CBFM AND PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT
by Hazel
Henrisha T. Chua, Elizabeth M. Villezar, Zaldy Lumaan and Antonio C. Antonio
x x x x x x x x x x
Hazel Henrisha T. Chua (December
6, 2013):
Participatory
management, which is also known as “employee involvement” or participative
decision making, encourages and calls for the involvement of employees and
relevant stakeholders to be a part of the decision making process.
Its
underlying principles, advantages, and disadvantages have already been discussed
thoroughly by Anton Antonio in a previous thread. This time around, we will be taking a closer
look at several case studies of the method in action in various fields,
including forest management and organizational management (as in the case of
NGOs), and in the industrial sector.
We will
start with the case on CBFM, which you can find below. More case studies will be added to this
thread within the week, so you can digest them one by one.
Case No. 1: Participatory
Planning and Management in Philippines Community-Based Forestry
Guiang
and Harker (2000) observed the implementation of the community-based forest
management program (CBFM) and the planning process behind the Natural Resources
Management Program of the DENR. At its
very core, CBFM encourages forest communities to manage the resource while
allowing them to get sustenance and harvest its products. Summarized, the process is as follows: the
DENR works with LGUs to identify possible CBFM sites. Consultations with candidate forest communities
are held followed by the granting of the CBFM Agreement (CBFMA). The 25-year CBFMA must then be turned in an
Annual Work Plan (AWP) that has to be affirmed. It is during this process that notable
problems were observed:
- AWP affirmation cannot ensure that the forest community has the capability to manage or harvest their assigned sites
- Income allocation from harvests were subjected to conflict and allegations of unfair practices
- Insufficient funds to comply with the DENR’s documentation requirements, purchase necessary equipment, rehabilitate the road, etc.
- Difficulty in marketing harvested products due to lack of funds (hence, lack of transportation), unclear payment arrangements, etc.
The study
concludes that while participatory planning empowers communities and provides
increased ownership resources-wise. However, the lack of technical skills,
capital, and linkages to financial institutions causes CBFMA holders to
eventually fail.
Points to
Ponder:
- Discuss participatory management’s role in CBFM. How is the approach applied?
- Identify the stakeholders in CBFM and the benefits they stand to gain from the program.
- In this particular case, CBFMA holders failed not because of the CBFM policy, but because of external factors. How should these be addressed?
- Assuming that the problems described frequently arise, would you recommend policy changes to CBFM? Why or why not?
References:
x x x x x x x x x x x
Elizabeth M. Villezar (December
9, 2013):
Hello
Hazel,
Discuss participatory
management’s role in CBFM. How is the approach applied? The role of participatory management in CBFM
is very vital as this kind of management needs the participation of several
stakeholders most especially the involved community. Every stakeholder is needed to perform what
is expected from each of them as several functions are necessary to realize the
effectiveness of participatory management in CBFM (technical skills in
performing several tasks such as resource inventory, monitoring &
evaluation, etc.). Knowledge of the area
managed has to be acquired through the participation of the inhabitants
(community within the area), thus, thorough analysis can be performed by the
external parties such as the DENR, the USAID, etc. Several issues can then be dealt with
accordingly.
Identify the stakeholders in CBFM
and the benefits they stand to gain from the program. Several stakeholders in CBFM are
involved: The community
within the forestland. Members of
the community are equipped with ancient knowledge on how to manage their habitat
the way their ancestors did. They are
also familiar with the anatomy of the forest thus, their participation is very
important. The national government represented by DENR. DENR is the
implementing agency in the management of forestland for its preservation and
sustainable development. The task of
DENR is to collaborate with other external stakeholders to effectively
implement the CBFM through active participation. Securing financial resources; adapting
methods/ mechanisms for effective CBFM, securing the commitments of LGU for their
added protection from external forces that might be involved in illegal
poaching and the like.
LGUs. The role of local
government units is important in the implementation of CBFM.
In this particular case, CBFMA
holders failed not because of the CBFM policy, but because of external factors. How should these be addressed? External factors such as politics and the lack
of constant monitoring mostly caused the failure of CBFMA implementation. The involved stakeholders should be very
serious in establishing, implementing and monitoring the CBFM by focusing on
its main objectives and not just for the few stakeholders with their own
self-interest.
Assuming that the problems
described frequently arise, would you recommend policy changes to CBFM? Why or why not? There might be some revisions to be made on
the policy for its consistent implementation and monitoring, however, the main
problem is the individual interest of each of them. This is the main reason why many policies or
projects failed because of self-interest.
There’s a saying in Filipino “ningas kugon” this is always true in every
project as I have observed. The
continuance depends on the motivation on the part of the involved parties. If we could only change this, maybe we could
be able to achieve our common goal.
x x x x x x x x x x
Antonio C. Antonio (December 17,
2013):
Hi,
Hazel...
