Developing a Process Framework for Indigenous Community-Based Planning: A Case from Mindanao, Philippines

Unsettling Discourses

The Theory and Practice of Indigenous Studies

Proceedings of the 2013 International

Seminar-Workshop on Indigenous Studies

Cordillera Studies Center

University of the Philippines Baguio

Baguio City

The 2013 International Seminar-Workshop on Indigenous

Studies was made possible through funding by the Tebtebba

Foundation (Indigenous Peoples’ International Center for

Policy Research and Education), with support from Brot für

die Welt, Rights Resources and Tamalpais Trust.

Published by the Cordillera Studies Center

3/F CSS-CSC Complex

University of the Philippines Baguio

Governor Pack Road, Baguio City 2600

© 2014 by the Cordillera Studies Center

and Tebtebba Foundation

Printed in the Philippines.

ISBN 978-971-92720-5-2

Editing

Editting by Darius Letigio Martinez and

Ma. Paula Luz Pamintuan-Riva

Lay-out by Ruel Camas Lestino

Cover design by Ma. Paula Luz M. Pamintuan-Riva

Cover photos by Paul Michael Nera

With text contributions from Ruth Tindaan, Jevic Cruel

and Ma. Paula Luz M. Pamintuan-Riva

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,

except for the inclusion of brief quotations, without

permission in writing from the publisher.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface to the Conference Proceedings

Foreword

About the 2013 ISWIS

About the Presenters

Opening Program

vii

ix

xi

xiii

xix

KEYNOTE: DAY 1 1

Indigenous, Intercultural and Community

Universities: Latin American Experience

to Address Education for Indigenous

Peoples, Mirna Cunningham, PhD 1

SESSION 1A: Narrating Indigenous People’s Experiences 9

Philippine Indigenous Cultural Communities:

a Historical Perspective, Esteban Magannon, PhD 11

The Quest for Indigenous Identity in Bangladesh:

Reflections on Achievements and Setbacks

since 1993, Prashanta Tripura 25

Reducing Barriers to Native American Students’

Success in Higher Education, Priscilla Settee, PhD 47

SESSION 1B: Theorizing Indigenous Studies 63

Indigenous Studies in the Context of

Abya Yala (The Americas): Two Experiences of

Indigenous Higher Education and/or

Community-based Education, Tirso Gonzales, PhD 65

Whare Hape: the Ancient Pacific University of

Indigenous Higher Learning, Wikuki Kingi 95

iv

The ‘Indigenous’ in the Cordillera Studies Program

of the University of the Philippines Baguio,

Raymundo D. Rovillos, PhD

Ma. Paula Luz Pamintuan-Riva 111

Open Forum: Session 1B 121

SESSION 2: Revisiting Key Concepts 125

Spirituality and the (re) constructions of

Indigenous Traditions, Leah Abayao, PhD 127

Ecological Spirituality, Culture and Development:

Approaches and the Methodologies in Doing

Dialogic Research, Edwin A. Gariguez, PhD 135

We Strive for the Well-being of our Society:

the Indigenous Discourse of Women in Manipur,

Vijaylakshmi Brara, PhD 155

KEYNOTE: DAY 2 167

Perpetuating Indigenous Knowledge Through

Participatory Research, Validation and

Value Addition, Hussein Isack, PhD 167

SESSION 3A: Ways of Knowing: Indigenous Knowledge 169

The Outline of Traditional Knowledge of

Ethnic Groups in China, Zhao Fuwei,

Xue Dayuan, Wu Jianyong 171

Open Forum: Session 3A 181

SESSION 3B: Ways of Knowing: Methodologies 185

Shifting Perspectives: Rethinking Indigenous

Knowledge and Politics, Stuart Kirsch, PhD 189

Objectivity in Ethnographic Narratives,

Raymundo Pavo 197

Ethnoautobiography: On Decolonizing Modern/

Colonial Thinking through the Uses of

Indigenization Paradigms,

Elenita Mendoza-Strobel, EdD 205

Lexical Retrieval in L1, L2, L3 and L4 of

the Bilingual Eskayan Tribe in Taytay,

Duero, Bohol, Angelo O. Tubac 221


v

SESSION 4A: The Role of Intellectuals 243

The Role of Research and Academia in Indigenous

Peoples’ Issues: Interculturality in the Making,

Elsa Stamatopoulou, PhD 249

Changes in Gender Relations and Age Deference

in the Practice of Gold Sharing and Their Translation

in the Traditional and Contemporary Cultural

Landscape of the Kankana-ey, Leo Mar E. Edralin 273

Open Forum: Session 4A 283

SESSION 4B: Cordillera Cultural Studies 285

Studying the Discourses of Colonial Travel Writings

on the Cordilleras through Rhetorical Analysis:

an Analysis of Frey Benito Herosa’s

“A Brief Exposition of the Land and Character

of the Pagans called Igorots: Their Customs,

Manners, and Habits (1780),” Io M. Jularbal 287

Selected Songs of the Salidummay Cultural Group:

an Initial Marxist-Ecocritical Assessment,

Jose Kervin Cesar B. Calabias 303

vi

Mobile Phones and the Igorot:

a Culture-Centered Study of Mobile Phone Use

in/by an Indigenous Community in the Philippines,

Dazzelyn Baltazar Zapata 317


KEYNOTE: DAY 3 341

Indigenous People’s Political Advocacy:

Whither the Academe?, Joji Cariño 341

SESSION 5: Indigenous Studies

as a Development Concern 343

Indigenous Knowledge in Oral Narratives of

Oromo Society and its Significance to

Sustainable Development, Yosef Beco Dubi 345

Developing a Process Framework for

Indigenous Community-based Planning:

a Case from Mindanao, Philippines,

Jayson Ibañez

Stephen Garnett

NAMADLA

PALUPA

SEBNAKA 363

Open Forum: Session 5 395

Workshop Proceedings 405

How do we move forward in Indigenous Studies ? 405

Higher Education Institutions 405

University of the Philippines 406

Dayak People, Indonesia 406

Indigenous Communities 407

United Nations 408

Summary of the Synthesis Report 411

DEVELOPING A PROCESS FRAMEWORK

FOR INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY-BASED PLANNING:

A CASE FROM MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES

Jayson Ibañez

Stephen Garnett

NAMADLA (Nagkahiusang Manobo sa Datu Ladayon)

Sitio Inamong, Barangay Datu Ladayon

Arakan, North Cotabato, Philippines

PALUPA (Pang-uandig Lumadnong Panaghiusa. Sitio Macati)

Barangay Ganatan. Arakan, North Cotabato, Philippines)

SEBNAKA (Sinaka Eagle Bagtok Napunangan Kayupaton)

Barangay Tumanding, Arakan, North Cotabato, Philippines

“We only wanted slippers, yet they thought shoes are what

we needed.”

-Lito Namansila, Pang-uandig Lumadnong Panaghiusa

Board of Directors

It is globally recognized that Indigenous development should

address Indigenous needs through their own terms and in

accordance to their own values. With respect to self-governance

of ancestral domains, Indigenous aspirations, issues and

knowledge base must be equally at the core. But in the

Philippines, the national planning framework for Indigenous

development and ancestral domain management appear to

reflect mainstream worldviews and government bias and

priorities. This presentation describes how a village-based

planning framework was derived using a combination of desktop

analyses, Indigenous perception studies, and field-testing.

