Initiating An Education-Based Sustainable Development Framework in Aurora Province, Philippines

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010
Initiating an Education-Based Sustainable Development Framework in Aurora Province, Philippines

Macose1, F.E., Roxas2 S.K., Fuentes3, R. O., Angara4, E. V and Watts5, P. D.
ABSTRACT The initiation of a community based approach to sustainable development that includes a focus on assessing ecosystem capacity is reported. The project design had a focus of providing a framework for the continued expansion of the Aurora State College of Technology Extensions Program. Preliminary results of key hypotheses are reported to assist other Philippine institutions and possibly those in other countries to consider similar programs for development and poverty alleviation. INTRODUCTION The 21st century requires new configurations in organizations as cultural environmental scenarios are becoming more and more different, in part due to global challenges associated with poverty alleviation, human rights and climate change. New situations offer new opportunities as well as new problems for management and require new mindsets, skills and competencies. To deal with challenges of the uncertain future there is a need to be prepared and proactive regarding change management. Schools being the responsible agent for the preparation of the young should engage in planned change. There is a need for education programs and institutions to move away from simply responding or reacting. The ability to manage change is in large dependent upon establishing the appropriate organizational processes. Many of the most important policy issues facing the planet today demand a central focus on the sustainability of development. A widely-used and accepted international definition of Sustainable Development (SD) given by Doyle (2007) and adopted by the United Nations is: a development often called the foundation of environmental policy, with a view that development should meet the needs of the current generation without leaving behind a compromised or damaged environment that cannot meet the needs of future generations. This implies both limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organizations on environmental resources, and the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities. We suggest that SD efforts need to be directed at community level empowerment which is in part, the process of enabling people to improve their
1
own lives. For this, Bass et al. (1995) strongly recommended networking within and between countries on implementing appropriate participation strategies. Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), is an international (sustainable) development organization with partners in national offices in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Kenya, Canada and the Philippines provides international assistance through deployment of workers in several parts of the country, including Aurora Province and are working towards food security and related development of environmental management strategies. VSO promotes volunteering to fight global poverty by bringing people together to share skills, creativity and learning to build a fairer world as they link rural poverty to dependence upon the environment for food (Santos & Schneider, 2001).A review of SD by a national assembly of volunteers through Volunteer Services Overseas concluded that enhanced public participation is critical for the Philippines (Aekester et al. 2007). Further, it is important, if not critical that least developed countries understand and present the integral components of their own development to stimulate synergistic international exchange. Every unit is a subunit of a larger system and global SD involves functional dialogue, local action and strategic collaboration. Hopefully, an enhanced participatory approach to SD will convince local leaders in government, civil society, and the academe to undertake new efforts which can unite the people in the building of a new Aurora and a new Philippines; one where human, societal and ecological development are sustained. The education institutions hold the key to this development for future generations and the current work is focused on the development of an SD mandate within ASCOTs Extension Services. The project was initiated by the first author as part of his doctoral thesis (Macose 2008). Situational Analysis For the purpose of providing a focus on specific aspects of the development challenge, we here provide a brief situational analysis of related global, national and local contexts or perspectives. Situational analysis corresponds to the identification of the primary problems that are the underlying causes of the organizations desire for change in a holistic fashion.