Thank you
for adding the CBFM case study to our discussion on Participatory
Management. Your contribution certainly
provided additional knowledge on our topic.
x x x x x x x x x x
Hazel Henrisha T. Chua (December
19, 2013):
Hello
Beth,
Thank you
for your input. I agree that in order
for programs like CBFM to succeed, the stakeholders should exert effort and be
very dedicated to the program and its objectives.
The
government and the enforcing agencies have a huge role, so stakeholders must
also work hand in hand with these institutions to carry out their objectives.
x x x x x x x x x x
Hazel Henrisha T. Chua (December
19, 2013):
Hi Anton,
Thanks!
Hopefully this can expand the concept of participatory management. If you can give your input on the case study
presented, it would be wonderful. Thanks!
x x x x x x x x x x
Antonio C. Antonio (December 19,
2013):
Hi,
Hazel...
Please
allow me to re-print your guide questions for my guidance...
Points to
Ponder:
1. Discuss participatory
management’s role in CBFM. How is the approach applied?
2. Identify the stakeholders in CBFM
and the benefits they stand to gain from the program.
3. In this particular case, CBFMA
holders failed not because of the CBFM policy, but because of external factors.
How should these be addressed?
4. Assuming that the problems
described frequently arise, would you recommend policy changes to CBFM? Why or why not?
In the
previous comments/discussions of Beth (Villezar), she practically covered all
the bases and provided sufficient answers to these questions... but allow me to
add a few more points...
The CBFM
concept is a workable one. There are
several CBFM projects in the Caraga Region that worked and are continually
providing benefits for the stakeholders involved. If this particular case
failed, there are fundamental flaws as you mentioned... “the lack of technical
skills, capital, and linkages to financial institutions”.
The CBFM,
from the business standpoint, should have the following basic requisites to
succeed as a business venture: (1) Management; (2) Manpower; (3) Material; (4)
Market; and (5) Money (or financial capability)... the 5 “Ms”. From the
problems already mentioned (therefore: “the lack of technical skills, capital,
and linkages to financial institutions”), it seems apparent that the problem is
in Nos. 1 (Management) and 5 (Money).
No. 1
(Management) should relatively be the easiest to solve since it only entails a
“good choice” of manager. No. 2 (Manpower) should provide the
solution. From the ranks of those attached to and allied with the CBFM
organization, someone should be able to fill up the top managerial position.
Someone who could meet the expectations of all stakeholder. In case no
one makes the grade from within the organization, the appointment of an
outsider will be the next best option.
One of
the 5 “Ms” also presents a solution to problem No. 5 (Money). The demand
for timber and wood products will always be good considering its dwindling
supply. So long as the CBFM has No. 3 (Material), (in this case timber,
wood and other forest products,) it could be used to gain financial resources
to fund its operations. The giving of “advance payments” is an accepted
wood industry practice in the Philippines. So long as the buyer (supposed
to be another stakeholder) is assured of the supply of the good, he will be
more than willing to advance payments. Another strength of the CBFM
organization is the fact that wood and timber products is considered a seller’s
market... and therefore, the CBFM has the option to maximize selling prices
within the limits of what the buyer can afford and is willing to buy. The
CBFM management, however, should also make certain that their buyer/s has/have
legitimate Wood Processing Permits (WPP) issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)... or else, the transaction will be
deemed illegal.
Another
possible solution to the problem of “money” is access to financing
institutions. The moratorium (Executive Order No. 23) banning the
harvesting of timber from the residual forest declared in February 2011 has
made most Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) holders struggle to
make their operations viable. The DENR-Forest Management Bureau
(DENR-FMB) has been facilitating and assisting these tenurial instrument (IFMA)
holders in securing soft loans from the Development Bank of the Philippines
(DBP) since the 3rd Quarter of the current year. With
this information, it would be just a matter of the CBFM organization informing
and making formal representation with the DENR-FMB on its financial woes and,
like in the case of the IFMA holders, this government agency will be more than
willing to help.
Going
back to participatory management and the matter of identifying stakeholders,
the financial sources (as discussed: the buyers and lending institutions)
should be a necessary inclusion to the roster of stakeholders for the
CBFM. Rather than treat them as external factors, they could be treated
as internal factors. In a SWOT analysis, external factors/environment are
the organization’s Opportunities and Threats while Strengths and Weaknesses are
internal factors/environment. We are all aware that an organization’s internal
environment is easier managed than its external environment. By
bringing-in the buyers and financial institutions as stakeholders and,
therefore, becomes part of their internal environment, the CBFM can now manage
and control them better. Other external factors like market forces,
climactic conditions, etc., mostly unpredictable, would be the only remaining
factors the CBFM management will have to watch out for.