Indigenous informants from Mindanao were asked about what

resources and processes are important and what the content

of the plan should be. Based on questionnaires (n=170) and

results of focus groups, informants valued participatory and

inclusive processes, but also appreciated external financial

and technical support. There was also a general feeling that

more Indigenous knowledge should be incorporated into the

plans and that plan strategies should include mechanisms

that will revitalize Indigenous culture and ways of knowing.

Results also reflect a conception of a world that is shared with

mystical beings and a communal ethic of equity, reciprocity

and sharing. The land was considered sacred and at the core

of respondents’ lives, but the national framework seemed ill-

364 SESSION 5: INDIGENOUS STUDIES AS A DEVELOPMENT CONCERN

equipped to protect the integrity and sacredness of ancestral

domains against mainstream development advocates. The

desired plan content also reflected strong aspirations for

economic improvement. The paper will also describe the results

of field-testing the derived framework with Indigenous Manobo

Tinanons of Central Mindanao and what the villagers thought

about the usefulness of the framework. Based on these results,

the Philippine government’s Ancestral Domain Sustainable

Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP) framework is

interrogated and recommendations were provided.

Introduction

With the global recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights to

a self-directed development, there has been considerable

attention given to planning as a platform to exercise Indigenous

self-determination (Jojola 2008, Hibbard et. al. 2008, Lane et al

1997). As Professor Marcus Lane (2006) of Adelaide University

in Australia has remarked, “planning is crucial to fashioning

sustainable futures for Indigenous communities (305).”

In the Philippines, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

(IPRA) respects, protects and promotes the Indigenous way

of life, including rights to own ancestral domains and all its

resources. In a country where Indigenous peoples are largely a

marginalized “cultural minority” (Scott 1982, ADB 2002, Erni

2008), the law was seen to “accelerate the emancipation of our

Indigenous peoples from the bondage of inequity” (CIPRAD

1999, 56 as cited by Bennagen 2007).

The law also encourages the exercise of rights to create

Indigenous plans for natural and human resources development

within ancestral domains. It prescribes the Ancestral Domain

Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP) as

a framework that will contain (i) the manner by which the

domain shall be protected, (ii) development programs in relation

to livelihood, education, infrastructure, self-governance,

environment and others, (iii) community policies on how the

desired development programs shall be implemented, and

(iv) the management system, including how benefits and

responsibilities are shared (IPRA, Section 2, No. 2).

As of 2011, at least 156 Certificates of Ancestral Domain

Titles (CADT) have been awarded, but only 95 of these had

completed plans (IWGIA 2012). Much of the planning was

facilitated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

(NCIP). However, the commission is largely underfunded and

staff capacity to assist with planning is seriously questioned

Developing a Process Framework for Indigenous Community-based Planning 365

(IWGIA 2012). More plans are also believed to exist but were

reportedly unrecognized because they were developed with

NGOs critical of the NCIP (IWGIA 2012).

Apart from a seemingly slow government progress in

assisting communities with planning and reported NCIP

discrimination against “other plans”, there are a few more

criticisms. According to a manifesto sent to Philippine President

Aquino in 2010 by Indigenous rights advocates:

the ADSDPP process itself is defective and is being

implemented for compliance’s sake, instead of coming up

with meaningful plans that are identified by Indigenous

peoples themselves.

Experts from the International Work Group on Indigenous

Affairs (2012) also quoted observations that in practice,

the planning system “puts a heavy emphasis on investment

generation at the expense of the protection of rights and

culturally appropriate processes.”

Such observations on the limitations of the government

framework is lamentable, considering that in a number of

post-colonial countries, planning has been a key factor in

strengthening Indigenous control of their environments (Hibbard

and Lane 2004). As a transformative practice, planning is

believed to be emancipatory (Hibbard et al 2008). Strategically, it

can activate the process of empowerment both at the individual

and the community level (Sadan 2004), and can help build selfreliant

and autonomous communities (Friedmann 1987). Such

theorization on the strategic value of planning puts emphases

on decentralization, participation and control of processes and

use of knowledge the “right way.” Equally, while planning is

about rights, it is also about the material benefits that would

flow once those rights are recognized (Porter 2004).

But despite the range of possibilities that planning can

achieve and the perceived short-comings in the government

framework, no attempt has yet been made to ask the

Indigenous peoples directly and understand what, from their

view, constitute the “right way” to plan. It is in this context that

an understanding of desired standards from an Indigenous

perspective is significant. Exploring a suitable framework that

conforms to what they aspire in a planning system is also

important to achieve a truly Indigenous development agenda.

This paper describes an action research that analyzed the

development and delivery in the Philippines of an Indigenous

Community Planning (ICP) framework – a decentralized and

village-based planning process. An overview of the research


area and its Indigenous participants are presented first,

followed by the action research methods. Then, the results

section describes the desired attributes of a planning system,

the process framework that was derived, and the results of

testing the framework with three Indigenous Manobo villages.

The discussion section attempts an initial comparison of

the ICP with the current government planning framework,

with emphases on the ICP’s value-adding traits. The paper

concludes with recommendations to facilitate the integration of

the framework to the current ADSDPP framework.

Study Area and Research Participants

Mindanao, the second largest island in the Philippines, is home

to at least 30 Indigenous groups (Padilla 2008) who are estimated

to comprise 61% of the country’s Indigenous population (Cariño

2010). These non-muslim groups are collectively called Lumad,

which is a Cebuano word for “Indigenous” or “of the land” (ADB

2002).

Table 1. Indigenous ethno-linguistic groups in Mindanao who

participated in the focus groups and questionnaire-based

survey.

INDIGENOUS GROUP

LOCATION

A. Mandaya Brgy Taocanga, Manay, Davao Oriental

B. Dibabawon Montevista, Compostela Valley Province

C. Obu Manobo Brgy Carmen, Baguio District, Davao City

D. Higaonon Malaybalay City, Bukidnon

E. Talaandig Pangantucan, Bukidnon

F. Bagobo-Tagabawa Brgy Sibulan, Toril, Davao City

G. Manobo-Matigsalug Brgy Sumalili, Arakan, North Cotabato

H. Mandaya-Mansaka Compostela, Compostela Valley Province

I. Matigsalug Brgy Salaysay, Marilog District, Davao

City

J. Manobo-Dulangan Senator Ninoy Aquino, Sultan Kudarat

Eleven Indigenous groups participated and gave their voluntary

consents. Ten groups representing ethno-linguistic groups in

eastern, northern and central Mindanao joined focus groups

and questionnaire-based surveys (Figure 1). Each group (Table

1) has its own ancestral domain and is represented by their


respective legally registered Indigenous peoples’ organization

(IPO). Our access to the community is through their respective

IPO who provided the consent and signed an agreement with

the primary researcher. With the exemption of one group (Obu-

Manuvu), all have completed an ancestral domain management

plan created using the government’s framework.

Figure 1. Location of 10 Indigenous ethno-linguistic groups on

Mindanao Island who joined the focus groups and questionnairebased

surveys.

To test the framework, I worked with five Manobo villages in

Arakan Valley, North Cotabato (Figure 2). Two villages (Pang-


uandig and Inamong) communally own their respective ancestral

domains whereas three villages (Napunangan, Kayupaton, and

Bagtok) occupy part of a bigger ancestral domain that covers

a few more distant villages from other barangays. Because the

three villages are relatively close to each other and functionally

share the same territory and recognize the same set of chieftains

and elders, they coalesced to form one Indigenous organization.

For the purpose of this paper, these three unified villages will be

treated as one big village. Like the rest of the Arakan Manobos,

all have been historically prejudiced and neglected as shown

below.

