collective action and learning in developing a local ...into the local information system so that...

INTRODUCTION

People monitor the environment as naturally as they look,feel, smell, and listen (Alexandra et al.1996). Monitoringis a fundamental facet of the human process of cognition.More strictly it can be defined as periodic and repeatedobservations of appropriate parameters to determine theeffects of certain management strategies or policies, andthe response of systems to change (Bosch et al. 1996). Froma systems theory perspective, monitoring provides theconduit by which feedback ‘closes’ the systems loop, withoutwhich the system, by definition, remains open and withoutcontrol. Therefore monitoring is crucial because it enableslocal managers and decision-makers to understand theimpacts of their decisions and of other factors on theresources they manage. Turning this general principle intoaction results in monitoring programmes designed forvarious objectives relating to compliance with national orlocal regulatory requirements, whether practices meet initialobjectives, and for accountability purposes (Taylor et al.1997, Abbot and Guijt 1998). However, in the context offorest management, virtually no monitoring programmeshave been designed to provide relevant feedback to localmanagers about the implications or outcomes of aparticular management strategy or policy and they aretherefore less than optimal tools in managing naturalresources successfully. Having failed to satisfy the needs of

those people generating the data (i.e. the local managers),many monitoring efforts could not be sustained or wererejected and thus could not form an integral part ofmanagement (Bosch et al. 1996).

Monitoring programme initiatives at the communitylevel face similar problems. In many cases, monitoringsystems designed to assess community performance inachieving certain project goals limited local participationto data collection only (Ricafort 1996 in Abbott and Guijt1998). The initiators failed to design monitoring systemsthat matched the needs and capacities of the communitiesconcerned. Even in cases where these obstacles wereovercome, monitoring systems generally had a low rate ofadoption by local people because they were not involvedin the development processes. Ignoring local stakeholdersin the development of these systems meant that themonitoring effort could not be sustained by thecommunities themselves.

Bosch et al. (1996), Guijt and Sidersky (1996), andAbbot and Guijt (1998) amongst others, emphasise thatfor monitoring to be a part of sustainable learningprocesses it has to be of local relevance and feasible inthe long term. Furthermore, it will only contribute tolocal understanding and empowerment if the processesmotivate all stakeholders and that the results are fed backinto the local information system so that monitoring isnot merely extractive.

Collective action and learning in developing a localmonitoring systemHERLINA HARTANTO1, MARIA CRISTINA B. LORENZO2, AND ANITA L. FRIO3

1 Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor 16680,Indonesia, Tel : 62-251-622622, Fax: 62-251-622100

2 1469 Jamboree Site, College, Laguna 4031, Philippines3 1972 Pleasant Village, U.P. Los Baños, College, Laguna 4031, Philippines, Tel/Fax: 63-49-5361956

Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

SUMMARY

One of the challenges communities face when managing forests is the lack of a systematic and transparent monitoring system that canbe used to monitor their resource management strategies and communicate their successes to outsiders. This paper argues that monitoringefforts will be sustainable only if the system has been developed by the communities in collaboration with other relevant stakeholders,with the aim of enhancing their learning and understanding, rather than for compliance purposes. The paper describes processes usedby a People’s Organisation in Palawan, Philippinesto develop their monitoring system with the support of several key stakeholders.These include the development of a monitoring framework and arrangements (including who collects data, what data to collect, andhow to collect it) and negotiation on how to collaborate in this effort. Results indicate that the development process has broughttogether a range of community groups and stakeholders with different interests, objectives, and mandates for collective action andlearning.

Keywords: monitoring, collective action, learning, community forestry, Criteria and Indicators

184 International Forestry Review 4(3), 2002

ADAPTIVE COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT(ACM)

In managing complex ecosystems, such as forests, wherealmost by definition there is a dearth of knowledge, wehave to learn to live with surprises and uncertainties(Holling 1978, Walters 1986, Lee 1993). AdaptiveCollaborative Management (ACM) aims to improve theability of forests stakeholders to collectively manage acomplex and dynamic system through continuousadjustments to their management systems. At the heart ofthe strategy are the conscious efforts to observe and learnabout the impacts of the management on forests andsubsequently improve it.

The ACM programme of the Centre for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR) started its participatory actionresearch in the Philippines in 1999. It is a part of the globalACM research programme in Asia (Indonesia, Nepal,China), Africa (Zimbabwe, Malawi, Cameroon, Ghana),and Latin America (Brazil, Bolivia). It focuses ondeveloping and testing the concepts, managementprinciples, tools, and policy options needed to strengthenthe ability of the people and other stakeholders to manageforest resources in collaborative and adaptive ways. ACMalso aims to understand the conditions in which adaptiveand collaborative management can lead to realimprovements in both the forest’s and people’s conditions,especially the poor and marginalised.