There
seems to be a failure in the planning of this particular CBFM case. Not
only were the critical/crucial stakeholders not properly identified (which made
participatory management insufficient and programmed to fail) but also the
failure to include sub-plans for the pre-operations and post-harvesting stages
in the initial planning. The post-harvesting stage is “M” No. 4 (Market
[or marketing]). It should be noted that marketing plays a bigger role in
a business venture as this is the stage where money/profits are infused back
into the financial system of the organization to finance its next cycle of
operations.
Lastly,
on the matter of recommending policy changes for the CBFM program... I would
not want to venture on a recommendation for the simple reason that it works...
perhaps, not with some but for most CBFMs. The DENR, with all its
technical expertise and experience, has lengthily studied and developed the
CBFM program. I am sure they also have oversight measures to calibrate
the program to adapt to mid-stream changes. Besides, sincerely, with my
limitations, it is not within my competence to make one.
It is a
sad fact that we are an archipelago and what works for Region I may not
necessarily work in Region XII. But public policies cannot include
regional peculiarities... there should only be one that is generally ideal for
all the regions. Besides, if something works for most, let’s not change
the entire set up but just make situational adjustments. The best course
of action is to document what works for most CBFMs, polish these cases into
implementable procedurals and apply these success formulas to problematic ones.
Just my
little thoughts...
x x x x x x x x x x
Hazel Henrisha T. Chua (December
27, 2013):
Link to the full case studies: Case No. 1: Participatory Planning and Management
in Philippines Community-Based Forestry - http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0002934-environment-participatory-planning-and-management-in-philippines-community-based-forestry.pdf
x x x x x x x x x x
Zaldy Lumaan (January 14, 2014):
My
discussions on the post of Ms Hazel in particpatory management in Philippine
CBF
Discuss participatory
management’s role in CBFM. How is the approach applied?
In the
Philippines, as in many less developed countries, NGOs provide the linkages
between international funding on the one hand, and government agencies and POs
on the other, especially where the latter are locally based and focused. The
Philippine constitution has enshrined the role of POs by making it incumbent on
government agencies to respect their role and to facilitate consultation with
them. People’s Organizations are defined in section 15 of the constitution as:
bonafide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the
public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure’.
This section goes further in describing the relationship between the State and
POs: ‘The State shall respect the role of independent people’s organizations to
enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their
legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful
means’‘. The use of participatory processes has been made an obligation of government
agencies by the inclusion of section 16 within the constitution, which states:
‘The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable
participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making
shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of
adequate consultation mechanisms’. The implementation of the National Greening
Program of the government involved the participation of the People’s
Organizations in the uplands areas. Their sincere participation in the program
not only helped the government in the rehabilitation of denuded and
unproductive areas but also helped themselves uplift their economic condition.
Through the raising of various species of forest trees and fruit trees and
planting in their occupied lots, they can earn enough money for their family.
Identify the stakeholders in CBFM
and the benefits they stand to gain from the program.
Programs
developed to address the need to involve the community as a key stakeholder in
natural resource management include Community Based Resource Management (CBRM),
Community Based Coastal Resource Management (CBCRM), NGO-Assisted Community
Based Mangrove Forest Management (NGO-Assisted CBMFM) and Community Based
Forest Management (CBFM) (DENR, 1994; Ferrer and Nozawa, 1998). In their review
of CBCRM in the Philippines, Ferrer and Nozawa (1998) define CBCRM, but equally
applicable to the other versions of these programs, as ‘people-centered,
community oriented and resource based. It starts from the basic premise that
people have the innate capacity to understand and act on their own problems. It
begins where the people are. They described community based natural resource
management programs as including:
- building support institutions or groups to promote resource user’s rights;
- management of the environment for sustainable use;
- economic upliftment and equitable distribution of benefits;
- forging partnerships among institutions (government organizations, PO, academe and with NGOs) to improve capabilities and expand services; and
- linkaging and advocacy for policy reforms.
In this particular case, CBFMA
holders failed not because of the CBFM policy, but because of external factors.
How should these be addressed?
“People
first and sustainable forestry will follow” sums up the concept of CBFM. The
Government believes that by addressing the needs of local communities, they
themselves will join hands to protect and manage the very source of their
livelihood. Governments must allow CBFMs to have increased formal involvement
in the decision-making process and policy changes that can impact positively on
their lives. Additionally, at a local level “strategic interventions are
still needed to achieve the social justice and equality objectives of CBFM”
thus addressing the observation in some projects that the community elites and
educated are benefiting the most.
·
The NGO
partners needed to recruit and retain high quality staff with adequate
programming experience from the inception of the project.
·
There
should have been more interaction between partner organizations through cross
visits and attending each other’s meetings and workshops.