Figure 2. Arakan Valley in North Cotabato, Mindanao Island, Philippines

showing the ancestral domains of the Manobo Tinananon villages of

Pang-uandig, Inamong, Bagtok, Kayupaton and Napunangan.


Historical struggles of the Arakan Manobos

The Arakan Manobos are the pre-colonial inhabitants of

the Arakan Valley, a fertile plain formerly surrounded by lush

forests in Central Mindanao. They evaded Spanish colonization

like many Indigenous groups of the interiors but eventually got

overtaken by exploitation when the American colonizers pushed

their agenda further inland and successive governments

callously doing the same (Manuel 1973). Unfamiliar policies

such as on land tenure and governance diminished Manobo

sovereignty and their ability to administer their own societies

and lands.

For example, the 1903 Public Land Act 926 and

Land Registration Act 496, which upheld individual land

proprietorship, gravely undermined the traditionally communal

Manobo land tenure. Unknown to its owners, many ancestral

lands became titled and registered properties of non-Indigenous

immigrants. Gradually, the Manobos were evicted and pushed

from their traditional territories to the hinterlands (Kaliwat

Theater Collective 1996).

Colonization and the shaping of the Philippines towards

a nation-state also introduced a governance system that is

alien to the Manobos. They do have a concept of country (Ingod)

but the villages (Banwas) therein are not politically unified.

Each Banwa was discrete and autonomous (Manuel 1973).

Another feature of Banwa governance is a multiple authority

system where a set of chieftains, elders, wise men, shamans

and warriors collectively maintain political, religious and socioeconomic

order, through kin-based customs and sanctions

(Manuel 1973). Clearly, the state’s unified view of governance is

unlike the Manobos’ multiple view. These disparate world views

led to further political disenfranchisement of the Manobos.

After World War II, more lands were exploited as

administrations gave away more Manobo lands in the guise

of development. A glaring example is a university reservation

decreed by the government in 1957. Chieftains consented to a

pretext that it will take up just a minor parcel, only to discover

later that the reservation actually covers over 7,000 ha. At the

same time, pasture leases and logging concessions took over.

Struggles to re-claim traditional farms and forests have spanned

four decades of displacement, conflict, and murder. Families

were harassed, maltreated and evicted and some chieftains

and their relatives killed. In retaliation, clans who retreated to

the mountains joined the communist insurgency movement.


This led to the further economic, political, and social isolation

of the Manobos (Kaliwat Theater Collective, 1996).

Fortunately, the 1987 Philippine Constitution provided a

space for an Indigenous role in nation building. IPRA was passed

10 years later and promised “..to change the course of history of

indigenous peoples..” by laying down the “…legal framework for

addressing indigenous peoples’ poverty” that “seeks to alleviate

the plight of the country’s poorest of the poor by correcting…

the historical errors that led to systematic dispossession of

and discrimination against indigenous peoples” (ADB 2002,

11,13). For the Manobos of Arakan, this meant restoring their

legal ownership of over 5,000ha of ancestral domains (Table 2).

Viewed as a critical step towards indigenous self-governance,

the IPRA also directs the Manobos to develop an ADSDPP for

their ancestral domains.

Table 2. Manobo Ancestral domains (Certificate of Ancestral

Domain Certificates or CADCs) within Arakan, North Cotabato,

Philippines. (source: NCIP)

ANCESTRAL

DOMAIN

BARANGAYS

LAND AREA

(HA)

1. CADC-180 Datu Ladayon 647.06

2. CADC-012 Kinawayan 432.48

3. CADC-006 Tumanding, Lanao Kuran,

Allab, Meocan

2,148.29

4. CADC-010 Ganatan (Kiapat) 878.47

5. CADC-011 Ganatan (Pang-uandig) 1,047.41

Research Methods

TOTAL 5,153.71

Action research (Stringer 2007) was used to derive and

analyze the delivery of the process framework. We adopted a

“constructivist’ theoretical perspective: the belief that society,

reality and meaning are manufactured, confirmed and validated

through human interactions with the world (Wiebe et al 2010).

It also draws from a ‘Critical Social theory’ approach whereby

oppressive structures are challenged and transformed to bring

about social, economic and political change by empowering

people to free themselves from disempowering influences

(Eketone 2006). In collecting and analysing data, we used mixed


methods (Creswell 2009) whereby qualitative and quantitative

information and data analyses were combined.

Deriving the process framework

Deriving the process framework consisted of four steps. In the

first step, we identified criteria that define best standards in

an Indigenous planning system. We identified 65 important

factors based on a desktop review of theoretical and empirical

papers and grouped them under three broad categories:

process, resources, and plan content. Because of a wide range

of ideal “plan contents” summarized from the literature, items

under this category were further divided according to whether

it refers to a key section of a strategic plan (Strategic Content)

or it contributes to any one of five “rural livelihood capitals”

(i.e. human, natural, physical/financial, social, and cultural;

following Chambers and Conway 1992, and Bebbington 1999).

All in all, the 65 factors fell under eight groupings.

In the second step, Focus Group Discussions were held

with each of the 10 Indigenous groups to know and understand

how a good Indigenous planning system would look like

from their viewpoint. We asked participants to write down

and discuss what they thought are important processes and

resources for planning and what vital community activities,

projects, or programs should be in the plan. Factors that were

found common among focus group lists are regarded as being

the most important.

The third step involved using a survey questionnaire to rank

the literature criteria generated in Step 1 (desktop analyses)

according to importance. The questionnaire was pre-tested

with one Indigenous group and enhanced accordingly. From

the same pool of focus group participants, each respondent

was asked to choose his/her top 5 criteria listed under each

of the eight categories in the questionnaire. Each rank was

then scored; with 5 points given to the highest rank and 1 for

the lowest. Items that were not ranked were given a 0 score.

Summaries were then derived by taking the total scores for

each criterion and then averaging across the number of

respondents. The mean of the average scores for all of the 10

Indigenous groups were then used to identify which among the

literature criteria were thought of as very important.

The fourth step involved putting the process framework

together. We pooled the results from Steps 2 and 3 and used

it to structure the framework. As a heuristic guide, a model

was organized by amalgamating planning principles from a few


planning traditions namely strategic planning (Fillion 1988,

Warner 1996, Williams 2002, Blair 2004), radical planning

(Friedmann 1987, 1993), community-based planning (Agrawal

and Gibson 1999, Natcher and Hicky 2002, Sadan 2004,

Mason and Beard 2008) and the nascent but growing field

of Indigenous planning (Hill 2011, Jojola 2008, Eketone 2006,

Lane 2006, Kligger and Kosgrove 1999, Lane et al 1997).

Field-testing the framework

My collaboration with the three Manobo villages to try out and

evaluate the process framework is covered by prior-informed

consents and signed agreements; and a research protocol was

created with the tribal leaders and elders. Part of the community

planning preparation involved each of three chieftains joining

the primary researcher on a rotation basis during trips to hold

focus groups with the 10 Indigenous groups. Five Indigenous coresearchers

also took turns in joining trips. All co-researchers

did a crash course on community development work, with two

co-researchers joining an actual planning session held with an

Indigenous community as part of their exposure.

Planning was supervised by the registered Indigenous

People’s Organization (IPO) of each of the three villages.

These IPOs are (i) Pang-uandig Lumadnong Panaghiusa

(PALUPA) at Sitio Pang-uandig in Barangay Ganatan, (ii)

Nagkahiusang Manobo sa Datu Ladayon (NAMADLA) at Sitio

Enamong in Barangay Datu Ladayon, and (iii) Sinaka Eagle

Bagtok Napunangan Kayupaton Association (SEBNAKA) of

Sitios Napungan, Kayupaton, Bagtok and Nassot of Barangay

Tumanding. The chieftains and elders of these villages serve as

either Board of Directors or officers of their IPO.

