If aware of qualifications /

requirements, how did you know about this? When do they issue permits / tenure instruments? If aware, how did you know about schedule

of permit issuance? Are there (clear) policies for issuance? How were these policies formulated? Who participated and decided in developing the policies? Are these policies mindful of gender, culture, and sector? Where and when did we learn about these policies?

Procurement of services:

Does this activity require purchasing services or facilities? If yes, what services are usually obtained? How do you know about this?

What are the guidelines in obtaining / purchasing services? If aware, how did you come to know about the guidelines?

When do we know what is happening and how do we know about it? Who is responsible for the procurement of services? Who participated in the deciding which services to procure? How were services procured?

o Bidding or not? When to bid or not (are the guidelines clear) o Mindful of gender, culture and sector?

Monitoring / tracking

What are the rules and regulations in place to monitor / track the activity / enforcement of policies? If aware, how did you know about this?

Who participated in formulating these rules and who decided on what to adapt? Who are involved in monitoring? If aware, how were you made aware of this?

When are people made aware of the enforcement / monitoring of rules? How were these enforced? What happens when somebody errs? Are these policies mindful of gender, culture and sectors? What is the punishment for non-compliance and what are the rewards for compliance? Where and when do we learn about these rules and regulations and the actions taken when

someone errs?


Innovations

Were there any activities in the program that are initiated by the residents, not necessarily part of the activity’s rules and regulations? If yes: o What were these initiatives? o Who carried it out? o When did you start this initiative? o How did you implement the changes? How did the implementors (e.g., LGU’s, DENR,

DILG, PNP) view these initiatives? INDICATIONS ON STANDARDS TO MEASURE A GOOD PROGRAM

On a scale of 1 to 10, (10 means very satisfactory and 1 not satisfied at all), what rating would you give these laws/policies/programs – from how they were planned up to how they were implemented and monitored? Probe on reasons for rating.

MOTIVATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION

Any suggestions for improvement? How do you think would this activity be sustained / continue for a long time?

Did you join this program?

o If yes: what encouraged you to join? Was it worthwhile? - Probe for incentives in joining. What is the impact to their lives in joining the program?

o If no: why not? What could have made you join? IV. Probe on Coastal and Waste Management (30 minutes)

• If the Top 1 LIKED activity / program discussed in Section III is not coastal and waste resource related, discussion on the most liked coastal resource and solid waste management will be made in this part

• 1 COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND 1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT activity will be

discussed using the same probe as in Section III. However, if time does not allow, ask following instead:

Discuss 1 Coastal Management Activity

• What do you know about it? Were there planning sessions? What do you think they planned on? Ask if there is discussion on

management of coastal resources based on seasonality, type of gear What / How much is the budget allotted? What privileges and responsibilities are given to those who will be granted access to coastal

resources? What supplies are needed and how were this procured? (e.g., bidding, etc)? What were the policies enforced to monitor / enforce rules? What are the punishments for non-

compliance and what are the rewards for compliance? Source of information


• Who are involved in these coastal management activities?

Who are involved in planning of the activity? Who are involved in preparing / formulating the budget? Who are involved in granting access to coastal resources? Who is given access to coastal

resources (municipal vs commercial)? Within the municipality or even outside the municipality? Who are involved in procurement of supplies? Who are involved in enforcement / tracking of those who do not follow rules and regulations,

especially the pirates? Source of information

• When did this activity start? • How were things done?

How was planning done? How was the budget prepared / formulated? How did they decide on who will be granted access? Is there division of coastal resources in your

community? If yes, how was this done? Is this done in consultation with the community or not? How were supplies procured? How was the system of enforcement decided on? Source of information

• What can you say about these programs – likes / dislikes?

On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 means very satisfactory and 1 not satisfied at all) what rating would you give these laws/policies/programs – from how they were planned up to how they were implemented? Probe on reasons for rating.

Any suggestion for improvement of activity/ program implementation.

