Master_thesis

Recommendations

Info

Table 4. Frequency of concepts.CategoriesPublicConsultations 9SourcesLegislative MediaCommitteesInterestGroups10Social Concern Rights/Protection of IPs/local5 1 0 3 9communities Ancestral domain claims/tenure 6 3 4 7 20 Steward 1 1 2 0 4 Participation/consultation/representation 19 6 9 3 37 Livelihood Activities 3 2 0 1 6 Development/Benefits 3 0 0 0 3 IP`s Recognition in the protected area 17 15 5 14 51Subtotal 54 28 20 28 130Environmental Buffer zones 11 4 3 0 1 8 Conservation 3 17 3 4 27 Preservation 1 12 5 1 19 Protection 1 5 2 2 10 Maintenance 0 2 2 1 5 Enhancement 0 1 1 3 5 Restoration 1 3 0 0 4 Rehabilitation 0 0 0 2 2 Biodiversity 3 12 9 0 24Subtotal 13 55 22 14 104Economic Development Economic Potentials 5 0 1 5 11 Economic/Development Opportunities 3 4 0 0 7 Potential income, funds or grants 0 3 3 0 6 Economic use/activities (multiple use) 4 8 1 1 14 Privatization (alienable and disposable) 0 2 0 0 2 Linkage Connectivity 0 8 0 0 8Subtotal 12 25 5 6 48Source: Result from the Content Analysis of 22 documents, 2003TotalIn examining the list of concepts from the documents on protected area policy making, itshows that the actors were most articulate about concepts of social concerns. The followingsubchapter captures the beliefs of the identified actors using the results of the contentanalysis.9 Public consultations were composed of GOs, NGOs and Academes. Four public consultations were heldduring the policy making.10 Refers to the statements of NGOs and Foundations (see Appendix D).11 Natural divide is included.35
4.3.2 Advocacy Coalitions and Their Belief SystemsThe results of content analysis presented in Table 4, show that the identified policy actorscan be placed into three main groups of actors articulating concepts of: social concerns,environment, and economic development. These groups of actors in the perspective of ACFare advocacy coalitions which share a set of normative and causal beliefs (in this case, theconcepts under each category as shown in table 4). Therefore, the three main advocacycoalitions are the Social Concern Coalition, the Environmental Coalition and the EconomicDevelopment Coalition.From the same table, the composition of each advocacy coalition 12 can be drawn. TheSocial Concern Coalition was dominated by NGOs and POs concerned with indigenouscultural communities, along with allies from the Congress and Senate, the DENR, journalistsand academic institutions. The Environmental Coalition on the other hand, was composedof the environmental NGOs, with allies from the Congress particularly the Committee onNatural Resources, journalists, academic institutions and the DENR. The EconomicDevelopment Coalition was consisted of the National Power Corporation, the Department ofTourism, a business group and some allies from the Senate and the DENR. One NGO, theFoundation for Sustainable Development Inc. (FSI), played the role as a policy brokerwhose task was to find a reasonable compromise when conflicts arose between differentcoalitions.According to Sabatier, these advocacy coalitions share particular beliefs. The beliefs of thethree advocacy coalitions are presented in Table 5 (see 3.6 for data processing).12 The grouping of documents according to its sources during the conceptual analysis was helpful to trace thecomposition of the coalitions. Also, the interest groups’ publications and interviews from some actorscontributed in aggregating actors to each coalition.36
Page 1 and 2: See discussions, stats, and author
Page 3 and 4: Forest Policy Change in the Philipp
Page 5 and 6: 5 Case Study: Subic Bay Protected A
Page 7 and 8: AbbreviationsACFAdvocacy Coalition
Page 9 and 10: AbstractForest policies in the Phil
Page 11 and 12: - The protection, development and r
Page 13 and 14: by the indigenous communities in th
Page 15 and 16: Linked to these ancillary objective
Page 17 and 18: Relative StableParameters1. Basic a
Page 19 and 20: Table 1. Revised Structure of Belie
Page 21 and 22: information that are relevant to th
Page 23 and 24: 3 Methodology3.1 General OverviewSe
Page 25 and 26: selected terms within texts, either
Page 27 and 28: Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (S
Page 29 and 30: Gottschalk (1995) points out that t
Page 31 and 32: 4 Towards Protected Area Conservati
Page 33 and 34: emphasis of discussions is on the i
Page 35: “conservation” (26%) and “bio
Page 39 and 40: An important question regarding the
Page 41 and 42: 4.4 External Perturbations Affectin
Page 43 and 44: “Section 22. The State recognizes
Page 45 and 46: Act were created. Because of the ch
Page 47 and 48: Analysing these charts shows that w
Page 49 and 50: 4.5 Policy Change reflecting ACF: i
Page 51 and 52: Philippines, as presented in the pr
Page 53 and 54: (1) Clear participation of the Soci
Page 55 and 56: 5.1.1 Study AreaThe Subic Bay is lo
Page 57 and 58: 5.1.2 Historical BackgroundThe hist
Page 59 and 60: a. Shall be developed into a self-s
Page 61 and 62: protected areas within one biogeogr
Page 63 and 64: 9, the environment and economic dev
Page 65 and 66: Table 10.Coalition belief structure
Page 67 and 68: 5.5 Diagnostics and DiscussionsThe
Page 69 and 70: The third aspect is related to the
Page 71 and 72: The first aspect pertains to the po
Page 73 and 74: The thrust of forestry regulations
Page 75: Future Policy ProcessExternalPertur
Page 78 and 79: impacts from the local level are ev
Page 80 and 81: subsystem actors. Degradation of fo
Page 82 and 83: References:Act 3915, as amended by
Page 84 and 85: Property Conference of the Internat
Page 86 and 87:
Pulhin, J. M. (1996). Community for
Page 88 and 89:
Walpole, P. et al. (1993): Upland P
show all

Master_thesis

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?