We assessed the usefulness of the process framework

following procedures by Frame, Gunton and Day (2004).

We used a survey questionnaire that assessed community

planning based on a number of literature indicators for a

desirable process design and for good process outcomes. We

used 13 process criteria defining a good process design, and 10

outcomes criteria defining desirable process outcomes (Table

3); the planning participants made assessments based on how

well the framework met these criteria. There were 40 statements

to test the process criteria and 27 for the outcomes criteria

(Appendix x). A four-point Likert Scale was used to know the

degree of planning participant agreement or disagreement to

every statement. Open-ended questions about the usefulness

of the framework were also asked. An Indigenous co-researcher


administered the survey and respondents were chosen from a

list of participants based on daily attendance sheets.

Results: Focus Groups and Ranking of Literature Standards

for Best Practice

A total of 170 people (average: 19 persons per group) participated

in the survey. They were either officers of the Indigenous

organization (64%) or members (36%). Most of them (85%) took

part in previous ancestral domain planning. There were more

male participants (74%) than females. Many were farmers (76%)

while the rest are engaged in a variety of trades. The estimated

monthly cash income of each participant ranged from $19.00

to 130.00 in 149 participants (88%). Only 12% did not declare

their monthly income.

Table 3. Evaluative framework: process and outcome criteria

for evaluating the Indigenous community-based Planning

(adapted from Frame et al 2006).

Process criteria and descriptions

1. Purpose and Incentives. The process is driven by a shared

purpose and provides incentives to participate and work towards

consensus.

2. Inclusive. Process provides the opportunity and space for the

participation of all community members.

3. Voluntary and Commitment: Members who are interested

participate voluntarily and are committed to the process.

4. Clear Roles and Rules: Roles are clarified and planning protocols

negotiated as part of the process.

5. Equitable: The process provides for equal and balanced

opportunity for effective participation by all.

6. Trust and Teamwork: The process operates according to the

conditions of principled interaction, including valuing open

communication, unity, and trust.

7. Culturally Appropriate. The process is compatible with the

relational and holistic worldviews that underpins Indigenous

culture.

8. Respect. The process is undertaken based on the basis of mutual

and cross-cultural respect.

9. Flexible and Adaptive: Process is flexible enough so that schedules

and activities can be adjusted when needed.


10. Planning Information: The process incorporates the right

information into decision making.

11. Time Limits: Realistic milestones and deadlines are established

and managed throughout the process.

12. Process Management: The process is effectively facilitated and

managed in a neutral manner.

13. Commitment to Implementation: The process and final agreement

include clear commitments to implementation.

Outcome criteria and descriptions:

1. Seen as Successful: The planning process is perceived as successful

by the village.

2. Agreement: General agreement that the process resulted to a plan

desired by the village.

3. Conflict Reduced: The process reduces conflict.

4. Creativity: The process produced creative ideas and outcomes.

5. Understanding and Skills: Villagers gained knowledge,

understanding, and skills by participating in the process.

6. Social (Bridging) Capital: The process created better working

relationships with and access to support from external partners.

7. Information: The process produced data, information, and

analyses that is understood and are of practical value to the

villagers.

8. Second-order Effects: The process had second-order effects

including positive changes in behaviors and actions and new

partnerships and/or projects.

9. Very useful method: The process is perceived as a very useful

planning approach.

10. Support of ICP process: The process resulted in the appreciation

of the ICP and participants endorse the use of the process

framework.

Eight planning processes were valued the most based on the

combined results of focus groups and ranking (Table 4). Nearly

all groups listed “adequate community consultations” as an

important planning process while “need for planning understood

and recognized” topped in the ranking. In both processes,

reaching community consensus appeared to be a prime

indicator. Focus groups also valued “adequate preparation”,

which covered a range of activities such as carefully looking at

planning needs and making sure they are available, identifying

who is going to do what, and organizing planning baselines.

Focus groups and ranking results converged that the “role of


leaders and elders” as sources of planning wisdom and decisions

is vital and should be acknowledged. Participation by all social

groups in the community (inclusive participation) was “top 3” in

the ranking. Both procedures also showed that values of “unity

and cooperation” amongst participants as well as with non-

Indigenous facilitators are considered key to planning success.

“Indigenous rituals” to secure spiritual consent and guidance

during important phases of planning, and “non-Indigenous

planners being culturally sensitive” completes the “Top 5” for

focus groups and ranking, respectively.

Table 4. Desired attributes of a good Indigenous planning

process based on focus group discussions and participant

ranking (& scoring) of ‘best practice’ standards from the

literature.

ATTRIBUTES

1. Adequate community

consultation

2. Need for planning to

understand and to

recognize

DESCRIPTION

Enough meetings and discussions until

consensus is reached. Also include

enough community assemblies, adequate

discussion of important issues, and clanbased

consultations.

Participants understand and agree on

why a plan was being prepared and why

it is important.

3. Adequate preparation Adequate preparation prior to planning,

including evaluating needs, tasking,

and an inventory of ancestral domain

resources.

4. Role of elders and/or

leaders respected

Indigenous leaders and elders are

involved and their important role during

planning is acknowledged and respected.

5. Inclusive planning Many members of the community are

participating including women, elders,

and young people.

6. Participants united

and cooperating

Planning partners are united and are

patient and respectful of other people’s

views, including those of the women and

the youth.

7. Indigenous rituals Holding of Indigenous rituals during

important phases of planning.

8. Planners being

culturally sensitive

Non-Indigenous planners understanding

and respecting the local culture.


Table 5. Desired planning resources based on focus group

discussions and participant ranking (& scoring) of ‘best practice’

standards from the literature.

ATTRIBUTES

DESCRIPTION

1. Financial resources Community has access to sufficient

money to support planning.

2. Indigenous facilitators Planning facilitated by Indigenous

individuals, groups or organizations

from within the community.

3. External partners Support from external partners such as

NGOs, government agencies, and local

governments.

4. Government planning

system or framework

5. External sources of

planning information

Clear planning system or guides in the

legislation.

Participants having enough information

from outside (e.g. demographic, socioeconomic

and biological information) for

planning.

6. Indigenous experts Elders, chiefs and technical persons

from the village who can articulate

the philosophy, history, culture and

resources of the community.

7. Adequate time Participants are having enough time to

devote to planning.

8. Non-Indigenous

planners

Experienced and culturally-sensitive

non-indigenous planners helping out

with facilitation and putting together the

plan.

Out of eight important planning resources (Table 5), money

was number one in both group and ranking procedures. Both

also showed that “Indigenous facilitators” or “community

planners” are desired. They could be just a few individuals, a

group from within the community, or the IPO itself as a whole.

The national government, through its agencies, was ranked as

an important external resource and focus groups added NGOs

and local governments. There is an apparent preference for

a government endorsed planning framework as it scored the

third highest in the ranking. Outsider-generated information

about the community and the ancestral domain as planning

baselines ranked 5th. Focus groups added the knowledge and

expertise of traditional leaders and elders as well as the unique

skills held by members as another vital resource. Assistance


from non-Indigenous planners was also appreciated. Lastly,

adequate time allotted for planning came out as an important

resource too in both procedures.

With respect to the general (strategic) content of an

Indigenous plan, the articulation of a vision, clear objectives,

and clear steps to meet objectives were ranked the highest. A

description of the database or what is normally referred to as

in strategic plan templates as “situationer” or “context” was

also ranked as an important section of the plan. Monitoring

procedures that will be used to see if plan implementation is

achieving its intended targets was also desired.

