Actors in Upland Governance

ACTORS IN UPLAND GOVERNANCE

Antonio C. Antonio

July 4, 2013

QUESTIONS:  (1) Do you believe in the FAO Framework that only the government, private sector, and civil society are the only actors in upland governance?  (2) Aside from the PO's of course, who else do you think can act as civil society who can be effective partners in upland governance?  (3) How can we avoid the problem of PO's doing corrupt practices, is there a way to fix this issue?  (4) How about the role reversal among the 3 actors, is this possible? If so, what can the present and future generation do to correct it? (Professor Renato A. Folledo, Jr.)

I must admit that I’m a little bit torn between agreeing with the FAO that the government, private sector and civil society are the more important actors in upland governance and opting to include other stakeholders or interest groups.  There is an old adage that says:”the more, the merrier” but, adversely, there is another one that says: “too many crooks (este, “cooks” pala… LOL) will spoil the broth”.  However, if I were to include another actor, I would always choose the academe.

Many plans and programs of government in the upland areas are laudable.  Problems arise, however, due to the following reasons (to mention a few):

1.     Lack of funds to pursue the project to its success stage;

2.     Lack of commitment from the actors;

3.     Lack of genuine concern from the actors;

4.     Lack of motivation from the actors;

5.     Too much selfish interest from the actors;

6.     Lack of feedback/monitoring and evaluation mechanisms;

7.     Lack of oversight mechanism;

8.     Graft and corruption;

9.     Incompetence on the part of the actors; and,

10.  Lack of knowledge.

Among the above-listed reasons, I should say that No. 10 is very critical.  Lack of commitment, genuine concern, motivation, selfish interest, monitoring, evaluation and oversight mechanisms, graft and corruption, and incompetence can be solved with proper training and knowledge.  But this is quite hard to achieve considering that education and learnedness is a long process… so I still believe that the active participation of the academe will infuse the much-needed knowhow (technical, theoretical, clinical, etc.) that is oftentimes sorely lacking. People have a tendency to have genuine concern and become more committed to any undertaking when they are well informed and knowledgeable of the task at hand.

Corruption could also be curbed when all the actors become aware of the expectations that go with their respective assignments.  Acts of graft and corruption are born out of ignorance… it will be hard for people to wheel and deal when others are in the know.  Academicians could create this awareness in the actors and motivate them to properly set up to the challenges ahead.

The normal practice in upland governance is to organize “multi-sectoral taskforces/committees” to deliberate, implement and monitor programs and projects and (oftentimes) bestow upon them extra-ordinary police, administrative and controlling powers.  These taskforces/committees are usually composed of the following:

·         DENR representatives from the National, Regional, Provincial and Community Offices;

·         Local Government Unit (LGU) representatives from the Provincial and Municipal Governments;

·         People’s Organizations (PO) representative (more often) coming from the Indigenous People’s organization/community (IPs) in the affected areas;

·         Civil Society representatives (more often) coming from the environment advocacy groups; and,

·         The private proponents or investors.

This sort of power is very dangerous in the hands of people to know less of what is expected of them.  Please consider the following possible scenario:

·         The DENR representatives, perceived to be corrupt, will often leave glitches in the system to create opportunities for corruption;

·         The LGU representatives are politicians, are easily swayed by populist considerations and could have been elected because of popularity… not knowhow, skill and intelligence;

·         The IP representatives are just there for a ride and would not really know what’s going on;

·         The Civil Society/environmentalist organization representatives are often inflexible and would always take a very militant stance… the “basta” attitude.  They are often quoted as saying: “Basta!  We object!”… and when asked to lay the basis for their objections, they will simply repeat their rehearsed refrain: “Basta! We object!”

·         The private sector representatives, also representing business interest, will always want to put one over the others.

All these characters put together is a perfect formula for disaster.  And the cost for such failure and incompetence would translate to certain and sometime irreversible and irreparable damage to the environment.

Role reversal, in my simple mind, cannot be achieved in this situation.  The question that comes to our mind would be…  “How could an actor assume the role of the other actors when he does not even know his own original role as an actor in upland governance?.”  If at all this can be done, it will be a very good "mirror" exercise for the actors to be able to see themselves in the role of others, gain some degree of self-realization and self-actualization... get to look at things from a different perspective and, perhaps, get to understand the other actors better.

Just my little thoughts…

REACTIONS/COMMENTS:

Elizabeth Villezar (July 5, 2013): “Yes, somehow, I do believe in FAO framework as it wouldn’t be described there if it was not studied/ researched well as Philippines is also represented in the establishment of the framework.  But I think they should add more actors.  I would be adding the academe (Sir Anton) and the research institutions in upland governance as they also play an important role in protecting and conserving it.  So long as the three actors in upland governance do their roles religiously to benefit the many not just the few since the framework defined the roles and responsibility of each actor.  We have to work together in order that the upland governance will be successful and beneficial.”

Jennifer Morantte (September 1, 2013):  “May I suggest adding an 11th item: Lack of effective communication process that shall transport the essential technologies and scientific principles to the people who are supposed to execute/demonstrate/implement/practice the best techniques/ appropriate technologies to areas in most need.  Perhaps, more are still to be learned but the learnings that are at hand only needs to be properly disseminated, so the sooner it is in place the faster the recovery/rehabilitation of our demolished ecological sites/areas (not just the upland).  The question to add, then, is "Who's role among the actors it is to spread the knowledge where it is needed (Government, private sector, civil society, academe, or all of the above)"?  Thank you for your Great little thoughts...”

Antonio C. Antonio (September 2, 2013):  “Hi, Jen... Thank you so much.  Yes, I agree to your addition (Item No. 11).  You actually completed the cycle.  Communicating good stuff to the all the stakeholders is also an important element.  And, to answer your question "Who's role among the actors it is to spread the knowledge where it is needed?", I believe it is the responsibility of ALL the actors.  This responsibility should not be left on the shoulders of a particular actor.  Everyone should get involved.  That’s what Civil Society is all about.  Again, thanks for the positive commentaries.”

Oscar Sarmiento, Jr. (September 24, 2013):  “Nice point regarding the academe, Mr. Antonio. I agree. The experts could provide valuable information to all the actors so that everyone can make an informed decision.”