The Realities of Global System A primary challenge facing the world today and in the future is to meet the needs of human food security and ensure that the natural resource base remains productive for the future. According to Bjonnes (2003), the current global model of development is unsustainable. This was more recently confirmed by the United Nations Environment Program Report (Brahic, 2007) on the state of Earth's natural resources. Brahic concluded the environment is being sucked dry by unsustainable development. For example, areas other than the Philippines with great biodiversity resources, such as Latin America are also suffering from ecosystem and protected area destruction. Valente (2007) warns that the model of economic development there is based on intensive exploitation and export of natural resources and that the governments are nothing to halt the destruction. There are similar examples from elsewhere in the world. As damage to rivers and land is evident in Southern Australia, Spokesman Barry Traill (2006) of the Northern Australia Environment Alliance is very worried when he posed the question "When are we going to start thinking about development for sustainable pastoralism, for tourism, for the things that really work for the north?" Miliband, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also made a strong signal that unless the government starts to make real progress toward reconciling these contradictions, UK government faces a future that is less certain and less secure (DEFRA, 2007). Another problem raised by Steele et al (2007) is balancing both ecosystem, health, and promoting economic growth. They reported further that the challenge of poverty alleviation, promoting the conditions for human health, securing for rural livelihoods and conserving the environment is particularly acute in Asia and the Pacific. However, participatory grass roots actions are having positive effects as in the case of the international recognition of PAMANA, the Philippine grassroots alliance of fisherfolk marine protected area (MPA) Managers as Ecohealth Practitioners (Anabieza et al. IN PRESS). This is a response to one of the major challenges which is to link public participation to ecological capacity. Ecological footprint analysis compares human demand on nature with the biosphere's ability to regenerate resources and provide services. It does this by assessing the biologically productive land and marine area required to produce the resources a population consumes and absorb the corresponding waste, using the ecological footprint concept and calculation method which was developed as the PhD dissertation of Mathis Wackernagel, under William Rees at the University of
3
British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, from 1990-1994 (Wikepedia, 2008). The human economy now exerts a larger Footprint than the planet has biocapacity (Wackernagel, 2007). The Earths biologically productive area is approximately 11.2 billion hectares or 1.8 global hectares per person in 2002 (assuming that no capacity is set aside for wild species). However, the global Ecological Footprint in 2002 was 13.7 global hectares or 2.2 global hectares per person. Thus, in 2002, humanitys Ecological Footprint exceeded global biocapacity by 0.4 global hectares per person, or 23 percent. This finding implies that the human economy is in ecological overshoot: the planets natural resource capital stock is being depleted, thus eroding future supply of natural resources and operating at risk of environmental collapse (Wackernagel, 2007 & EEA, 2005). This is also considered true for both the open oceans (Pauly and Alder 2005) and coastal areas (Agardy and Alder 2005). The ecological footprint quantifies the amount of land area that is required to sustain the lifestyle of a population of any sizean individual, household, community, city, country, or world. With the predicted increase in the world population, the demand for marine resources will rise above the present supply (Garcia and Newton 1994). Many of the important fish resources are already in a state of full or overexploitation, and for these resources it is likely that further increases in effort will result in stock collapses (Gislason et al. 2000). There are several convergent approaches to determining the capacity of marine ecosystems and planning. For example, UNESCO (2009) has taken a leadership role on marine spatial planning with a focus on biodiversity units such as bioregions. This approach has been linked to the use of marine ecological models such as ECOPATH and ECOSIM (Christensen and Pauly 1995,1996). However, although significant tools have been developed, we appear globally to live beyond our means, in an ecological sense. In other words, we are eroding the supply of ecological resources and services for future generations and posing the risk of global environmental collapse. Although these consequences are made unintentionally through human activity, we clearly must learn to better manage our interaction within the ecological systems, particularly in the case of the watersheds, marine and river basins, where individual approaches of protecting the areas are unlikely to succeed on their own. Increasingly it is perceived that these global issues cannot be addressed by countries acting independently. Further, there is now a growing awareness that we can no longer blindly trust in the regenerative capacity of ecosystems (Tpfer, 1998). This international perspective spawned the World Commission on
4