Figure 3. Important plan contents based on focus groups and ranking

of literature criteria. Groupings follow frameworks for “Sustainable

Rural Livelihood” and “Capitals and Capabilities” by Chambers and

Conway (1992) and Bebbington (1999). H – Human capital, N – Natural

capital, C – Cultural capital, P/F – Physical and Financial Capital, and

S – Social capital.

A total of 20 themes for plan content were summarized from

focus groups and those common in many groups were fused

with high-ranking literature criteria to obtain a shorter list

of important plan contents (Figure 3). Under human capital,

means to eradicate hunger topped the ranking. They also

wanted projects that enhance Indigenous skills to manage

natural resources, and also education assistance, both formal

and non-formal, to benefit the youth and unschooled adults,


respectively. Projects that relate to reproductive health and

those that reduce child malnutrition and mortalities were

also desired. Finally, gender-related concerns such as femaledirected

projects that improve their well-being were prioritized,

including freedom from violence and exploitation.

With respect to enhancing the natural resource stock

(natural capital), efforts to conserve biodiversity and restore

forests were prioritized. Mapping of who owns what land within

the ancestral domain is also desired. Although this appears

to contradict the idea of communal tenure espoused by IPRA,

ancestral domains in reality are indeed parcelled, with each

piece of land having definite owners (individual or family)

whose tenure rights are recognized and respected. A system to

monitor success indicators of species and its management is

also valued, and the “engagement of Indigenous guards” who

would do forest patrols and species monitoring.

Actions that “strengthen Indigenous culture and identity”

(cultural capital) are very much valued by 6 out of 10 Indigenous

groups. Based on rankings, respondents wanted a collective

conception of their relationship with their environment

(worldview) written in the plan. Next, they wanted plan goals

and actions that are consistent with their Indigenous worldview

and vision for the future. They also wanted the plan to address

cultural issues that are of particular significance to them. A

description of their own (Indigenous) ecological knowledge (or

IEK) pertinent to ancestral domain management is desired and

they want the documented IEK to be incorporated into plan

implementation.

As for Physical and Financial Capitals, focus groups listed

projects that fell under infrastructure support: farm-to-market

roads, village halls, rural electrification projects, day care and

health centres and a few more. With respect to ranking, the top

two desirable financial asset-building items on the plan should

be financial and technological support for (i) farming and (ii)

off-farm enterprises. Full-time or part time employments that

add to household wages are also valued.

Out of five literature criteria for augmenting community

“Social capital”, ranking showed that a “clear process of

decision-making” is perceived as an important part of the plan.

In particular, the plan must mention who makes decisions about

what, and how decisions are to be made. Outlining policies

that prevent decision makers from being corrupt is second,

apparently to guard against what Colchester (1994) called

“Lairdism” – the cooptation, corruption, and undemocratic

tendency of some Indigenous leaders (Li 2002). Such is


embodied in the Philippines by those whom Manzano in 1999

has called “tribal dealers” (Bennagen 2004) – Indigenous leaders

who broker outsider exploitation of ancestral lands for selfish

interests. They also valued an account of local institutions

i.e. customary laws, traditional governance structure) in the

plan and invoking them when carrying out plan actions. In

addition, focus groups valued activities that foster village unity

and those that build external networks; assets that O’brien et

al (2005) have referred to as “bridging” and “bonding” social

capital, respectively.

Deriving the process framework

The results of perception and ranking studies described

above shaped the proposed process framework for Indigenous

planning below. To configure the general qualities of the

process, we put together an Indigenous community planning

(ICP) model. The resulting model was an amalgamation of three

planning traditions that matched the desired qualities that

came out of the surveys. It adopted a plan structure typical

for Strategic Planning and its key principles from the fields of

Radical and Indigenous planning.

The ICP model (Figure 4) covers a broader development

viewpoint, compatible with survey results and supported by the

holistic worldviews of Indigenous peoples in general (Graham

1999, Royal 2002, Cariño 2010). Its underlying perspective

for development is adaptation and holism. The ancestral land

is the planning unit but it covers facets of social, economic,

ecological, and cultural aspirations, including spiritual values.

As for planning principles, approach is “ground-up” whereby

theory is used in the service of the community. Delivery is at

the village-level where democracy can be maximized. Thus,

planning is very accessible, inclusive and equitable; everyone

in the community can participate anytime. It is transactive. It

draws from multiple knowledge and expertise, tacit or formal,

linked by co-learning. Culturally sensitized non-Indigenous

actors also have an important role to play. More importantly,

planning is guided by an Indigenous framework of ideas and

beliefs rather than outsider worldviews. It follows the strategic

planning tradition of focusing on just a few developmental

priorities, harnessing innate strengths, and following an

orderly, yet flexible way of achieving goals. It is also a reflective

and iterative process, with “learning by doing” as an equally

important motivation as achieving planning goals. Using the

ICP model as guide, we derived four major stages for the ICP


process, with the whole process aided by Participatory Rural

Appraisal (PRA, Chambers 1994) tools of group dynamics,

sampling, interviewing, and visualization (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The Indigenous Community-based Planning Model

1. Identify context, conditions and trends.

The first phase of the process seeks to describe and

examine the local context of the community using two broad

subjects: the people and the ancestral domain. In doing so,

a combination of secondary data from external sources and

primary data out of stories and perceptions of community

members are used. The idea is to help the community acquire

rich information and contextual understanding from which

they can then draw a futuristic vision of what they want to

be, and the corresponding actions they needed to undertake to

achieve desired development outcomes for the ancestral land

and its people.

This phase chiefly involves standard PRA tools namely

identifying social groups, vulnerable groups and wealth ranking

to figure out the range of interests and power levels within the

community. Although Indigenous communities may appear

homogenous from the outside, internally there is vertical and

lateral heterogeneity (Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Li 2002). Subplanning

with community identified social groups ensures

that there is no internal marginalization of political voices. For

example, a Rural Livelihood Analysis to ascertain the range of

assets and desired livelihood outcomes are undertaken by each

social group. Each group also makes a Strength-Weaknesses-


Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis of their present

circumstances.

To help participants situate their current state-of-affairs

and understand how the community came to be what it is

now, a number of collective brainstorming is thus held. A

time-line of major events of the past (i.e. last 30-50 years) is

jointly re-constructed. Seasonality or annual cycles as well

as long-term trends or changes in social, economic, health or

natural occurrences that had profound impact on community

livelihoods and well-being are suitable analytical tools as

well. A review of services and providers to get a visual of the

community’s “bridging social capital”, transect mapping to get

a better picture of where key development issues occur in the

ancestral domain, and, SWOT analyses of various ancestral

domain characteristics (environmental, geographical, political,

etc.) complete the minimum analytical tools.

Conduct interviews (key informant or focus groups) to elicit

a collective conception of community-environment relationships

(e.g., human relationship to resources and other entities within

ancestral domains) and helping them codify such worldview are

integral activities of this phase.

2. Set (adjust) desired plan outcomes

The second phase identifies and consolidates the desired

outcomes (i.e. living conditions that community aspires) from

the planning information. Such “development outcomes” are

identified in three ways: (i) fusing the key “risks”, “issues”,

“threats”, or “weaknesses” common between social groups

and transforming them into “desired outcome” statements, (ii)

re-stating into desired outcomes any key threats and issues

identified during ancestral domain SWOT analyses that were

missed by the social groups, and (ii) adopting outright a few

outcomes which may not be common to all social groups but are

deemed key to improving the conditions of the most vulnerable

groups by community members.