• Were there coastal management related activities that are initiated by purely residents only? If yes: • What is it? • Who participated in this undertaking • When did you plan this? • How did you carry this out? What are the processes / procedures

Discuss 1 Solid Waste Management Activity

• What are the current practices of household in terms of waste management? • What do you know about it?

Were there planning sessions? What do you think they planned on? What / How much is the budget allotted? What supplies are needed and how were this procured? (e.g., bidding, etc)? What were the policies enforced to monitor / enforce rules? What are the punishments for non-


• Who are involved in these forest management activities?

Who are involved in planning of the activity? Who are involved in preparing / formulating the budget? Who are involved in procurement of supplies? Who are involved in enforcement / tracking of those who indiscriminately throw garbage? Source of information

• When did this activity start?


• How were things done? How was planning done? How was the budget prepared / formulated? How were supplies procured? How was the system of enforcement decided on? Source of information




• Were there waste management related activities that are initiated by purely residents only? If yes: What is it? Who participated in this undertaking When did you plan this? How did you carry this out? What are the processes / procedures

V. Media Habits (10 minutes) Objective: To gain indications on the medium that would most effectively reach the residents

Right now, how do we spend our leisure time?

• Where do you usually learn about events, activities, programs in your community? Probe on media (TV, radio, newspaper) or house-to-house, purok / barangay assembly?

For you, what is the preferred / most effective way of learning about events, activities, programs in

your community?


FGD ON ECO GOVERNANCE (Discussion Guide for Upland / Lowland – version March 28, 2003)

Introduction / Warm-up (10 minutes)

Thank respondents for coming Introduce research agency (PSRC-RI) Explain purpose / importance of the activity

o Understand the way of life in the community o Their idea / opinion is, thus, very important

Laying the ‘ground rules’

o Very informal; “like talking with friends” o Importance of hearing each one’s opinion / views o No right or wrong answers o Importance of telling what one honestly and genuinely feels / believes o No quarrelling / respect for others’ opinion o Audio tapes to aid moderator in capturing all pertinent information / won’t be given to the Client

Moderator to introduce self

Letting respondents briefly introduce themselves

o Age o Civil status o Occupation o Hobbies / Interests

II. General Issues/Concerns in Community (20 minutes) Objective: To determine the saliency of addressing resource-related issues to their community, their lives

What are the problems, issues and concerns affecting your community? o If not mentioned, probe if waste and natural resources are concerns

Let’s talk about some of the issues in more detail…Probe on forest and solid waste management

issues:

Forest Issues

o What are the more common forest-related issues in your community? o When did your community begin experiencing these forest-related concerns / issues? How did it

evolve through time (e.g., worsened or the same?) o Who do you think were affected by these problems / issues? o Why are these problems / issues a concern in your community? In what way is this a concern? o Is this issue being addressed right now? If yes how is this issue being addressed right now?


Solid Waste Issues (Assuming this is a concern of the community)

o What, if any, are the waste / garbage-related issues / concerns of the community? o What are the current waste disposal methods of the community? o When did your community begin experiencing the waste / garbage-related issues? How did it evolve

through time (e.g., worsened or the same?) o Who do you think were affected by these issues / concerns? o Why are these problems / issues a concern in your community? In what way is this a concern? o Is this issue being addressed right now? If yes how is this issue being addressed right now?

After having talked about their community’s concerns / issues, ask them to rank the concerns from most

to least bothersome. Obtain reasons for ranking III. Evaluation of Activity/ Program Implementation (60 minutes) Objective: To determine elements of a successful program – be it resource management or non resource management program as perceived by the community. At this point, indications on level of transparency, participatory decision making, and accountability will be obtained.