Environment and Development (WCED, 1987) which set three general objectives to be addressed: 1) to re-examine the critical environmental and development issues and formulate realistic proposals for dealing with them, 2) to propose new forms of international co-operation on these issues that will influence policies and events in the direction of needed changes; and 3) to raise the levels of understanding and commitment to action of individuals, voluntary organizations, businesses, and governments. We suggest that two decades later there is still a need to meet these goals and that the educational system is important for this process. Further, this may be particularly true for less developed countries such as the Philippines with limited available economic resources. The enhancement of public participation may be a key strategy in formulation and implementation of a social-process that helps to meet these goals and this process can best begin at the community level and then collaborate with other communities that share the ecosystem services. The meeting of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (1996) on Innovative Approaches Towards Environmentally SD on June 6-7, 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines resulted in consensus on the need to promote innovative forward-looking approaches to SD, and the need to collaborate on enhancing the capacity of our natural resources. Other countries are also moving in this same direction. In China, Mao Rubai reported that more than 10 provinces and municipalities have already promulgated local regulations on the circular economy, which served as reference in drafting the national circular economy law for SD (Xinhua, 2006). The core of the circular economy is to maintain friendliness to the environment in the process of economic development by making a full and efficient use of resources and energies and minimize waste discharge. It features low consumption of energy, low emission of pollutants and high efficiency, through its 3-R principle: reduce, reuse, and recycle. In England, Ward (2002) reported that government money is being made available under the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) which contributes to the delivery of the Government's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food by helping farmers and foresters to respond better to consumer requirements. The ERDP provides new opportunities to protect and improve the countryside, to develop sustainable enterprises and to help rural communities to thrive by safeguarding and enhancing their rural environment. Likewise, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN, 2003), disclosed that the business sector continues to be involved in a number of programs to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated in their activities. ASEAN cited the Private Sector
5
Participation in Managing the Environment (PRIME) which ensures compliance to Environmental Management Systems. Despite all these efforts, the global society is continuously confronted with the question of whether SD as a concept and practice has improved the lives of the people. Globally, the failure of the various extension delivery approaches in developing countries to effectively engineer significant and sustainable agricultural growth has become a major concern to all stakeholders, including the donor community (Madukwe, 2004). While it is hard to dismantle existing structures and patterns of behavior established for centuries, it is also hard to operate in a context unfamiliar, with tools one is just learning to operate. Much has been written about SD with policies already in place at local, national and international scales, but their implementation remains elusive. According to Roxas (2004), the implementation of the new concern for the global SD and the covenants reached in Rio de Janeiro embodied in Agenda 21 (UNESCAP, 1992) dictate a formidable challenge to all of us. The task right now is implementation on how to translate the imperatives into practical action. Dealing with the same challenge, Thaman (2002) called for the International Association of Universities as teaching and research organizations to recognize and act upon a more culturally inclusive interpretation of SD. Segreda (2002) of University of Costa Rica emphasized the University's role in defining a national perspective on sustainability starting in 1987. Segrada added that scientists and economists are now promoting organic agriculture because they now come to realize that the worlds wealth still relies on nature with our natural ecosystems providing humans with food, water, air, shelter, food, clothing and medicines. In the current work we look at the development of an enhanced Extensions Services role for Aurora State College of Technology and an integration of these participatory strategies with other aspects of the institution. The Realities of the Philippine System There is a growing global consensus that natural resources are under threat everywhere. In the Philippines, the link between poverty and the environment are continually in discussion, primarily because the consequences of environmental degradation fall heavier on the poor. Poverty at the same time drives people into environmentally degrading economic activities for their survival. Then Vice President Estrada said: "Our resources are limited and even declining. Our population is increasing rapidly far beyond our capability to
6
support and provide for the needs of our people in terms of food, shelter, social services, and basic amenities" (Daguilan, 2006). The Ecological Footprint of the Philippines in year 2002 is 1.0 global hectares per capita adding up the biologically productive land per capita in the Philippines is only 0.6 global hectares per person (GFN, 2005). This finding indicates that the countrys ecological stocks are being depleted faster than nature can regenerate them by -0.4. This means that if we will not change our lifestyle and consumer habits, we put danger to the natural systems that supports life systems. In marine ecosystems, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF, 2004) revealed that overfishing, destructive fishing methods, siltation and increases in the human population have threatened the productivity of the coastal and marine ecosystems in the Philippines. GEF estimated that only five percent of coral reefs are in excellent condition while mangroves have decline by as much as 57 percent in the last 23 years while Asian Development Bank (ADB, 2005) reported that sea grass losses have been estimated at 30 -50 % over the last 50 years. During the last three decades, 70% of old-growth mangrove swamps were destroyed. For the larger forest ecosystems, the country had already reached the limits of its arable lands in the early 60s and 70s, but since a lot of people still depend on agriculture for livelihood and daily sustenance, forest