One of the pillars of ACM in community forestry isthat local communities and stakeholders should be able toengage in on-going observations of the impacts of theirmanagement practices, continually to reflect and learn fromthese observations, and subsequently to adapt theirmanagement strategies, in a process of conscious continuallearning. To optimise the gains from this ACM cycle oflearning and improvement, an effective monitoring systemis essential (Bosch et al.1996, Taylor et al. 1997, Salafskyet al. 2001). Therefore, in order to facilitate ACM at thelocal level, the concept of monitoring should be introducedand, if this meets with interest, local forest managers canbe assisted to develop collaborative monitoring systems thatare simple, practicable, effective, and will encourageparticipation from government institutions, as well asvarious community groups.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site utilised in this paper is located about 67 km fromPuerto Princesa City, Province of Palawan, Philippines. Thearea is a Community Based Forest Management (CBFM)area that was tenured by the Department of Environmentand Natural Resources (DENR) to a People’s Organisation(PO) called San Rafael Tanabag and Concepcion Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (STCMPC). The PO initiallyreceived tenure over 1,000 ha of forest in early 1990s underthe Community Reforestation Programme, which wasinitiated based on DENR Administrative Order No. 22. In

1996, the earlier tenure was expanded to 5,006 ha. The areacovers a series of watersheds of the three adjoiningbarangays (villages) in Puerto Princesa City, namely SanRafael, Tanabag and Concepcion. As the recipient of thetenure, the PO is responsible for the protection,rehabilitation, and conservation of the CBFM area.Furthermore, they are also required to assist the governmentin the protection of the adjacent forest lands, prepare andimplement management plans for the area, develop andenforce relevant policies, follow laws, rules and regulationspertinent to forest products utilisation (DENR 1996).

The CBFM area consists of a strip of disturbedforestlands in need of some form of rehabilitation anddevelopment. Prior to 1970, forest conditions in the areawere good. A diversity of plant species was observed, withalmaciga (Agathis damarra), ipil (Instia bijuga) and narra(Pterocarpus indicus) as the dominant tree species. In 1970,pressure on the forests increased significantly with theoperation of a logging concession and the in-flow ofmigrants who practiced slash-and-burn agriculture. As aresult, the forest’s condition started to decline. In 1986, alogging ban was imposed in the Philippines, which alsoincluded Palawan (Hartanto et al. 2000)

LOCAL MONITORING INITIATIVES IN PALAWAN

Natural resource management in Palawan has been theresult of the interplay of many government and civil societyinstitutions with dynamic relationships and interactions.These different institutions often have conflicting views onhow to manage natural resources. At our site the keystakeholders included the People’s Organisation(STCMPC), Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR), Local Government Unit at theprovincial, municipal, and barangay level, a special unit ofMunicipal Government called City Environment andNatural Resource Office (City ENRO), Palawan Councilfor Sustainable Development (PCSD), and local NGOs.

Many of those key institutions developed and conductedmonitoring programmes as part of their managementstrategies. So terms such as monitoring, participatorymonitoring, monitoring and evaluation, etc. were notparticularly new to most of the stakeholders. Several localmonitoring programmes that were developed by keyinstitutions in Palawan are described below, along with whatdrives these institutions to foster such initiatives, as well ashow the monitoring programmes were implemented.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

DENR is the government agency in charge of theenvironment and natural resource protection andmanagement. As the authority responsible forimplementing the community forestry programme in thePhilippines, DENR has to prove that CBFM is really theappropriate strategy for improving forest conditions andhence the situation of local communities. DENR initiated

Collective action and learning in a local monitoring system 185

and developed a monitoring system entitled EnvironmentalPerformance Monitoring, to be implemented by thePeople’s Organisations in the CBFM area. In parallel withthis, at the national level, DENR assessed the performanceof CBFM at a landscape level, recording a reduced rate offorest degradation, stabilisation of forest cover, and anactual increase in forest cover (Johnson 1998).

Environmental Performance Monitoring was developedby DENR in collaboration with NGOs, local governmentunit staff and around 120 community members in selectedCBFM areas. There are two groups of indicators proposedin the EPM monitoring framework: core environmentalindicators and process indicators. Core environmentalindicators include biophysical indicators such as forestcover, water quality and quantity, stabilisation of soil, andbiodiversity. Process indicators include indicators relatedto the capability of the PO in implementing CBFMactivities, their forest resource use and managementpractices, finance, organisation, and socio-economics (Paz1999). The DENR field-tested Environmental PerformanceMonitoring in certain CBFM areas in five regions of thePhilippines. In May 2002, they held a seminar to evaluatethe findings of the field tests and improve the existingEnvironmental Performance Monitoring (DENR CBFMStaff, personal communication, May 2002).

DENR did not intend to enforce EnvironmentalPerformance Monitoring implementation. It was designedto serve as an internal review by the PO, on a voluntarybasis, to assess their own performance against managementobjectives, and to monitor the impact of their forestmanagement on the environment (Director of ForestManagement Bureau, DENR, pers. comm.). Unfortunately,until now, EPM has not been widely carried out by the POin the Philippines. For example, the PO in Palawanperceived EPM as just another task adding to existingobligations to DENR. Furthermore, there was a concernthat Environmental Performance Monitoring would beused by DENR to assess their performance. The reluctanceto adopt Environmental Performance Monitoring may bedue to the lack of processes to adapt it to local conditionsand the lack of the PO’s participation in developing themonitoring framework.

The Provincial Government

The Provincial Government developed a province-widemonitoring system called the Community BasedMonitoring System (CBMS). This aimed to collect, process,and organise data on socio-economic and humandevelopment in Palawan, including information onpopulation and household characteristics, employment andlivelihood, the peace and order situation, water, health,sanitation, nutrition, education, community development,etc. It is supposed to help provincial decision-andpolicymakers to effectively set the framework for desireddevelopment in the province. Currently, questionnaires areused to collect data from every household in the barangayby barangay officials and barangay nutrition scholars. The

community members’ involvement in the process so far hasbeen limited to providing and validating information(Escaño et al. 2001).