(Refresh them on the community’s issues / concerns they mentioned) What are being done to address these problems, issues and concerns? Both resource and non-resource management issues.

o Who initiated these activities to address the problem? o Innovations – if they mention mostly government or institution initiated activities probe: As residents,

are there any activities they do to address the issues / concerns? This may be formal or informal like through their People’s Organization, i.e., Cooperative, Farmers’ association

Please categorize these activities you mentioned in terms of whether you LIKED or NOT LIKED (Includes

all activities whether initiated by institutions or by the residents themselves) o Discuss in general the reasons for LIKING and NOT LIKING the activity o Ask the respondent which among the LIKED activities is their TOP 1 o Discuss the TOP 1 activity and discuss in-depth the different elements (TAP indicators on Planning,

Budgeting, Procurement of services, Permits, Monitoring, Innovation, Incentives)

ASK FOR THE TOP 1 PROGRAM / ACTIVITY (This may be resource or non-resource related activity or program. However, if non-resource related program is NOT LIVELIHOOD-BASED, e.g., crime, discuss very briefly)

o What do you know about it? What is it all about? What was its purpose?

What were the things it aimed to do What were the policies enforced

o Source of Information: Where did you learn about it? (Probe on media such as TV, newspaper,

newsletter, radio or barangay / purok assembly, house to house, etc.)


o Can we take a look at the program itself? (Check: What do they know, who are involved, what is

their involvement)

Planning: • What do you think are the things, activities they plan for? If aware of what is planned for,

how did you know about this? • When do they schedule planning activities? If aware of schedule of planning sessions, how

did you know about this? • Who are involved / responsible for planning? What did the implementor do? What was your

participation? What are the duties and responsibilities of those involved? (Check who sets agenda, discusses it, plans/identifies strategies and option, etc)

• Who started it and what did they do? • How is the final plan/mode of action arrived at:

o Consensus? Hierarchy? o Mindful of gender and culture, sectors?

Budgeting:

• Are you aware if there were budget allotted for this activity? If yes: o Is there a budget prepared for this activity? Where did the budget come from (e.g.,

mayor’s office, provincial, DENR, etc.)? o What is the allocation of budget and how much is being allocated? If aware, what is

your source of information? o When do they formulate / develop the budget? If aware, how were you made aware of

when they formulate their budget? o Who are involved in formulating the budget? Prior to final formulation, who were

consulted? Is it mindful of gender and culture? Are the residents consulted?

• How did final budget come about? Who decided?

Issuance of permits / tenure instruments

• What are the qualifications / requirements for one to join the program? • Who can avail / participate / qualify in this activity? Who were involved in determining who

should qualify or not? If aware of who can avail / participate, how did you know about this? • What are the duties and obligations of those qualifying? If aware of qualifications /

requirements, how did you know about this? • When do they issue permits / tenure instruments? If aware, how did you know about

schedule of permit issuance? • Are there (clear) policies for issuance? • How were these policies formulated? Who participated and decided in developing the

policies? • Are these policies mindful of gender, culture, and sector? • Where and when did we learn about these policies?

Procurement of services:

• Does this activity require purchasing services or facilities? If yes, what services are usually obtained? How do you know about this?

• What are the guidelines in obtaining / purchasing services? If aware, how did you come to know about the guidelines?

• When do we know what is happening and how do we know about it? • Who is responsible for the procurement of services? • Who participated in the deciding which services to procure? • How were services procured?

o Bidding or not? When to bid or not (are the guidelines clear) o Mindful of gender, culture and sector?


Monitoring / tracking • What are the rules and regulations in place to monitor / track the activity / enforcement of

policies? If aware, how did you know about this? • Who participated in formulating these rules and who decided on what to adapt? Who are

involved in monitoring? If aware, how were you made aware of this? • When are people made aware of the enforcement / monitoring of rules? • How were these enforced? What happens when somebody errs? • Are these policies mindful of gender, culture and sectors? • What is the punishment for non-compliance and what are the rewards for compliance? • Where and when do we learn about these rules and regulations and the actions taken when

someone errs?