lands are now being converted to agricultural lands (HES Consortium, 2004). Only less than 10% of primary forest, and 20% of total forest cover remains. The 1970s saw the modernization of agriculture in the Philippines with the introduction of High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) of rice which led to loss of genetic diversity (HES Consortium, 2004). From the countrys 5,000 indigenous rive varieties, only a few remain in the farmers field today because these original varieties have already been cross-bred with HYVs. To achieve increase in yield, farmers later found out that these HYVs require higher dosages and highly dependent of modern inputs. Between 1973 and 1983, the annual fertilizer consumption increased by an average of 4 % while pesticide use increased by three-fold between 1980 and 1987. Bridges (2007) informed that despite of high average rainfall, the Philippines was estimated to have the second to lowest per capita freshwater rates in Asia as of 2000 due to over-extraction of groundwater, water pollution, and denuded forests and watersheds. Solid waste generation in Metro Manila is estimated at 5,345 tons per day, which is expected to double by 2010. Only about 65-75% of total waste generated in Metro Manila is collected
7
and about 13% recycled. The 25-35% of uncollected waste is disposed of improperly, especially in creeks resulting in health problems and flooding. All components of our ecosystem, both living and non-living, have distinct and unique functions and are interconnected creating a balance necessary for sustaining life, thus destruction of one has repercussions on all. Hence there is an urgent need to properly manage natural resources and protect the environment to improve the quality of life of the present as well as that of future generations. To meet this challenge, the operational strategy of ADB (2005) for the Philippines focuses more on poverty reduction, social development and environmental improvement and strengthening the LGUs. It is interesting to note that the Philippines was the first country that established a national Agenda 21 called the Philippine Agenda 21 (CADI, 2000). It provides for the creation of an enabling environment which would assist various stakeholders to integrate SD in their decision-making processes. Executive Order No.15 created the Philippines Council for Sustainable Development (1992) which is tasked to establish guidelines and mechanisms that will expand, concretize, and operationalize SD principles and incorporate them in the preparation of the development plans at the national and local levels. One strategy being pursued by The Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 2001-2004 Philippines (ILO, 1996-2008) is the employment of clean production technologies and more environment-friendly materials. This strategy shall be intensively promoted in consultation with the private sector and civil society. First among the eight overarching goals of the Philippines Millennium Development Goals (NEDA, 2005) is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. The National Physical Plans Framework Plan (2001-2030) of the Philippines embodies the countrys land use policy agenda towards the Development Projects utilization of land and other physical Indicators Implemented resources to obtain the maximum possible social and economic benefits Results for the people. For Non-Government Figure 1. The old and existing Organizations (NGOs), one paradigm of Analytical environmental management strategy Framework being employed in the country is the
8
direct community-based actions implemented by the Environmental Legal Assistance Center (ELAC, 2000) in Rizal and Quezon towns. Their activities include: 1) information gathering, 2) core team organizing of community members who participate in the actual implementation of the community direct action, 3) processing of information gathered and laying out a case-specific implementation plan, 4) re-echoing of implementation plan with the organized core of participants. 5) arresting persons committing or assisting illegal logging activities and seizing and confiscating paraphernalia used and turning over to local officials or mandated government agencies for custody, and 6) ELAC takes over the case for litigation. In academic institutions, Segovia and Galang (2002) of Miriam College said that for SD to happen it must take root in the consciousness and cultures of society, a task in which education plays a very important part. On their part, Miriam College has integrated environmental education in its programs as part of its mission and commitment to produce a genuine "steward of creation". The Old and Existing Paradigm in the Philippines: (Taken from power point presentation titled The State of The Nation produced by Susan Roxas for FCOMT, n.d.). Over the past 50 years, each administration (From Macapagal to Macapagal) has applied the same prescription and measure of progress to the development process. The prescriptions through investments and the indicators of development (GNP) are products of a world view formed by the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. At best, the paradigm is inadequate in managing the increasing complexity of a postmodern nation. At worst, the results (economy growth, GNP etc) are devastating. Thirty two million Filipinos live on less than 23 pesos a day. More than 1 in 3 children are malnourished. The land can no longer support a population growing faster than the world average. At least 2,600 Filipinos leave the country each day to find work promising their families a better future that should reduce our unemployment by 1% a year. The pathology lies in the analytical framework of our approach to development as shown in Figure 1. If the indicators (economy growth, GNP etc) do not reflect reality, the solutions compound the problem. The serious mistake was to treat the country as if it were a single, homogeneous territory inhabited by an equally homogeneous community with a uniform psychological, mental and cultural base Roxas (n.d.). Roxas added that any framework for development must consider the diversity of the country and must be tailored-made for the people