It is clear that CBMS was designed to provide decisionmakers and policy makers with related information on thesocio-economic and human development of the Provinceonly, without any information on natural resourcemanagement. Despite the fact that the scope of the socio-economic information collected would be quite broad, itwould still be difficult to establish causal linkages betweenany changes observed on socio-economic and humandevelopment conditions with the existing natural resourcemanagement interventions. Consequently, CBMS may havelimited use to guide provincial natural resourcemanagement, let alone natural resource management at thelocal level.

Enterprise Works Worldwide (EWW)

A local level-monitoring program that existed in the studyarea that could be of use for natural resource managementpurpose is the Enterprise Works Worldwide’s (EWW)Internal Tracking System (ITS). EWW is an NGO that hasbeen assisting the People’s Organisation since 2000 inimplementing their business operation of extracting andmarketing fallen logs. It was designed as a tool to monitorEWW’s own performance, in terms of enterpriseproductivity, producer incomes and employment. The ITSwas planned to provide EWW managers and programmedirectors with the information that they need for donoragencies, decision making, and to attract new donors andpartners. The information was planned to be collected onannual basis (Stosch and Hyman 1999).

In Palawan, EWW introduced the ITS to the PO staffmembers and trained them on how to collect and analysedata. They had to make calculations to generate data onthe quantity of the lumber extracted, the number of peopleinvolved, the financial costs of the operation, etc. Not allthe PO staff members were capable of performing thesecomplicated calculations with the result that constantsupervision and some incentives had to be provided byEWW.

Since it was designed for the purpose of the EWWproject, it focused only on the business side of lumberextraction. It did not offer a comprehensive picture aboutthe overall forest resource management. It does, however,have some potential to guide forest resource managementif the system is simplified and includes other areas of thePO concerns.

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF A LOCALMONITORING SYSTEM

Despite various attempts made by several local institutionsmentioned in the earlier section, only the ITS was carriedout by the People’s Organisation in 2001 and themonitoring was limited to the PO’s business operations only.

186 H. Hartanto, M.C.B. Lorenzo and A.L. Frio

The PO has been requested by the local DENR since 1996to conduct monitoring as a part of their responsibilities asCBFM holder. Through a series of consultations withvarious local stakeholders, the PO came up with a list ofparameters that they planned to monitor. Due to somecomplications with the approval of their management plan,this monitoring was never carried out. In early 2000 thePO was requested by the local DENR to initiateParticipatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E). ThePO was committed to undertake monitoring as theythought it would help them to assess their progress withCBFM implementation: “Dapat masubaybayan kungtumatakbo ang program” (“We should monitor to see ifthe programme is on track” – PO members, pers. comm.,September 2001). Despite their commitment to do so, thePO had little experience and knowledge on how to developand conduct monitoring. They requested ACM researchersto assist them in developing a local monitoring system.

The process of developing the monitoring frameworkin Palawan was facilitated by three workshops and severaldiscussion sessions. The monitoring framework itself wentthrough two iterations before it was implemented. The firstworkshop was held in February 2001 and was attended bymost of the key personnel and members of the PO. Otherparticipants included a representative from the barangay/village council, a representative from City Environment andNatural Resource Office, and two representatives fromDENR. The second workshop in September 2001 broughttogether a wider cross-section of stakeholders andcommunity groups. Besides those who participated in thefirst workshop, other participants included representativesfrom the Women’s Group and the Fishermen’s Association,representatives from Palawan Council for SustainableDevelopment and its special project called Palawan TropicalForest Protection Programme (PTFPP), and local NGOs(such as EWW, Budyong Rural Development Foundation,Inc., and Haribon Palawan). The third workshop in January2002 was attended by similar stakeholders as the second,except for DENR and local NGOs, who only attended thepre-workshop session.

The basic framework used for the local monitoringsystem was the Criteria and Indicators (C&I) frameworkfor Sustainable Forest Management. It provided a commonframework to describe, conceptualise, organise, and interpretinformation relating to sustainable forest management. Ithas been proven to be a useful communication tool amongdifferent stakeholders, including between local communitiesand other local stakeholders (de Oliveira 1999, Ritchie etal. 2000). The C&I Framework is usually composed of ahierarchy of Principles, Criteria, Indicators, and Verifiers.The four levels of hierarchy have clear vertical linkages in acomprehensive and coherent manner that can be verified(Prabhu et al. 1996, Lammerts van Bueren and Bloom 1997,Prabhu et al. 1998).

Ritchie et al. (2000) emphasised the need for thedevelopment of C&I for Community Managed Forests tobe based on fully participatory processes. Thus, throughthese processes of information sharing, learning, and

awareness building, local communities and localstakeholders could come to a better understanding andagreement on the visions of sustainable forest managementand how to go about it. Furthermore, to facilitate andencourage local communities to implement the monitoringframework and use it as a decision-making tool, they needto be engaged as key players and develop strong ownershipover the development process.