Innovations • Were there any activities in the program that are initiated by the residents, not necessarily

part of the activity’s rules and regulations? If yes: o What were these initiatives? o Who carried it out? o When did you start this initiative? o How did you implement the changes? How did the implementors (e.g., LGU’s, DENR,

DILG, PNP) view these initiatives? INDICATIONS ON STANDARDS TO MEASURE A GOOD PROGRAM

On a scale of 1 to 10, (10 means very satisfactory and 1 not satisfied at all), what rating would you give these laws/policies/programs – from how they were planned up to how they were implemented and monitored? Probe on reasons for rating.

MOTIVATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION

Any suggestions for improvement? How do you think would this activity be sustained / continue for a long time?

Did you join this program? o If yes: what encouraged you to join? Was it worthwhile? - Probe for incentives in joining. What is

the impact to their lives in joining the program? o If no: why not? What could have made you join?


IV. Probe on Forest and Waste Management (30 minutes)

• If the Top 1 LIKED activity / program discussed in Section III is not forest and waste management related, discussion on the most liked forest and solid waste management will be made in this part

• 1 FOREST MANAGEMENT AND 1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT activity will be discussed using the same probe as in Section III. However, if time does not allow, ask following instead:

Discuss 1 Forest Management Activity

• What do you know about it?

Were there planning sessions? What do you think they planned on What / How much is the budget allotted? What privileges and responsibilities are given to those who will be granted tenure instruments

and permits? What supplies are needed and how were this procured? (e.g., bidding, etc)? What were the policies enforced to monitor / enforce rules? What are the punishments for non-



Who are involved in planning of the activity? Who are involved in preparing / formulating the budget? Who are involved in issuance of permits / tenure instruments? Who is given access to forest

resources? Within the municipality or even outside the municipality? Who are involved in procurement of supplies? Who are involved in enforcement / tracking of those who do not follow rules and regulations,

especially the illegal loggers? Source of information


How was planning done? How was the budget prepared / formulated? How did they decide on who will be granted access / tenure? Is this done in consultation with

the community or not? How were supplies procured? How was the system of enforcement decided on? Source of information




• Were there forest management related activities that are initiated by purely residents only? If yes: • What is it? • Who participated in this undertaking • When did you plan this? • How did you carry this out? What are the processes / procedures


Discuss 1 Solid Waste Management Activity

• What are the current practices of household in terms of waste management? • What do you know about it?

Were there planning sessions? What do you think they planned on? What / How much is the budget allotted? What supplies are needed and how were this procured? (e.g., bidding, etc)? What were the policies enforced to monitor / enforce rules? What are the punishments for non-



Who are involved in planning of the activity? Who are involved in preparing / formulating the budget? Who are involved in procurement of supplies? Who are involved in enforcement / tracking of those who indiscriminately throw garbage? Source of information


How was planning done? How was the budget prepared / formulated? How were supplies procured? How was the system of enforcement decided on? Source of information

• What can you say about these programs – likes / dislikes? On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 means very satisfactory and 1 not satisfied at all) what rating would you

give these laws/policies/programs – from how they were planned up to how they were implemented? Probe on reasons for rating.


• Were there waste management related activities that are initiated by purely residents only? If yes: • What is it? • Who participated in this undertaking • When did you plan this? • How did you carry this out? What are the processes / procedures

V. Media Habits (10 minutes) Objective: To gain indications on the medium that would most effectively reach the residents

Right now, how do we spend our leisure time?

• Where do you usually learn about events, activities, programs in your community? Probe on

media (TV, radio, newspaper) or house-to-house, purok / barangay assembly? For you, what is the preferred / most effective way of learning about events, activities, programs in your

community?