living in communities that draw subsistence from diverse habitats and ecosystems. A central message is clear: SD as a concept is offered as the solution to most problems associated with human interaction with the natural environment. Specifically, it may mean that there is a need for a shift in the approach to organization and management at a variety of levels. The current initiative is intended to conduct a pre-feasibility study on a proposed paradigm shift to the Ecosystem Centered Community Based Organization and Management (ECSOM) Protocol within the Province and Municipality framework of Aurora as well as Aurora State College of Technology. The Realities of Aurora Province Aurora is considered as one of the last forest frontiers of Northern Luzon and the country of the Philippines. It is envisioned as a model of environmental and bio-diversity conservation in the Asia-Pacific Region and to be a partner in the Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor Program of the Conservation International-Philippines (SD-Enhanced PPFP 2004). However, Aurora is one of the poorest provinces in the Luzon and among the 20 poorest provinces in the country. Aurora Province itself is a victim of environmental denudation as manifested by frequent landslides and flashfloods and it has been confirmed that protection areas are subjected to various degrees of misuse (PPFP, 1993-2002). Mass wasting commonly result to sedimentation of rivers and flooding of low lying areas and these affect the watersheds support to agricultural areas. Most if not all existing Watershed Forest Reserves have no effective on-site management putting these areas into an open access protected forestlands where illegal encroachers or forest resource users can come and go at the expense of the resources therein. Individual families who are primarily focused on food security, characteristically moving from ecosystem to ecosystem worsens settlement development through illegal logging, slash and burn farming and charcoal-making activities (PPFP, 1993-2002). Wetlands which are mostly found in Baler and Casiguran and serve as a sanctuary of indigenous birds and some migratory birds are now being converted
10
to riceland areas and fishponds. The provinces remaining mangrove areas of 459 hectares mostly found in Dilasag and Casiguran are continuously depleted and converted to other land using activities such as fishponds and prawn farming. Mangrove areas, which are classified protection area (P.D. 705) are continuously titled to private individuals. With mangrove depletion, coral reefs as breeding and feeding grounds of various species of fish and crabs, and natural breakwater of coastlines from sea waves also diminish (PPFP, 1993 2002). Poverty incidence in the province has increased between 1994 and 2000 from 43% to 64% according to surveys (PPFP, 1993 2002). The Human Development Index (HDI) based on the National Statistical Coordination Board 2002 Report is 0.585, lowest amongst the provinces in Central Luzon. Outmigration shown by the decrease of the Indigenous Peoples (IP) population in Aurora between 1998 and 2000 from 12,000 to about 8,500 indicates that this is associated with enhanced economic opportunities in neighboring provinces. Although the jurisdictions are dedicated to development in their municipalities and across the province, these results indicate that an organization and management paradigm shift may be required. On March 2, 2006 the Honorable Governor Bellaflor Angara J. Castillo indicated her desire to engage the broader community, creating a multi-sectoral approach towards purposive linkaging and network building to pave the way for effective and coordinated efforts across various sectors for development undertakings. She added further that community participation in planning is extremely important to Auroras development. The commitment of the Province of Aurora to SD within their participatory planning process is being combined with the vision of ASCOT to create a SD network. In the current work, this commitment was further facilitated by the involvement of all eight Municipalities of Aurora, Civil Society (CS), Peoples Organizations (POs), Cooperatives, and other academic institutions participation in the consortium. These synergistic potential of these stakeholders have the potential to be used for the development a full proposal on the implementation of ECSOM, but also focus on the institutional relationship of ASCOT with the province.
11
ASCOT, in part is focusing on the great potential of education to have its share in the Philippine drive for SD. The College is moving to institutionalize a Marine Science undergraduate and adult education program (Watts et al. this volume). These efforts form part of the initiative on the conservation of marine resources in the Province of Aurora to make provincial planning work for the poor and implement a Marine Biodiversity Program that assists in balancing development between ecosystems; encompassing research, education and governance, strategically for sustainability. The Office of Extension and Training at ASCOT has a vision of enhancing programs based upon the needs of the people; a sustainable participatory approach at the community level. One developmentis the Farmers' Information and Technology Service (FITS) - onestop information shops located at the LGUs where technologies for increased food production, information on conservation of natural resources etc. can be accessed. METHODS Maximo T. Kalaw Insitute of Sustainable Develppment (MTKISD) funded and conducted a country-wide survey on interests and opportunities for an operational approach to SD. Three (3) areas including Aurora were selected based not only the presence of worthy biodiversity resources, but also on clear needs for poverty reduction/sustainable livelihoods and most importantly both political and institutional commitment (Roxas and Imson 2007). This preliminary step is seen as a Pre-feasibility installation (PFI) study for implementing the full ECSOM (Ecosystem-centered Community-based Organization and Management) Protocol. Background and Objectives The PFI was required in the planning and problem identification phase of project cycle to ensure all possible problems were anticipated and identified, alternative solutions were appraised and the preferred solution met the sustainability criteria. The overarching goals of the endeavor was to facilitate the consciousness of the stakeholders on the factors that influence their general welfare; motivate and capacitate them to own and manage development processes; and empower them to sustain it through local efforts for local