The processes and steps of developing the C&Iframework for local monitoring are described in Figure 1.The key steps of the monitoring development process wereas follows:

Developing a shared vision for the futureVision-type scenario building techniques were used as thefirst step in a C&I framework development process.Scenarios are tools that can be used to anticipate the future

F ilte ring C & I

A pply ing C & IS econ d Itera tion

D evelop ing a S ha red V is iono f the Futur e

S E C O N DW O R K S H O P

F IR S TW O R K S H O P

D eve lop in g C rite ria &Indic ato rs (C & I) S e t

Identifying K ey P rio rity A reas fo rIm p rovem en t a nd D eve lop ing

Ac tion P lan s

D efin in g S takeh o lde r's Ro lesand R espon s ib ilitie s in

C B FM

S earch ing fo r C om m on G roundfo r C ollabo ra tive M on ito ring

R e fin ing C & I

S econ d Itera tion

D eve lop ing C o llabo ra tiveM o n itor ing A rran gem en ts

D a ta o rgan isa tion andin te rp reta tion

D eve lop ing M o n itor ing Fo rm sT H IR D

W O R K S H O P(D R Y R U N )

Extrac ting less ons learn t f orlea rn in g and im provem en t

D ata C o llec tion andD issem ina tion

FIGURE 1 The processes of developing local monitoringsystem in Palawan


by stimulating people to think creatively, breaking awayfrom their usual patterns of thinking or their mental modelof how things work, in order to deal better with complexityand uncertainties (Wollenberg 2000). In this workshop,participants were asked to visualise an ideal future. Theirvisions could be regarded as the goal or simply the directionin which they would like to move. The agreed and sharedcomponents of future conditions that were then groupedtogether with a general heading (‘theme’) assigned to eachset. The general themes that emerged were Education,Organisation, Livelihood, Forest Management, CoastalResource Management, Infrastructure (including irrigationand electricity), Health, and Policy.

Developing the Criteria and Indicator setEach group of participants worked on a different theme.They further detailed the specific conditions that wouldprovide for the ideal of each corresponding theme. Thesespecific conditions were broken down further intomeasurable or observable smaller units, able to indicate howclose local people and stakeholders are to achieving theirgoal of sustainable forest management. These processeswould produce three levels of a C&I framework, with eachtheme developed as a Criterion. An analogy with treestructure was used (Figure 2) to explain the frameworkstructure and to help the participants in understanding howthe different levels in the C&I process relate to each other.The trunk was used to describe criteria, branches describedindicators, and leaves described verifiers. Facilitatorsexplained the meaning of Principles, Criteria, andIndicators by providing simple definitions and examplesand posting these in several places around the workshoproom. An exercise was also conducted in which participantswere divided into several groups and were given a task tobuild a house that is ‘big’, ‘strong’, and ‘beautiful’ usingplastic straws. They were then requested to select one houseamong other houses that met the three criteria. This exerciseprovided an opportunity not only for establishingcollaboration and teamwork among participants, but alsoa lively discussion on the indicators for the three criteria,

the meaning of indicators and criteria, and how they relateto one another.

In developing the C&I framework, we found theparticipants misunderstood the meaning of the highest level(‘vision’) as ‘dreams’ so that their statements of idealconditions were unrealistic and unattainable. Most of theparticipants confused the indicator with an action plan,things that needed to be done rather than ideal conditionsto be achieved. The facilitators had to explain and clarifythe C&I concepts and the different levels repeatedly toovercome these misperceptions. The presence of a facilitatorin each group was needed at this stage.

Refining the monitoring frameworkTo further refine the C&I framework, the concept of filterswas introduced. Refinement was necessary to ensure thatthe C&I are applicable, realistic or attainable, ‘do-able’ (easyto implement and not costly), and to encouragecollaboration across different community groups orstakeholders. To allow the participants to learn what othergroups had developed for different themes, the participantsreviewed the C&Is produced by other groups, applied thesefilters, and provided inputs to improve the set.

The monitoring framework underwent two majoriterations in the first and second workshop (see Table 1 forsummary of changes). The monitoring framework wasexpanded in the second workshop from 8 Criteria to 10Criteria. However, in the third workshop, the participantsdecided to focus their initial monitoring efforts on fiveCriteria only, i.e. Education, Livelihood, Organisation, ForestManagement, and Coastal Management (see Table 2A–2Efor the complete local monitoring framework).

Identifying priority areas for improvement and actionsBy assessing their conditions against the ideal described inthe C&I framework, the participants could identify areasthat needed to be improved. The PO further prioritisedthose ‘weak’ areas and developed strategies to address themin several discussion sessions outside the workshop. Theintegrated planning for action in the monitoring

FIGURE 2 The tree structure analogy used to describe thestructure of C&I

TABLE 1 Iterations in the Criteria and Indicator structureof the local monitoring framework

Feb 2001 Sept 2001 Feb 2002Criteria Workshop Workshop Workshop

Policy 3 I, 9 V 2 I, 8 V –Education 3 I, 10 V 4 I, 8 V 4 I, 8 VLivelihood 3 I, 6 V 2 I, 7 V 2 I, 7 VOrganisation 6 I, 10 V 4 I, 8 V 4 I, 8 VHealth 3 I, 14 V 3 I, 6 V –Forest management 2 I, 8 V 2 I, 6 V 2 I, 6 VCoastal management 1 I, 6 V 2 I, 9 V 2 I, 9 VInfrastructure 3 I, 10 V 1 I, 1 I –Social 3 I, 6V –Ecology 4 I, 6V –


TABLE 2A Local monitoring framework on Education

Criteria: Improved education quality and system in the three barangays.