·
It is
important to identify weak areas of each partner organization from inception
and then try to improve those gradually.
·
NGO
partners should be selected with clear capacities in livelihoods and community
group formation.
·
It
remains unclear whether the various strategies employed by the partner NGOs
produce equally equitable benefits; the exclusion of the very poor may be more
likely under fisher-led approaches than under community led initiatives.
·
Some NGOs
are involved in a range of different projects and approaches to CBFM and become
over stretched and/or have less interest in continuing activities without
funding.
·
The donor
requirement was to focus primarily on vulnerable groups - this needed to be
clearly communicated to the NGOs as a core aim.
·
Substantial
progress was made in networking the CBOs of various projects engaged in CBFM. A
series of workshops have been held at 4 which CBOs exchanged experiences and
debated future strategies for coordination. The CBOs established their
successes, failures and constraints to date and discussed opportunities to
improve their effectiveness.
·
Some
cluster committees are functioning, but no higher apex body has yet been
formally convened, although CBOs have met to discuss apex establishment in one
place.
·
NGOs
should document the added value of cluster committees and apex bodies for
future reference.
·
There are
other resources in the forest that people diverted its attention. People have
engaged extraction of minerals ores as a means of immediate source of
income.
Assuming that the problems
described frequently arise, would you recommend policy changes to CBFM? Why or why not?
No, it
does necessarily follow to change policy to CBFM but to enhance its strategies
how to have full participation of the people in the upland. And the
harmonization of policies of the DENR and other government agencies like NCIP,
agriculture department and the Department of Agrarian Reform. Like any other
government agencies and department, its focus is on the welfare of the humanity
in a well manage environment. The CBFM is the right program for the communities
in the uplands. CBFM applies to all areas classified as forest lands, including
allowable zones within protected areas not covered by prior vested rights. The
program integrates and unifies all people-oriented forestry activities of the
Integrated Social Forestry program, Community Forestry Program, Coastal
Environment Program, and Recognition of Ancestral Domains.
x x x x x x x x x x
Hazel Henrisha T. Chua (January
16, 2014):
Zaldy,
Thank you
for sharing your insights on the case.
I agree
that NGOs have provided linkages between the government and institutional
agencies and institutions who can provide further help and assistance in the
programs that are being implemented. Together
with the stakeholders and with the relevant government agencies, much can be
done.
CBFM as it
is is a well-founded policy. As you
pointed out, the failures may not be due to a failure of the said policy, but
failure in execution, which can be addressed by employing alternative
strategies and methods.
Once
again, thank you for your participation!
x x x x x x x x x x
Hazel Henrisha T. Chua (January
16, 2014):
After
considering three case studies of participatory management as applied to upland
ecological systems, I’m sure that there are several conclusions you can draw
with regards to the method and how it works as a whole. Your thoughts and
opinions would be very much appreciated, so please feel free to add your
comment in this thread. To start things off, I’ll start by sharing what I think
about participatory management.
First of
all (and to state the obvious), the stakeholders play a huge role in
determining the success or failure of the project. They are the main actors of
the program. Government organizations and agencies only serve to act as guiding
or implementing bodies, while the bulk of the action falls onto the shoulders
of the stakeholders. Their efforts will be rewarded with success, which may
come in the form of financial or cultural gains. At the same time, ecological
rewards will be reaped by their future generations, provided the goal towards
sustainability was met.
Secondly,
another conclusion that I’ve come to is that it would be very difficult for
participatory management to succeed without the proper support systems. In this
case, it would be backing from concerned government organizations and
institutions, as well as relevant bodies that would be able to provide
assistance to the stakeholders as they embark on the project. For example, in
Case No. 1, which discusses CBFM in the Philippines, the farmers encountered
obstacles in meeting certain requirements of the program. Financial restraints
and perhaps lack of information workshops also led to more difficulties in the
long run. If there had been proper support systems, then the stakeholders would
have encountered less problems as they would be provided with the assistance
that they badly needed.
Lastly,
it’s important to recognize that participatory management, as its name implies,
is a team effort. It is through the collective effort of the stakeholders and
implementing bodies that success will be obtained. The underlying goal of such
method is to give stakeholders a bigger role in managing resources that will
undoubtedly affect their way of life and standard of living.
Share your thoughts below!
If you have additional resources or case studies to
share, please feel free to do so.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I’d like
to take this opportunity to thank those who took the time to read the cases,
research, and share their opinions in this thread. Especially to Anton Antonio,
Beth Villezar, and Zaldy Lumaan.
Thank you
for adding your insightful thoughts and analyses to the discussion!
Thanks for the blog article.Thanks Again. Keep writing.
ReplyDeletebusiness analyst online course
business analyst training in hyderabad