Figure 5. Process framework for Indigenous community planning

for ancestral lands. Tools specified for each step were used during

planning with the Arakan Manobos.

Women in particular could be a vulnerable group needing special

attention especially in communities where political affairs can

be overtly male-dominated. To ensure that womens’ issues

and development desires are not marginalized, workshops

exclusively by women are strongly recommended, and a useful

tool that can be carried out during planning is “Photovoice”.

Photovoice (Castleden et. al. 2008) allows women to discuss

development issues without the men and decide which be

prioritize and address, all using photos they took as visual aids.

The priority outcomes which they have jointly identified can


be shared to the community assembly using the same photos.

Their outputs would then become an integral part of the overall

planning information.

The consolidated statements are then validated and

prioritized. Validation of the generated check-list of “desired

outcomes” is then presented in a community assembly to

ensure that no personal aspiration has been left unaddressed.

Lastly, once a consensus that the list is final has been reached,

the community will proceed with selecting what desirable

outcomes they believe are the most important. Prioritization

can be executed through secret balloting so individual decisions

are done privately, minimizing peer influence. A “visioning” can

then be facilitated based on what future the community thinks

would the prioritized outcomes contribute to.

3. Set objectives and means to get there

For each of the priority outcomes, an objective is stated with

the corresponding strategies to be undertaken to meet each

objective. Objectives can be formulated and expressed using

the Simple, Measurable, Accomplishment-based, Relevant and

Time-bounded (SMART) criteria (Gerson 2006). This activity can

be in the form of group brainstorming workshops. When there

is consensus over the objectives and the broad strategies to

achieve objectives, an action planning is held to identify specific

activities to be taken, assign persons or groups responsible for

the tasks, and a timeline specifying implementation schedules.

4. Monitor and measure success

Indicators of project success are also identified and

a monitoring scheme is developed. In developing suitable

indicators, local value system drives the process. Base line

information for the indicators is then collected prior to periodic

evaluations. Progress towards meeting the objectives is then

regularly assessed and community feedbacks are sought.

Delivery and assessment of the process framework

Community planning was facilitated by a team of two non-

Indigenous staff from an NGO, at least one Indigenous coresearcher

(two at Pang-uandig), and one focal person from the

IPO. In some sessions, the primary researcher participated


either as a facilitator or as a process documenter. The same

team also took care of the logistics and writing the plan.

A community opening ceremony was held, which at Panguandig

included an Indigenous ritual to get spirit consent

through prayers, betel nut and coin offerings and the sacrifice

of a white chicken. At Inamong, the launch was held through

a community festivity that included a cultural dance for the

formal opening of a new project. In all villages, the launch also

involved an orientation about the practical values of planning

and getting community concurrence to planning protocols and

schedules.

Out of the planning participants, at least 144 Manobos

agreed to participate in the assessment: 40 were from Tumanding,

54 from Pang-uandig, and 50 from Inamong. Majority of the

planning participants had minimal formal education. Nearly

two thirds (107) had elementary education alone; only 15%

(21) reached high school level, while 8% (12) did not have the

opportunity to get any formal education. Only four persons

had college education during the time of planning but only one

participated in the process assessment. All of the four were

engaged as co-researchers. There was an almost equal mix of

male and female respondents: male 53% (76) and females 47%

(68). Individual income is below the poverty threshold of 1 US

$ per day at Inamong, but twice the threshold at Pang-uandig

and Tumanding.

Process Assessment

There was remarkably high over-all agreement that the ICP

framework meets the qualities of a desirable planning process

(Figure 6). A great majority expressed shared purpose and

personal incentives for getting involved (88%). Many strongly

feels for (i) the important role of planning in achieving aspirations

(90%), (ii) the necessity of giving planning their immediate

attention (89%), and (iii) the value of sharing to the planning

group their personal needs and viewpoints (89%). Additionally,

there is wide concurrence than getting involved is an exercise

of rights (94%). Interestingly, the idea that participation is an

expression of Indigenous rights is corroborated by responses

to open-ended questions among the Manobos of Tumanding

village where 14 out of 40 respondents (35%) believed that

the most significant achievement of the ICP process is that it

helped strengthen their rights to decide and improve public

recognition of such rights. There is also strong faith that the


planning is collective (84%) and that involvement can be a

valuable educational experience (85%).

Figure 6. Percentage agreement for Process Criteria Evaluation

Figure 7. Percentage agreement for Outcomes Criteria Evaluation.

The survey also showed a strong agreement that the process was

inclusive (87%) and was based on voluntary participation and

commitment (86%). The vast majority felt there was adequate

consultation (87%), which seems to relate to the fact that 84%

and 88% of the respondents claim a personal commitment to

planning, and that they see the same attitude in their fellows,


respectively. Many also believe that all social groups are well

represented (85%) and that all interest and values were given

space (89%).

Participants strongly agree that there were clear roles

and rules (88%), that the process was equitable (86%), and

that planning fostered trust and teamwork (88%). Among

the five statements that test for equity though, almost a

quarter of respondents agree but only to a certain degree that

adequate resources were provided for them to participate

(23%). We suspect this can be attributed to some feelings of

regret over “opportunities lost” among some participants as a

result of forgoing work just to attend the planning sessions.

Notwithstanding, there is strong agreement for the rest of the

statements: that sufficient information was available (9 %),

individual interests or perspectives had influence (82%), the

process reduced power asymmetry (90%), and that participation

made a big difference (93%).

There was strong agreement that the process was culturally

appropriate (89%). Specifically, that it valued Indigenous

practices and norms (92%) as well as stories (89%), that planning

was drawn from their particular (Indigenous) worldview (87%),

and that plan goals and actions reflect such worldview (88%).

The principle of respect was also firmly claimed (89%). Ninety

three percent (93%) believes that non-Indigenous facilitators

were culturally sensitive, and that the process fostered mutual

respect (85%) as well as respect for women (89%).

The flexible and adaptive qualities of the ICP seem to require

further attention as it received the relatively lowest proportion of

strong agreement (72%). Out of all statements that test against

process criteria, the assertion that the planning schedules were

flexible and accommodating of personal schedules garnered

the highest percentage (33%) of ambiguous agreement (i.e.

somewhat agree). Curiously, this seems to coincide with some

informal comments that we got about the sessions being long

and often tedious. However, we believe that time and efforts

(not to mention material resources) are critical investments for

a good planning; more so that doing it the right way (process) is

equally important as producing the plan (output).

There is strong respondent agreement that the right

planning information has been used (86%).

Nine out of 10 respondents believes that the information was

not only precise, but also well-prepared. A lot of respondents

also firmly agreed that Indigenous know-how and outsider

(scientific) knowledge were effectively fused during planning

(81%). There is also strong agreement with respect to the


effective use of time limits (89%). Many agreed on the amount

of time allotted for planning (88%) and appreciated the use of

deadlines (87%), but an even greater proportion concurred that

the process had clear actions and milestones (90%).

Effective process management got strong support from the

respondents (89%). There were very affirmative replies towards

process staff acting in neutral and unbiased manner (91%)

and the process being effective because of the engagement of

Indigenous community facilitators (91%). Many also regard

planning staff and facilitators as skilled in running meetings

(86%).

With respect to implementation commitment, 86% strongly

agreed that the process and final agreement include clear

commitments to implementation. At the end of the process, the

participants gave a strong assurance that they will implement

what is in the plan (85%). Many also strongly agreed that there

was a clear strategy for plan implementation (87%).