Data NeededIndicators Verifiers Baseline/Actual Method of Collection Source of Information

1. There is a scholarship Majority of the poor Number of Teachers’ reports Officials of Parents Teachersprogramme for high can study pupils/students Community Association (PTCA)schools and colleges – day care

– elementary– high school– college

2. Presence of non-formal a. Presence of trainers Number of trainers Surveys, interviews Department of Social Welfareeducation activities coming from the villages from the villages and Development (DSWD),

Department of Education,Culture, and Sport (DECS),Barangay Officials

b. Out-of-school youths Number of out-of- Report Concerned agenciesattend vocational training school youths studying School records

or participating ineducation activitiesNumber participatingin non-formal education

c. Training in the villages Number of training Records in the villages Concerned agenciescourses conducted inthe villages

3. Presence of scholarship CBFM beneficiaries are Number of persons Interviews Concerned agenciesprogram for vocational able to study studying vocational Surveyscourse/ technical school courses Records of People’sfor CBFM beneficiaries Number of persons Organisation

who finished college

4. Many people a. Presence of information Number of information Ocular inspectionunderstand CBFM and education campaign and education Interviews

materials campaign materials Radio stationSignboardPamphletsRadio programmeFilm showing

b. Regular meetings, Number of meetings Records of People’s People’s Organisationdialogues are held Organisation

c. Presence of a newsletter Number of issues Records People’s Organisation

TABLE 2B Local monitoring framework on Livelihood

Criteria: Existence of sources of income for the community.


1. Increased incomes a. Crop production for Identify capabilities of Survey Department of Agriculture (DA),better incomes members Coordination activities Department of Social Welfare and

Development (DSWD), NationalStatistic Office (NSO), membersof People’s Organisation

b. Savings of Pesos 2,500 Monthly income Survey DA, DSWD, NSO, members ofa month from increased Interviews People’s Organisationincomes

c. Enough money for List of household Survey DA, DSWD, NSO, members ofcommon needs appliances and other Simple questionnaires People’s Organisation

important household items


TABLE 2B (continued) Local monitoring framework on Livelihood


d. Almost all residents are Number of household Survey DA, DSWD, NSO, members ofgainfully employed members who are Simple questionnaires People’s Organisation

employed

e. Parents can send their Type of school Survey DA, DSWD, NSO, members ofchildren to school (private, public) Simple questionnaires People’s Organisation

Type of course taken

2. Stable and sufficient a. Presence of livelihood Type of livelihoodsource of income projects activities

Source of livelihoodproject fundsIdentity of projectimplementers

b. There are members Status of land Survey Assessor, Bureau of Landwho own land ownership Simple questionnaires

Assessment value of land

TABLE 2C Local monitoring framework on Organisation

Criteria: A strengthened, empowered and responsible organisation exists.


1. Members are a. Actions are guided by Principles of Observation of Board of Directors/ members ofstrengthened principles cooperative operation People’s Organisation

Sustainable development Observation of Board of Directors/ members ofprinciple (not all) meetings People’s Organisation

Number of output Operation manager(volume)Output of main Operation managerproductIncome expenses Operation manager/budget officer

b. Members are able to Committee or manage- Collect data or Board of Directors/committeestand up to principles ment group installed appointment of staff

Coop operations Check manual Operation managerfollowed procedure/observation

operation

c. Act as one toward a Policy installed and Check policy manual/ Board of Directorsdesired goal followed observation

Forms/books installed Check existence of Chairman/ Bookkeeper recordused forms

2. Members and officers Complete attendance in Meeting agenda Collection/copy agenda Secretaryare dedicated meetings, seminars and

workshops

3. Members and officers a. Render voluntary services Operation record Collect grading Secretaryfollow principles and in monitoring illegal schedule/personguidelines activities in CBFM area involved

b. 100% payment of List of members who Check record of Book-keeper and Secretarymembership fee and share pay membership fee secretary or book-capital and share capital keeper

4. There is a sound financial a. Financial statements are Quarterly financial Check with book-keepermanagement system submitted 100% report submitted

Book of accounts

b. Book of account is Book of accounts Check with book-keepermaintained 100% or records of account


TABLE 2D Local monitoring framework on Forest Management.

Criteria: Sustainable management of forest and forest resources.


1. Sustained forest Activities to protect the Number of trees Secondary data, People’s Organisation,protection and forest and watershed like Number of nurseries reports Department of Environment andrehabilitation reforestation, tree planting, Number of hectares Natural Resources (DENR),

nursery establishment and Palawan Tropical Forestagroforestry timber stand Protection Programme (PTFPP),improvement. Local Government Units (LGUs)

2. Management plan and a. Proper and efficient use Activities in processingframework exist and of forest resources forest resourcesare implemented

b. Proper technology for Proper technologiesprocessing forest resources employed

c. Timely harvesting of Month of harvestminor forest products

d. Policies for proper use of Policiesforest resources are followed

e. Active forest guards Number of forest guards(bantay gubat)

TABLE 2E Local monitoring framework on Coastal Management.

Criteria: Sustainable management and protection of coastal areas.