PROJECT: MORNING - ID

Good morning / afternoon/ evening. I’m ____________________ from PSRC-RI a market research agency. Thank you for allowing me to have a part of your time for this interview. NAMES OF RESPONDENT: _________________________________________________________________ POSITION: _______________________________________ TEL. NO:_______________________________ DATE OF INTERVIEW: ____________________________________________________________________ TIME OF INTERVIEW: START _______________________ END: ________________________________ INTERVIEWED BY: _______________________________________________________________________ OBS/BC BY: ______________________________________ DATE: _______________________________ NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: Depending on the Area, focus of Topic will vary. Refer to Project Specs: TICK BOX

1 Farmers – Upland/Lowland: Focus on Forest Management Issues and Solid Waste Management

Nueva Vizcaya, Alcoy, Bayawan, Sultan Kudarat, Wao, Banisilan, Lamitan, Lebak

2 Fisherman – Coastal: Focus on Coastal Management Issues and Solid Waste Management.

Camotes, Tabina,Tungawan and Isabela

I. General Issues/Concerns in Community Let us talk about the different concerns, problems that are affecting your community… 1. What do you think are the problems, issues and concerns affecting your community? RECORD ANSWER

IN NEXT PAGE.

If FORESTRY OR COASTAL and solid waste issues were not spontaneously mentioned, probe: Are their any concerns on forest OR coastal, solid waste management here in your community?

ASK ON ALL PROBLEMS, ISSUES, CONCERNS RAISED 2. When did your community begin experiencing [MENTION ISSUE]? 3. Did [MENTION ISSUE] worsened or stayed the same from the first time your community have experienced

it? 4. Who do you think were affected by [MENTION ISSUE]? 5. What do you think are the reasons why [MENTION ISSUE] is a problem / issues in your community?

Probe….In what way is this a concern? 6. Is [MENTION ISSUE] being addressed right now? 7. How is this issue being addressed right now? What are the activities being done to address this concern?


After having talked about his community’s concerns / issues, ask… 8. Please rank the issues / problems or concerns affecting your community from most to least bothersome and

please tell me your reasons for such ranking. Probe for specifics.

_____________________

___________________

___________________ Q1 Problem, issues, concerns affecting the community LIST

Q2 When begin experiencing problem, issues, concerns affecting the community

Q3 Did it worsened stayed the same?

Q4 Who are affected?

Q5 Reasons why is it an issue/ concern in the community

Q6 Whether is it addressed or not?

Q7 How is it being addressed? What are the activities being done?

Q8 Ranking and reasons


II. Evaluation of Activity/ Program Implementation NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: List all activities mentioned in Q7. THEN ASK. 9. Sir /Maam you mentioned the following activities to address certain problems/ concerns in our community.

Kindly group them into two: those that you LIKE and those that you LEAST LIKE in terms of addressing the problem. RECORD IN APPROPRIATE GRID.

For each activity ask 10. Why do you like or not like the activity? Why else? Any other reasons? For each activity ask 11. Who initiated the activity? For the activities liked 12. Please rank them according to the most likes activity. If not mention residents as one of initiators in any activity, Ask 13. Are there activities that the residents themselves, organized and implemented without any assistance

from institutions like government and non-government institutions? If yes, what are these activities? What does it address? RECORD IN APPROPRIATE GRID

ACTIVITIES LIKE

ACTIVITY LIKE Q10 Reasons for Liking it Q11 Who initiated

Q12 Rank

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.


ACTIVITIES LEAST LIKE

ACTIVITY LEAST LIKE Q10 Reasons for Liking it Q11 Who initiated

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Q13: ACTIVITIES INITIATED BY RESIDENTS

ACTIVITY What does it address

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


III. Evaluation of MOST LIKED activity/program ASK Q 14 TO Q60 ON THE TOP 1 LIKED ACTIVITY, REFER TO Q12 TOP 1 LIKED ACTIVITY: _____________________________________ Sir/Maam, you have mentioned that you consider [MENTION TOP 1 LIKED ACTIVITY] as your most liked activity. Let us discuss in detail this activity or program……. 14. What is it all about? What was its purpose? What else? Anything else? PROBE ON: What were the

things it aimed to do? What were the policies enforced?

