Master_thesis

Recommendations

Info

7%0%3%62%2% 8%18%Total No. Of Participants = 60AcademeBusiness Org.Government Org.Non-Government Org.International Org.M ediaOthers1st Public ConsultationAcademe0%10%58%Business Org.3% 13% 6%Government Org.Non-Government Org.10% International Org.M ediaOthersTotal No. of Participants = 312nd Public Consultation62%5%0%0%19%0%14%AcademeBusiness Org.Government Org.Non-Government Org.International Org.M ediaOthers3rd Public ConsultationTotal No. of Participants = 21Academe5%0%Business OrgGovernment Org.Non-Government Org.52%43%Total No. of Participants = 214rt Public ConsultationFig.7. Participants during the public consultations (see appendix F for detailed number ofparticipants in each group of actors).Source: attendance sheets of the four consultations, 1992.45
Analysing these charts shows that while all the groups of actors were diminishing innumbers, the two main groups, GOs and NGOs, were consistently present during theconsultations. However, the trends of involvement between these two groups were differentwith a decrease in the number of NGO participants and an increase of the GOs’ participants(particularly during the final public consultation). Nevertheless, there were always moreNGO actors than actors from GOs.4.4.3 Dynamic System Events: Change in Systemic Governing CoalitionsDuring the martial law period from 1972-1981, Marcos was invested with dictatorial powersover the entire country. At his command, the Philippine Congress was abolished and heruled by presidential decrees from 1972 until 1978. At that time, a parliamentarygovernment with a legislature, called the National Assembly, replaced the presidentialsystem. Newspapers were shut down and the mass media were brought under tight control.Those who were well positioned within the economic and social elites supported theimposition of martial law. In 1972 the dictatorship was linked to a market preference for thedevelopment path of export-oriented industrialization. Treading this new path required “theassembly of a fresh political coalition that included the vast majority of foreign investors,their local partners (such as the technocrats in the Marcos cabinet), those in the businesscommunity linked by political interests to the President, local politicians who remained inoffice because of their allegiance to Marcos, and the military officers who enforced martialrule” (Amado, 1994). In the 1970’s, the Philippines deliberately shifted from an importsubstitutionindustrialization strategy to an export promotion strategy.Timber was the major foreign-exchange earner from 1970s to early 1980s. The governmentitself smoothed the path of exploiting the forest resources by allocating much of unclassifiedland as public forestland eligible to be licensed for logging, issuing timber license agreement(TLAs), and implementing policies of low forest charges and export taxes (Boado, 1988).To give an example, in the 1970s, Presidential Letter of Instruction (LOI) 818 was issued forreforestation. However, the plantations were established to meet the industrial demands ofthe woodchip industry rather than any social or environmental needs (Hurst, 1990).46
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 and 36: “conservation” (26%) and “bio
Page 37 and 38: 4.3.2 Advocacy Coalitions and Their
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: Act were created. Because of the ch
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

Master_thesis

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

Delete template?

Save as template?