1. Sustained a. Existence of fish Number of fish Secondary data reports Department of Environment andimplementation of sanctuary sanctuaries Natural Resources (DENR),Community Resource Environmental Legal AssistanceManagement Plan Center (ELAC), coastal guards/(CRMP) bantay dagat, Local Government

Unit (LGU)

b. Existence of buoys to Number of fishing Secondary data reports DENRmark fishing boundaries buoys established ELAC, bantay dagat, LGU

c. Reduced illegal activities Number of violators, Secondary data reports DENRnumber of illegal activities ELAC, bantay dagat, LGU

d. Protection and Laws, ordinances that Secondary data reports DENRconservation of coral reefs are enforced ELAC, bantay dagat, LGUthat serve as breedinggrounds for fish

e. Sufficient knowledge of Training, seminars DENRlaws on use of fishery attended and information ELAC, bantay dagat, LGUresources extended to others

f. Active, disciplined and Number of coastal guards DENRdedicated coastal guards and extent of dedication ELAC, bantay dagat, LGU

in performing jobNumber of violators

g. Coordination with Frequency of meetingsLocal Government Unitsand other sectors

h. Prevention of garbage Posters, signs installeddisposal into sea

2. Balanced and proper Alternative livelihood Various coastal Listingutilisation of coastal activities for added livelihood activitiesresources household income


development process allowed the PO to identify directlinkages between actions and goals of sustainable forestmanagement.

Defining stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities in CBFMThis step was undertaken in the second workshop to ensurethat monitoring would be a collaborative effort and thatthe participants were clear about the roles andresponsibilities of different groups and institutions. This isimportant for those who will participate in the effort, aspointed out by a staff of a government institution: “Okeyang collaborative monitoring basta may tool na gagamitinpara dito at defined ang mga function ng maga taong mainvolve sa gawain” (“Collaborative monitoring is good aslong as there is a common tool that can be used for thisactivity and the functions of each group and people aredefined” – a member of staff of Palawan Council forSustainable Development, February 2001).

Venn diagrams were used as a tool to identify localinstitutions, both formal and informal, and to highlightdifferent and contrasting local perceptions regarding theroles, relative importance and influence of them ascompared to other institutions. Pretty et al. (1995) pointedout that the Venn diagram exercise can be an illuminatingone since it shows how others perceive certain aspects ofone’s institution and work that may not otherwise berevealed.

The participants came up with three different diagramsshowing the roles, responsibilities and interactionsamong local groups and institutions. However, a commondiagram was one that described close coordination andpartnerships among all concerned institutions, whichassisted and supported the PO in implementing CBFM. In

this vision, the PO would reach out and include variouscommunity groups such as the Indigenous People, youth,women, etc.

Seeking common ground for collaborative monitoringThis step was conducted to identify common ground forcollaboration. The participants were divided into fourhomogenous groups, i.e. members of the Fishermen’sAssociation, members of the People’s Organisation,representatives from NGOs, and from local governmentinstitutions. They reviewed the eight criteria of themonitoring framework produced, identified areas of theirinterests and concerns based on their roles, responsibilities,and mandates. As a result of the exercise, areas of commoninterests and possible collaboration among differentstakeholders were identified (Table 3).

It was clear from the exercise that the concerns ofcommunities as expressed in the monitoring frameworkwere very broad and comprehensive. Some were beyondthe mandates and responsibilities of the local stakeholderspresent in the workshop. These included health andinfrastructure (the responsibility of local government),organisation and livelihood. It would be a great challengefor the PO to monitor these issues and to try to solverelated problems without the support from relevantinstitutions.

Developing collaborative monitoring arrangementsThe participants further discussed how to go aboutgathering data: e.g. identifying data source, methods andfrequency of collection, those responsible for collectingeach information type, time required, length of monitoringnecessary for an effective programme.

TABLE 3 Areas of interests and concerns of different community groups and local stakeholders

People’s Fishermen’sCriteria Organisation Association PCSD1 DENR2 NGOs

Organisation ✔ ✔ ✔

Livelihood ✔ ✔ ✔

Forest and Forest Management ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Coastal Management ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Health ✔ ✔

Infrastructure ✔ ✔

Policy ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Social ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Ecology ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Production ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Note: 1Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, 2Department for Environment and Natural Resources.


Data collectionThe People’s Organisation members started collecting rightafter the third workshop, in February 2002. Data orinformation was gathered based on the interests of thepeople or institutions involved. For example, most womenwere interested in monitoring livelihood parameters, someofficers of the PO in monitoring the volume of forestresources extracted, such as lumber, rattan, and almacigaresin. The City Environment and Natural Resource Office,through its forest guards, have been monitoring the areato control illegal activities. Community and PO members,other government institutions (such as barangay councilsetc.) will collaboratively support this effort by reportingany illegal activities taken place in the area. Collaborativemonitoring allowed each institution to contribute basedon its mandates and interests.

Dissemination of monitoring resultsSeveral forums have been used to share monitoring results,such as the PO’s Board of Directors monthly meeting,informal sharing among community members duringtraining sessions, and formal multi-stakeholder meetings.The PO has also made use of their quarterly newslettersand community bulletin boards to post information on datacollected (e.g. methods, who carried out the collection etc.).Different ways to disseminate and present the results ofmonitoring to different groups in the community have beenused, including the use of drawings and pictures for thosewho are not literate.

LESSONS LEARNT AND CHALLENGES

Low participation of People’s Organisation members andother community members (non-PO members) used to bea major problem faced by the PO in the past. This was duein part to inadequately disseminated information aboutCBFM, low benefits enjoyed by the people, lack of supportfrom the village/barangay leaders to CBFM, and hesitationfrom certain key PO personnel to include other non-POmembers in their activities. The process of developing localmonitoring provided a platform for collective action andlearning among different stakeholders. The integratedplanning for collective action was built into the process inorder that the PO could directly make an action plan toaddress those areas that needed improvement. Now,monitoring will not be merely for data extraction, but willbe an integral part of their continuous efforts to improvemanagement.