12
progress. The primary objective of PFI is thus to provide local stakeholders with the scientific impetus for proceeding with the mobilization for a full piloting of an ECSOM system making every process participatory. This was carried out in three distinct phases: PHASE I: Groundworking (Organizing) Objectives: 1. To assess and build-up local and institutional support and capacity for the undertaking. PHASE II: Participatory Situational Assessment Objectives: 1. To undertake comprehensive community scanning to establish a sound understanding of the development situation being addressed; 2. To involve the stakeholders in the undertaking and facilitate their consciousness-raising on their development situation including the resources of and within the community, thereby building a local constituency. PHASE III: Selection of Entry Points and Preliminary Designing of an ECSOM Application (Identification of Interventions) Objectives: 1. To undertake a detailed analysis of the obtained development situation and constraints that ECSOM is to address; 2. To identify opportunities and key considerations (such as legislative frameworks, projects, trends, etc.) that point to or in themselves serve as entry points for ECSOM. 3. To identify and define the linkages between an ECSOM application and poverty reduction. To prevent the rapid destruction of life systems, the development paradigm had also to change. With the PFI process, the limitation posed by the previously used SD-Enhanced PPFP (2004) on participatory situational assessment was avoided. With the priority of poverty and environmental degradation as a global, national and provincial concern, the change in focus becomes paramount, our concerns and commitments also need to change. The Research Main Objective
13
The symptoms of some environmental disorder at global, national and local levels are evident This study aims to test a PFI (Pre-feasibility installation) as an initiating intervention in addressing the widening poverty in the rural areas in the rural areas and give Aurora the benefits of an SD approach to facilitate community transformation and ensure SD. The Research Specific Objectives: 1. To establish the difference on Organizational and Management and Ecology-based Community-centered Planning (OMECP) with respect to an enhanced planner role paradigm before and after the PFI as a preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province. 2. To establish the difference on OMECP with respect to an enhanced community participation paradigm before and after the PFI as a preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province. 3. To establish the difference on OMECP with respect to an enhanced individual participatory action paradigm before and after PFI as a preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province. 4. To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Provincial infrastructure as a result of PFI as preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province. 5. To establish the difference in the ruling paradigm for OMECP in the Province thus making ECSOM installation a feasible strategy for SD as a result of the PFI. Research Questions 1) What constitutes a new environmental planning paradigm? 2) What ECSOM planning practice shows evidence of adoption of the new paradigm? Scope and Delimitation of the Study The domain of this action research method was characterized by a social setting where the researcher covered the entire Province of Aurora during the period of the study in the year 2007. The development of grassroots leadership is a long-term process and the ultimate impact of this study may only be felt and understood over a longer period of time. Thus, rather than concentrating on the
14
impact of the initiating intervention, this study was centered on how the stakeholders participated in the initiating interventions, the organization of the community and the planners and how they facilitated the PFI. Due to the short timeframe of the study, it was necessary to bring all the stakeholders together to gather the issue of participation on planning, community and individual participation, data base collection and over-all, the feasibility of ECSOM installation. The focus was on the short-term development of planners and community leaders for their individual and group leadership and attitudes. The Hypothesis Corollary to the foregoing concepts the following hypotheses were advanced for statistical testing. Hypotheses 1 to 3 focus specifically on the effect of the PFI as participatory action research in Aurora Province. Hypotheses 4 and 5 consider the viability and appropriateness of a full ECSOM installation in the Province. Hypothesis 1: As a result of a PFI as a preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province; Organization Management and Ecology-based Community Centered Planning (OMECP) advanced significantly with respect to an enhanced planner role paradigm. Hypothesis 2: As a result of a PFI as a preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province; OMECP advanced significantly with respect to an enhanced community participation paradigm. Hypothesis 3: As a result of a PFI as a preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province; OMECP advanced significantly with respect to an enhanced individual participation paradigm. Hypothesis 4: As a result of PFI as a preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province, there was a significant change in the mode of situational analysis which results to identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the provincial infrastructure. Hypothesis 5: As a result of PFI, there was a significant difference in the ruling paradigm for OMECP in the province thus making ECSOM installation a feasible strategy for sustainable development.