Outcome Assessment

On the average, the planning process was perceived as

successful by 88% of the respondents while 82% were in strong

agreement that the process resulted to a plan that is desired

by the village. There were 89% who strongly agreed that it was

successful, 89% that it was a positive personal experience,

while 87% said they were satisfied with the process outcomes.

With respect to the two statements that define agreement, 80%

strongly believes that the resulting plan fully represents their

personal needs, concerns and values while 84% thinks that it

is fully representative of community aspirations.

Majority strongly agreed over these process outcomes:

conflict reduced (89%), it encouraged creativity to come up with

new ideas for actions (85%), and that it gave the opportunity to

improve understanding and skills (84%). Conflict particularly

over how to use the ancestral domain is believed to have gone

down (89%) and that there is improved community and family

relations as a result of planning (89%). Better understanding

in three aspects was strongly claimed: interests of community

members (81%), the community as a social and geographic

entity (84%), and the ancestral domain as a whole (85%). Many

also concurred strongly that there was better understanding

of how livelihood and personal circumstances can be improved

(83%) and that new skills were gained (87%) as a result of

participation.


Social (bridging) capital has expanded from the perspectives

of many respondents (78%), although a number of respondents

did not agree strongly. There is an equally strong agreement

that better relationships were built with assisting non-

Indigenous staff (84%). However, relatively lower confidence

was expressed towards the notion that access to support

services has improved since plan completion (72%), perhaps

because plan implementation is still in its first year during the

survey period.

There is strong respondent appreciation of planning

information (82%) and positive second-order effects were

observed too (85%). Many claimed practical use for the

information (82%), including improving on their livelihood (83%).

Many also believed that the information were well understood

and accepted by everyone (81%). As for second-order effects,

respondents strongly agreed that there were positive changes

in the actions and behaviors among community members right

after the planning (81%). More help and support also came

(86%), perhaps because a lot of members also believe that their

leaders became more active at finding development assistance

(88%).

With respect to the over-all value of the ICP, there is strong

consensus that the process framework is a very useful method

(86%). Although there is relatively lower confidence that the

ICP process framework capture community aspirations better

than others (83%), there is a relatively higher conviction that

the ICP framework is one best way of forming a community

development plan (90%). Hence, there is strong endorsement

and support of the ICP framework (85%). Eighty six percent

(86%) strongly agreed that the government should value a

village-level planning process. Participatory and consensusbased

processes are also believed to be effective (84%). Finally,

there is also strong willingness to participate in a similar

process again in the future (87%).

Discussion

In the light of the promising assessment described above,

the ICP may seem to have a potential role to play, not as a

replacement though, but as a supplement to the bigger

ADSDPP process, as it can address some of the weaknesses

of the government framework. An initial review of the ADSDPP

framework and the proposed ICP process framework shows the

following differences.


Table 6. The ADSDPP and the ICP frameworks compared.

ADSDPP (NCIP Admin Order No.

1, Series of 2004 and in practice)

Wide geographic scope

Unified and centralized –

Community Working Group plans

on behalf of community and sectors

they represent

Problems/needs-based approach

(negative)

Indigenous worldview implicit

ICP process framework

Local/village-based

Localized and inclusive,

everyone who wants to can

attend the planning and are

supported

Asset-building approach

(positive)

Indigenous worldview explicit

The ADSDPP, more often than not, covers large geographic

areas encompassing a substantial number of villages that (save

for the fact that many were federated as a result of the IPRA

law) have been practically managing their own affairs. Just to

give an example of how big the spatial coverage can be, the

ADSDPP of the Federation of Manobo and Matigsalug Tribal

Councils or FEMMATRICS in Mindanao covers 102,000ha of

ancestral domain in 2 provinces and 1 city.

A typical government approach to ADSDPP formulation

for large ancestral domains is to invite a few from each of

the many villages to participate and plan on behalf of the

community during unified and centralized meetings. Although

this may sound efficient time and resource-wise, it has

some disadvantages. First, those representatives might not

necessarily carry community interests, especially if no villagelevel

planning has occurred. Second, a representative-based

planning can be biased towards the interests of more confident

Indigenous elites rather than the politically vulnerable, shy and

less confident, sectors or villages. Lastly, it is prone to political

patronage where only government and/or federation allies

are allowed to participate. In short, centralized and unified

planning has the disadvantage of further obscuring the voices

of the already disenfranchised Indigenous sectors.

The above planning approach seems to arise from

an assumption that Indigenous communities represent a

monolithic, homogenous group (Gatmaytan and Dagondon

2004). However, although Indigenous communities may appear

culturally and ethnically homogenous and share the same

language, they represent multiple interests split along social

divides (Gatmaytan and Dagondon 2004, Agrawal and Gibson

2004, Nacker and Hickey 2002, Li 2002). Elders may prefer


cultural isolation whereas the young leaders assimilation;

women may contest male-dominance; some may crave

corporate investment while others prefer localized production

and self-sufficiency. Agrawal and Gibson described this as the

politics of the local, and excluding the voices of sub-groups in a

representative-based, centralized planning table runs the risks

of further marginalizing those that could already be internally

marginalized.

On the other hand, the ICP supports a localized and

inclusive planning process, where each community with clear

governance systems and territories does planning on their

own and independent of other villages. Such localized and

decentralized approach is compatible with the fact that most

frontier villages have been largely autonomous as indicated by

ethnographic accounts. Writing about the Indigenous peoples of

Luzon Island for example, renowned Philippine anthropologist

and historian, William Henry Scott, commented that “..none

of the Indigenous groups was politically unified. They were

all composed of autonomous communities whose relations

with each other, whether of the same language or different,

varied from isolation to cooperation or conflict according to

circumstances.”(Scott 1982, 40). Bennagen (2004) also claimed

functional autonomy when he said that “the Indigenous

communities in what later became as the Philippines were

independent, self-determining communities with minimum

social interactions with other groups.”

Whereas the ADSDPP looks at what communities’ lack,

the ICP looks at what the community has and builds on them.

Operationally, the ICP plans for development outcomes, not

problems or needs. Although a “deficit model” in a needs-based

approach can be useful, it can also be problematic because

it overemphasizes the negative, and forces the exaggeration of

the severity of community problems for the sake of attracting

outside aid (Kretzmann and McKnight 1996). Focusing on what

the community lacks can also result to self-pity and loss of

self-esteem, further eroding confidence in their abilities. In

the Philippines, many lay Indigenous peoples shun attending

stakeholder meetings because they feel embarrassed by being

poor and their lack of formal education. On the contrary,

evidences show that an asset-based approach builds a positive

pysche and neighborhood pride. Furthermore, it empowers

residents through collective organization, political access, and

control over local resources (UN Habitat 2008).

Lastly, the ICP helps the community articulate in writing

their worldview, particularly how they conceive their place and


relationship with the environment around them. This serves

the added benefit of making explicit the philosophical bases

of their goals that the mainstream society is often unaware or

takes for granted.

The proposed framework is not being suggested as a cureall

formula. However, there is reason to believe that it has

potentials for upholding Indigenous controlled planning for

ancestral domain development particularly among remote and

highly marginalized yet functionally autonomous communities.

Further testing of the framework though is being recommended.

REFERENCES

Agrawal, Arun. and Clark Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and

Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural

Resource Conservation. World Development. 27 (4): 629–

649.

Asian Development Bank. 2002. Indigenous peoples/ethnic

minorities and poverty reduction: Philippines. Manila,

Philippines: Asian Development Bank Publications.