15. How were the residents/members made aware of it? How were they informed of the processes? And policies?

A. Planning

16. What are the things, activities planned for this activity?

17. Are the residents/participants made aware of this planning activities? How are they made aware of it?

18. When usually are the planning sessions scheduled?


19. Who are usually part or member of the planning group?

20. Were you a part of this planning? What was your role ?

21. Was there a participation from residents/members? What was the participation of residents in planning?

22. How is the final plan/mode of action arrived at? Probe whether it was a consensus or hierarchy – only

top officials making plans?

B. Budgeting: 23. Is there a budget prepared for this activity? If yes, approximately how much is the budget allocation?

Where did the budget come from? What agency funded for the budget? 9is it government or private, non-government organization, etc.)

24. What are the items included in the budget? Where is it intended for? Where would it go?


25. Were the residents/members made aware of this budget?

26. When do they usually formulate / develop the budget?

27. Who are usually involved in formulating the budget? Prior to final formulation, who were consulted?

28. How did final budget come about? Who decided on the budget?

Issuance of permits / tenure instruments 29. What are the qualifications / requirements for one to join the program?

30. Who can avail / participate / qualify in this activity? Are the qualifications clear?

31. Who were involved in determining who should qualify or not?


32. What are the duties and obligations of those qualifying?

33. How were these policies formulated? Who participated and decided in developing the policies?

34. When are permits / tenure instruments issued?

35. Are the policies for issuance clear? Are there any problems encountered?

36. How did the residents/ members came to know about these qualifications, the policies, their obligations

and responsibilities in joining the activity?

D. Procurement of services 37. Does this activity require purchasing services, facilities, etc.? If yes, what services are usually obtained?

38. Are the residents/ members made aware/ informed of this purchase service requirements? If yes, how

are they informed about these requirements?


39. What are the guidelines in obtaining / purchasing facilities and services? Is this bidded out? Are their

assigned companies to provide it?

40. Are the residents/ members involved in the purchase of service requirements? Can they be the one to

provide the service or facilities instead of outside party?

41. Who are responsible for the procurement of services, deciding on where to buy the facilities, whom avail

the service, etc.?

42. For this particular program, who provided for the services/ facilities procured?

E. Monitoring / tracking

43. What are the rules and regulations in place to monitor / track the activity? What are the activities done to monitor that members/ participants are following the policies?

44. Who participated in formulating these rules and who decided on what to adapt?


45. Who are involved in the monitoring? Who does the monitoring?

46. How are the monitoring policies enforced? What happens when a member/participant does not comply?

What are the penalty/punishments if any?

47. Who decides on the penalties/ punishment? Who gives out the order?

48. How are the residents/members made aware/ informed of these monitoring activities?


F. Innovations 49. Were there any activities in the program that are initiated by the residents, not necessarily part of the

activity’s rules and regulations? 50. If yes, what are these activities/ initiatives? LIST IN THE GRID.

YES 1 CONTINUE NO 2 GO TO Q57

ASK FOR EACH ACTIVITY/ INITIATIVE MENTIONED IN Q51 Q51 - LIST ACTIVITY

_____________________

______________________

_______________________

51. How did they came to about with the activity? What prompted them to organize the activity?

52. How are these activities implemented?

53. Who monitors the activity? Are there penalties for non-compliance? What are these?

54. How did the government and other institutions view the initiative? Are they supportive or not?

55. What are their reasons for supporting or not supporting the activity?

56. On the overall, how satisfied or not satisfied are you with [MENTION MOST SUCCESSFUL ACTIVITY]?

Please use this rating scale where 5 means you are VERY SATISFIED and 1 means you’re NOT SATISFIED AT ALL.

VERY SATISFIED 5

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 4

NEITHER SATIFIED NOR NOT SATISFIED 3

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED 2

NOT SATISFIED AT ALL 1


57. Why do you say that you are [MENTION ANSWER IN Q57]. Why else? Anything else?

58. What else can still be done in order to improve this program / activity? What else? Anything else?

59. Were you a part of this program / activity?

YES 1 What was your involvement?