15
Research Design The study was conceptualized as an action research which is primarily applicable for the understanding of change processes in social systems. The research is a typically cyclical process linking theory and practice (Baskerville, 1999). Action researchers are among those who assume that complex social systems cannot be reduced for meaningful study. They believe that human organizations can only be understood as whole entities. The fundamental contention of action research is that complex social processes can be studied best by introducing changes and observing the effects of these changes. Action research is collaborative as it challenges the position of the social scientist as privileged observer, analyst and critic where the researcher and the practitioners come together to identify potential problems, their underlying causes and possible interventions (Cronholm, S. & Goldkuhl, G, 2004). The problem is defined after dialogue with the researcher and group so that the ideas may be communicated and a mutual understanding is reached (Grundy and Kemmis, 1981). This paradigm shift becomes demand-driven wherein the needs of the communities are addressed and priotorized. Action research is characterized by intervention experiments that operate on problems or questions perceived by practitioners within a particular context. "It is based on the Lewinian proposition that causal inferences about the behavior of human beings are more likely to be valid and enactable when the human beings in question participate in building and testing them" (Argyris and Schon, 1991). With the intervention of the researcher as Director for Extension and Training Services of ASCOT, he becomes part of the study and becomes one of the study subjects as implied by a process of participatory observation. In summary, this action research adopts the four common characteristics found through careful survey of the action research literature with widespread agreement by research authorities: 1) collaboration among participants, 2) a problem focus based on an action and change orientation; and 3) an "organic" process involving systematic stages; Thus, the PFI design included 1) formation of consortium; 2) information gathering; 3) participatory assessment, and 4) identification of interventions.
16
Research Population and Sampling Technique Stakeholders comprised the study population. This included the Planner Stakeholders (PSs) and the General Community Stakeholders (GCSs). The PSs were the Provincial Planning and Development Coordinator (PPDC), Provincial Agriculturist (PA), Municipal Planning and Development Coordinators (MPDCs), Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Officers (MENROs), Municipal Social Welfare and Development Officers (MWDOs), Municipal Health Officers (MHOs), Municipal Agrarian Reform Officers (MAROs) and the Municipal Agricultural Officers (MAOs). Since this study used a participatory approach among planners and community leaders of the eight LGUs within Aurora Province, respondents were selected by randomized sampling from planner stakeholders (PSs) and the general community (GCSs). Two (2) sample PSs were taken from each municipality and four (4) from the Provincial Office for a total of 20 PSs for the whole province. Thirty sample GCSs were taken from GCSs. Questionnaire as Research Instrument In particular, this study used ECSOM designed prototype questionnaire for customized data collection and processing. A pre-test and post test were given to respondents. In particular, the design of the questionnaire was intended to find out the influence of PFI on the levels of involvement of PSs and the GCSs towards their participation in ECSOM. A separate questionnaire intended for planners and another for GCSs were administered for the respondents but containing the same set of questions. See Appendix A and B for the sample questionnaires. To get the reliable answers from the respondents, particularly from the GCSs, the questionnaires were translated into Tagalog by the late Dr. Benjamin P. Galban of ASCOT who has a Ph. D. in Filipino-Linguistics. For the post-test, the goal was to involve them in planning, to provide a background on the proposed ECSOM and elicit their reactions. On a likert scale, the respondents were asked to answer the questions. On a scale of 1 to 5 where1 represents "STRONGLY DISAGREE and 5 represents "STRONGLY AGREE".The following were the research objectives each with a corresponding set of questions:
17
Objective 1 was set to establish the difference on organization management and ecology-based community-centered planning (OMECP) with respect to an enhanced planner role paradigm before and after PFI as preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province. The PSs themselves and the GCSs were asked eighteen questions. The questions focused on partnerships and advocacy for organization and resource based management, collection of data, planning, decision making, and partly on the implementation. Objective 2 was laid to establish the difference on OMECP with respect to an enhanced community participation paradigm before and after PFIPPP as preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province. The PSs and GCSs themselves were asked how did the GCSs participation paradigm change for which ten questions were asked: The General Community Members 1. Participate in resource management plans/councils. 2. Suggest possible solutions of minimizing or preventing environmental problems. . 3. Take a role on education and information campaigns (EIC) on biodiversity significance and the dangers of environmental damage on health. . 4. See themselves as a steward of the environment. 5. Are involved in identifying environmental problems found within their community. 6. Voice environmental concerns through letters and petitions. 7. Conduct barangay cleanups or join/start ecology/resource management groups. 8. Use resources sustainably with emphasis on the needs of future generations and activities such as reforestation. 9. Seek out livelihood alternatives to avoid over-exploitation of resources. 10. Focus on partnerships for strength and legitimacy in governance. Objective 3 was put to establish the difference on OMECP with respect to an enhanced individual participatory action paradigm before and after PFIPPP as preliminary approach to ECSOM Protocol installation in Aurora Province.