The development of the monitoring system involvedrepresentatives of other community groups, such as theFishermen’s Association, women’s groups, teachers, healthworkers, and young people, who were excluded from manyCBFM-related activities before. It allowed the participantsto learn about the concerns, interests, limitation andconstraints of other groups and institutions that lead toincreased awareness, mutual respect and understanding.After the second workshop, a gradual change in the way

the PO compiled their management interventions wasnoted. In the past, the majority of their CBFM activitieswere designed to involve their members only. Recently, theyhave begun to encourage the participation of othercommunity groups and non-members. Handicrafts wereinitiated by several PO women, and their efforts were laterexpanded to include other non-PO women. The PO alsodesigned a mechanism in which they actively sought andincorporated feedback and inputs from differentcommunity groups and stakeholders into their managementplan. Such a mechanism had never been applied before. Itis likely that other factors contributed to this new approach,in particular reflection on previous attempts to implementaction plans, which re-emphasised the importance ofengaging other stakeholders in CBFM activities.

Monitoring has also encouraged learning among thePO members. By recording illegal activities in their area,they realised that they did not know the appropriatemechanisms for reporting such activities to concernedagencies, and what information to submit to facilitate animmediate response from investigating teams from thoseagencies. This awareness prompted them to contactagencies and learn more about reporting mechanisms.The women monitored the time needed to completehandicraft items and got a reasonable estimate on howmuch time they spent for each product. This informationallowed them to determine a reasonable price for theproduct that not only included the costs of the rawmaterials but also labour costs. By recording which productswere sold, the women learned which products were indemand and could be sold easily and so could determinethe kind of products that they should produce in thefuture. They are also currently monitoring the price ofsimilar products and the variety of designs available onthe market.

The degree of involvement of different stakeholders inthe process varied depending on their mandates,responsibilities, interests, concerns and information needs.Identification of areas for collaborative monitoring andprioritisation of parameters showed that the interests ofgovernment institutions, such as DENR and PalawanCouncil for Sustainable Development, are natural resourcemanagement, environment and forest protection. Theinterests of the PO and communities were far beyond theseand included their needs for food, alternative incomes,education, etc., which may not be of high priority for thegovernment agencies. Consequently, for informationcollection purposes, the PO and community groups wouldhave to collect related data themselves or get some supportfrom the local NGOs. Despite the fact that there was anagreement that there should be a venue for informationsharing between stakeholders, it is still questionable whethersuch a forum would bring new and useful information, asmost government institutions have no systematicmonitoring system themselves. In fact, most of the costsand responsibilities for collecting the data so far wereactually in the hands of the PO and community members– this may not be a problem for the issues that concern


them, as long as they have sufficient skills and capabilitiesto carry out the tasks.

Information or data collection was not something newto some of the PO members, particularly those who wereinvolved in the daily CBFM management. They can useand modify the current monitoring formats to recordinformation without too much difficulty. Several POmembers even commented that “Madali lang naman gawinang pagsubaybay. Lapis at papel ang kailangan. Kung maymahirap pwede namang pag-aralan. Makakatulong namanito sa amin” (“Monitoring is easy. We just need pencil andpaper. If there are difficulties, we can learn. We know itcan be helpful to us” – Merlyn Lumbre, September 2002).However, there was a need for others to undergo furtherskill-building to enable them to use the format fororganising the data. What is most needed, however, is theability to analyse the information and to generate soundand sensible conclusions about the consequences of theirmanagement interventions. Furthermore, there is a needto find suitable discussion formats (i.e. a multi-stakeholderor a less diverse group setting) that would really encouragea closer look at the data collected and honest reflectionson the findings. It is likely that several iterations would takeplace before suitable forums and formats are found. Thisissue needs to be considered carefully especially with thecurrent prevailing perception of certain governmentinstitutions that monitoring is for the purpose ofcompliance and performance evaluation.

EWW and other local NGOs perceived local monitoringas a useful tool to improve the CBFM implementation bythe PO as it could provide a quick feedback mechanism sothat adjustments could be made. They commented, however,that the value of monitoring for learning and improvementmay take some time before it is internalised by the PO. TheCity Environment and Natural Resource Office alsoappreciated the process of developing the monitoring systemas it helped them to identify areas where they could extendtheir support and assistance to the PO. However, the localDENR was hesitant to support the development of thesystem as they have their own one already and there was arecent indication that they might enforce the implementationof the Environmental Performance Monitoring (EPM) inPalawan. It is difficult to assess whether this will continuewithout the support from DENR Manila who did not intendto make EPM mandatory. Despite their participation inseveral monitoring development workshops, representativesfrom the local DENR were concerned that the system willburden the PO, considering they will have to meet DENRrequirements on monitoring and use the EPM framework.It emerged, however, that there is a high degree of similaritybetween the monitoring framework developed by the POwith the EPM framework. This means the PO should beable to use similar information to meet the requirements ofDENR, should the local DENR decide to enforce EPM.However, the PO may be discouraged from sustaining theirefforts if the results could be used to assess theirperformance. This perception could hopefully be changedonce the results of the local monitoring system and its

usefulness could be demonstrated to concerned governmentinstitutions, especially if this could be coupled with thecommitment from the PO to continuously improve theirmanagement systems.

CONCLUSION

The People’s Organisation, community members, and otherlocal stakeholders have successfully developed a C&I-basedlocal monitoring system in Palawan in a participatory way.Despite the diversity of stakeholders, there was aconvergence of interests and concerns that brought themtogether to actively participate in the process.