Bebbington, Anthony. 1999. Capitals and Capabilities:

A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural

Livelihoods and Poverty. World Development. 27 (12):

2021–2044.

Bennagen, Ponciano. 2007. “Amending” IPRA, Negotiating

Autonomy, Upholding the Right to Self Determination.

In Augusto Gatmaytan, ed., Negotiating Autonomy: Case

Studies on Philippine Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights.

IWGIA Document 114. Quezon City/Copenhagen.

Blair, Robert. 2004. Public Participation and Community

Development: the Role of Strategic Planning. Public

Administration Quarterly. Spring: 102–147.

Cariño, Jacqueline. 2010. Country Technical Notes on

Indigenous Peoples’ Issues: Republic of the Philippines.

AIFAD & AIPP. http://www.ifad.org/english/indigenous/

pub/documents /tnotes/philippines.pdf

Castleden, Heather, Theresa Garvin, and Huu-ay-aht First

Nation. Modifying Photovoice for community-based

participatory Indigenous research. Social Science &

Medicine. 66: 1393–1405.

Chambers, Robert and Conway, Gordon R. 1992. ‘Sustainable

Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st

Century’, Discussion Paper 296. Brighton, UK: Institute of

Development Studies.


Chambers, Robert. 1994. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA):

Challenges, Potentials and Paradigm. World Development.

22 (10): 1437–1454.

Colchester, Marcus. 1994. Salvaging Nature: Indigenous

People, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation.

UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 55, Geneva, Switzerland.

Creswell, John. 2009. Research Design : Qualitative,

Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles

(Cal): Sage Publications.

Eketone, Anaru. 2006. Tapuwae: A Vehicle for Community

Change. Community Development Journal. 14 (4): 467–

480.

Erni, Christian. 2008. Non-violence in a Frontier: The Strategy

of Avoidance and the Struggle for Indigenous Control Over

Land Resources on Mindoro Island. In Danilo Geiger,

ed., Frontier Encounters: Indigenous Communities and

Settlers in Asia and Latin America. IWGIA Document No.

120. Copenhagen.

Filion, Pierre. 1988. Potentials and Weaknesses of Strategic

Community Development Planning: A Sudbury Case Study.

Canadian Journal of Regional Science. 11(3): 393–411.

Frame, Tanis, Thomas Gunton & J. C. Day. 2004. The role of

collaboration in environmental management: an evaluation

of land and resource planning in British Columbia. Journal

of Environmental Planning and Management. 47:1, 59–82.

Friedmann, John. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From

Knowledge to Action. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

———. 1993. Toward a non-Euclidian Mode of Planning.

Journal of the American Planning Association. 59 (4): 482–

85.

Gatmaytan, Augusto and Gliceto Dagondon. 2004.

Sustainability and Survival: Four Case Studies from

Indigenous Communities in Northern Mindanao. Bogor,

Indonesia: ICRAF SouthEast Asia Working Paper no. 2004–

5.

Gerson, Richard. 2006. Achieving High Performance: A

Research-based Practical Approach. Amherst, Mass: HRD

Press.

Graham, Mary. 1999. Some Thoughts about the Philosophical

Underpinnings of Aboriginal Worldviews. Worldviews:

Environment, Culture, Religion. 3 : 105–118.

Hibbard, Michael and Marcus Lane. 2004. By the Seat of Your

Pants: Indigenous Action and State Response. Planning

Theory & Practice. 5(1): 95–124.


Hibbard, Michael, Marcus Lane and Kathleen Rasmussen.

2008. The Split Personality of Planning: Indigenous Peoples

and Planning for Land and Resource Management. Journal

of Planning Literature. 23 (2): 136–151.

Hill, Rosemary. 2011. Towards Equity in Indigenous Co-

Management of Protected Areas: Cultural Planning by

Miriuwung-Gajerrong People in the Kimberley, Western

Australia. Geographical Research. 49(1):72–85.

International Work Group For Indigenous Affairs. 2012. The

Indigenous World 2012: Philippines. Copenhagen.

Jojola, Ted. 2008. Indigenous Planning, an Emerging Context.

Canadian Journal of Urban Research. 17 (1): supplemental

pages 37–47.

Kaliwat Theater Collective. 1996. Arakan: where rivers speak

of the manobo’s living dreams. Arakan Valley, Cotabato.

Philippines.

Kliger, Bev and Laurie Cosgrove. 1999. Local cross-cultural

planning and decision-making with indigenous people in

Broome, Western Australia. Cultural Geographies. 6: 51–

71.

Kretzmann, John and John L. McKnight. 1996. Assets-based

community development. National Civic Review 85.4: 23+.

Academic OneFile. Web. May 30 2013.

Lane, Marcus, Alex Brown and Athol Chase. 1997. Land and

resource planning under Native Title: towards an initial

model. Environmental and Planning Law Journal. 14 (4):

249–258.

Lane, Marcus. 2006. The role of planning in achieving

indigenous land justice and community goals. Land Use

Policy. 23: 385–394.

Li, Tanya M. 2002. Engaging simplifications: communitybased

resource management, market processes and state

agendas in upland southeast Asia. World Development

30(2):265–283.

Manuel, E. Arsenio. 1973. Manuvu` social organization. The

Community Development Research Council, University of

the Philippines. Diliman, Quezon City.

Mason and V. Beard. 2008. Community-based Planning and

Poverty Alleviation in Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Planning

Education and Research. 27: 245–260.

Natcher, David and Clifford Hickey. 2002. Putting the Community

Back Into Community-Based Resource Management: A

Criteria and Indicators Approach to Sustainability. Human

Organization. 61 (4): 350–363.


O’Brien, David, John Phillips, and Valeri Patsiorkovsky. 2005.

Linking Indigenous Bonding and Bridging Social Capital.

Regional Studies, 39 (8): 1041–1051.

Padilla, Sabino. 2008. Indigenous Peoples, Settlers

and the Philippine Ancestral Domain Land Titling

Program. In Danilo Geiger, ed., Frontier Encounters:

Indigenous Communities and Settlers in Asia and

Latin America. IWGIA Document No. 120. Copenhagen.

Porter, Elizabeth. 2004. Unlearning one’s privilege: reflections

on cross-cultural research and practice in south-east

Australia. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(1): 104–109.

Royal, Charles. 2002. Indigenous Worldviews A

Comparative Study. http://www.mkta.co.nz/assets/

sabbaticalreport31.1.2002.pdf

Sadan, Elisheva. 2004. Empowerment and Community

Planning: Theory and Practice of People-Focused Social

Solutions. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers.

(ebook: http://www.mpow.org/)

Scott, William. 1982. Cracks in the Parchment Curtain. Quezon

City: New Day Publishers.

Stringer, Ernest T. 2007. Action Research. Los Angeles (Calif.):

SAGE Publications.

UN HABITAT. 2008. An Asset-based Approach to Community

Development and Capacity Building. United Nations

Human Settlements Programme. Nairobi, Kenya.

Warner, Michael. 1996. Strategic Development Planning at the

Community Level: A Modification to Participatory Planning.

Community Development Journal. 31(4): 330–342.

Wiebe, Elden, Gabrielle. Durepos, and Albert J. Mills. 2010.

Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Los Angeles (Calif.):

Sage Publications.

Williams, Paul. 2002. Community Strategies: Mainstreaming

Sustainable Development and Strategic Planning?

Sustainable Development. 10: 197–205.

Developing a Process Framework for Indigenous Community-Based Planning: A Case from Mindanao, Philippines

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?