NO 2 IV. Forest/ Coastal Resource Management INTERVIEWER: IF FOREST or COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IS NOT MENTIONED IN Q11, CONTINUE OTHERWISE GO TO PART V Now, let us talk about Forest/Coastal resource Management.. 60. Among the Forest/Coastal Resource Management activities you mentioned earlier, what is the activity that

you LIKED MOST?

Activity Like Most: ____________________________________

Let us discuss the activity in more detail.

61. What is it all about? What was its purpose? What else? Anything else? PROBE ON: What were the things it aimed to do? What were the policies enforced?



A. Planning








69. How is the final plan/mode of action arrived at? Probe whether it was a consensus or hierarchy – only top

officials making plans?









the service, etc.?














ASK FOR EACH ACTIVITY/ INITIATIVE MENTIONED IN Q99 Q99 LIST ACTIVITY

__________________

_________________

__________________






103. On the overall, how satisfied or not satisfied are you with [MENTION MOST SUCCESSFUL ACTIVITY]? Please use this rating scale where 5 means you are VERY SATISFIED and 1 means you’re NOT SATISFIED AT ALL.

VERY SATISFIED 5




NOT SATISFIED AT ALL 1


104. Why do you say that you are [MENTION ANSWER IN Q105]. Why else? Anything else?




NO 2 V. Solid Waste Management INTERVIEWER: IF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IS NOT MENTIONED IN Q11, CONTINUE OTHERWISE GO TO PART VI. At this point we would now talk about Solid Waste Management 107. Among the Solid Waste Resource Management activities you mentioned earlier, what is the activity that

you LIKED MOST?

Activity Like Most: ____________________________________

Let us discuss the activity in more detail. 108. What is it all about? What was its purpose? What else? Anything else? PROBE ON: What were the

things it aimed to do? What were the policies enforced?



A. Planning








116. How is the final plan/mode of action arrived at? Probe whether it was a consensus or hierarchy – only top

officials making plans?









the service, etc.?














ASK FOR EACH ACTIVITY/ INITIATIVE MENTIONED IN Q147 Q 147 LIST ACTIVITY

____________________

____________________

___________________







150. On the overall, how satisfied or not satisfied are you with [MENTION MOST SUCCESSFUL ACTIVITY]?

Please use this rating scale where 5 means you are VERY SATISFIED and 1 means you’re NOT SATISFIED AT ALL.

VERY SATISFIED 5




NOT SATISFIED AT ALL 1 151. Why do you say that you are [MENTION ANSWER IN Q153]. Why else? Anything else?




NO 2


VI. Ideal Forest/Coastal Resource Management Program 154. As a last portion of this interview I would like to ask that if you were to create the ideal or best

forest/coastal resource management program, what should be its qualities? What else? Anything else?

TOP OF MIND

Specifically probe on the following: Governance Areas (Planning, Budgeting, Procurement of

Services, Issuance of Permits, Monitoring, Innovation) 155. In terms of [MENTION AREA] what should be the activities involved? How should it be carried out?

PLANNING

BUDGETING

PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES

ISSUANCE OF PERMITS

MONITORING

INNOVATION


VII. Ideal Solid Waste Management Program 156. How about for Solid waste Management, what should be the qualities of an ideal or best solid waste

management program? What else? Anything else?

TOP OF MIND

Specifically probe on the following: Governance Areas (Planning, Budgeting, Procurement of

Services, Issuance of Permits, Monitoring, Innovation) 157. In terms of [MENTION AREA] what should be the activities involved? How should it be carried out?

PLANNING

BUDGETING

PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES

ISSUANCE OF PERMITS

MONITORING

INNOVATION

END INTERVIEW AND THANK RESPONDENTS


“morning” - usaid

Documents