The development processes of this local monitoringhave also fostered collective action and learning on the partof these diverse stakeholders. Several spin-off effects ofthis initiative were observed in which the People’sOrganisation became more active in reaching out andworking together with different community members andlocal stakeholders. Despite the participatory nature of theprocess, several challenges remain to ensure thesustainability of this monitoring effort in the future. Theseinclude capacity building to increase their skills andanalytical capability to extract lessons learnt from theirmonitoring efforts, to make appropriate adjustments totheir management strategy, and to ensure necessaryinstitutional arrangements are in place to support the POand community in sustaining their future efforts.Furthermore, without the awareness of and emphasis onthe value of monitoring for learning, especially fromgovernment institutions, it will be difficult for localmonitoring to fulfil its intended purposes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded by the Asian Development Bank(ADB) under the grant project “Planning for Sustainabilityof Forests through Adaptive Co-management” (RETA5812). The authors would like to thank Dr Ravi Prabhu,CIFOR, for his valuable inputs during theconceptualisation and finalisation of this paper.

REFERENCES

ABBOT, J. and GUIJT, I. 1998. Changing views on change:participatory approaches to monitoring the environment.SARL discussion paper No. 2.

ALEXANDRA, J., HAFFENDEN, S. and WHITE, T. 1996.Listening to the land. A directory of community environmentalmonitoring groups in Australia. Australian ConservationFoundation, Fitzroy, Australia.

BOSCH, O.J.H., ALLEN, W.J. and GIBSON, R.S. 1996.Monitoring as an integral part of management and policymaking. Proceedings of symposium ‘Resource Management:Issues, Visions, Practice’. Lincoln University, New Zealand,5–8 July 1996, pp. 12–21.


DE OLIVEIRA, N.B. 1999. Community participation indeveloping and applying criteria and indicators of sustainableand equitable forest management. CIFOR project report ontesting criteria and indicators for the sustainable managementof forests. CIFOR, Bogor.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURALRESOURCES (DENR) 1996. Rules and Regulations forImplementation of Executive Order 263, The CommunityBased Forest Management Strategy. DENR, OuezonCity.

ESCAÑO, J., RABANG, J. and HEINRICH, D. 2001. HumanDevelopment Report. Provincial Government of Palawanwith the assistance from Center for InternationalMigration and Development (CIMD) and Micro Impacts ofMacro Adjustment Policies Project (MIMAP), PuertoPrincesa City.

GUIJT, I. and SIDERSKY, P. 1996. Agreeing on indicators.ILEIA Newsletter 12(3): 9–13.

HARTANTO, H., VILLANUEVA, T., MALABRIGO, P. andSAPIN, N. 2000. Criteria and Indicator-based BiophysicalAssessment. CIFOR, Bogor. Unpublished Report.

HOLLING, C.S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment andManagement. Wiley International Series on Applied SystemsAnalysis, Vol.3. Wiley, Chichester. 507 pp.

JOHNSON, T.R 1998. Measuring the impact of community-based forest management in the Philippines. Natural ResourceManagement Program, Community-Based ForestManagement Office, Manila.

LAMMERTS VAN BUEREN, E. and BLOM, E. 1997.Hierarchical Framework for Formulation of SustainableForest Management Standards: Principles, Criteria, Indicators.The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen. 82 pp.

LEE, K.N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Scienceand Politics for the Environment. Island Press, Washington,D.C. 243 pp.

PAZ, R.R. 1999. Community-based environmental performanceMonitoring: Field Manual. Community-Based ForestManagement Office, Manila.

PRABHU, R., COLFER, C. and SHEPHERD, G. 1998. Criteriaand indicators for sustainable forest management : newfindings from CIFOR’s Forest Management Unit LevelResearch. Rural Development Forestry Network Paper No.23, Rural Development Forestry Network, London.

PRABHU, R., COLFER, C.J.P., VENKATESWARLU, P., TAN,L.C., SOEKMADI, R. and WOLLENBERG, E. 1996. Testingcriteria and indicators for the sustainable management ofForests: Phase I Final report. CIFOR Special Publication,Bogor. 217 pp.

PRETTY, J.N., GUIJT, I., THOMPSON, J. and SCOONES, I.1995. A trainer’s guide for participatory learning and action.IIED Participatory Methodology Series, London. 267 pp.

RITCHIE, B., MCDOUGALL, C., HAGGITH, M. and DEOLIVEIRA, N.B. 2000. Criteria and indicators for communitymanagedforest landscapes: an introductory guide. CIFOR,Bogor. 104 pp.

SALAFSKY, N., MARGOLUIS, R. and REDFORD, K. 2001.Adaptive management: atTool for conservation practitioners.Biodiversity Support Program. World Wildlife Fund, Inc.,Washington D.C. 100 pp.

STOSCH, L. and HYMAN, E. 1997. Guidelines for completingthe impact tracking system forms. Enterprise WorksWorldwide, Washington D.C.

TAYLOR, B., KREMSATER, L. and ELLIS, R. 1997. Adaptivemanagement of forests in British Columbia. British ColumbiaMinistry of Forests, Victoria. 93 pp.

WALTERS, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewableresources. MacMillan, New York. 374 pp.

WOLLENBERG, E. with EDMUNDS, D. and BUCK, L. 2000.Anticipating change: scenarios as a tool for adaptive forestmanagement. A guide. CIFOR Publication, Bogor.


collective action and learning in developing a local ...into the local information system so that...

Documents