18
Ten questions were asked for the PSs and GCSs which are as follows: 1. I participate in resource management group meetings. 2. I am involved in identifying environmental problems found within my community. 3. I am empowered to suggest ways or find possible solutions of minimizing or preventing ecological/ environmental problems. 4. I see myself as a steward of the environment. 5. I voluntary participate in activities regarding environmental protection 6. I understand Auroras three environments: marine, forest and agriculture and how they are linked. 7. I voice environmental concerns through letters and petitions. 8. I use resources sustainably with emphasis on the needs of future generations and activities such as reforestation. 9. I seek out livelihood alternatives to avoid over-exploitation of resources. 10. I accept change on ecology based community centered management. Objective 4 was intended to answer the objective of establishing the difference in the mode situational analysis which results to identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the Provincial infrastructure as a result of PFIPPP as preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province, some of the questions on Sets A, B and C were collated and analyzed. Specifically, questions number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from set A (PSs participation), questions number 2, 4 and 9 from set B (GCSs participation) and questions number 2, 3 and 4 from set C (individual participation) were collated and analyzed. These questions pertain basically on situational analyis. Objective 5 was meant to establish the difference in the ruling paradigm for OMECP in the Province thus making ECSOM installation a feasible strategy for SD as a result of PFI, all of the questions from sets A, B and C were collated and analyzed because they all pertains to the overall perception of the PSs and GCSs on the expected overall implementation of the PFIPP, hence the viability of the project. It includes the organization, collection of data, planning and decision making and partly on the implementation.
19
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The information reported herein is primarily intended to assist other Philippine institutions in their assessment of how best to initiate a parallel or local SD program. The findings and analysis of the study were discussed and statistically analyzed to find out the effects of the initiating intervention on the levels of participation of 20 sample PSs and 30 sample GCSs based on the alternative hypotheses. Research Question 1: What constitute a new environmental planning paradigm? In this study, hypotheses 1 to 3 were focused specifically on the effect of the ECSOM PFI as participatory action research in Aurora Province. The following variables were tracked down to determine its effects as environmental planning: 1) planner role paradigm, 2) community participation paradigm, and 3) individual participation paradigm The first hypothesis focused on the idea that after the PFI, Organizational and Management and Ecology-based Community-centered Planning (OMECP) will be advanced significantly with respect to an enhanced planner role paradigm. The paradigm shift on the role of PSs as perceived by the PSs themselves and the GCSs were taken (Table 2). Table 2. t test results for an enhanced planner role paradigm. Stakeholders Degree of t computed t tabular values (two tailed Opinion Freedom value test) 5% 1% PSs 19 22 2.093 2.861 GCSs 29 4.7 2.045 2.756 Since the t computed values are larger that their corresponding t tabular values both at 5% and 1% levels of significance, we accept the alternative hypothesis that there is really a significant difference on the change in the PSs and GCSs perspective on the way the planners participate in the ECSOM program in the Province of Aurora. This study was able to show that the PFIPPP
20
becomes essential for planners to implement OMECP. Both stakeholders are becoming positive the way planners in the government are participating in environmental protection and developing appropriate environmental legislation. Planners now shifted their focus on partnerships particularly on situational assessment. They found that participatory assessment needs the contribution of other stakeholders including the representation from the communities. . Likewise, planners now contribute to a primary source data base that for validation of the communities. By merely asking the validation of the community members gave them the feeling that they are important. The implementation of PFI gave the planners a realistic overview of the possible challenges/opportunities in an area. Using the local consortium that was set up, each discipline gave their role on education & information campaigns (EIC) on biodiversity significance and the dangers of environmental damage (over-fishing for over use of pesticides for DA, logging and pollution for DENR and disposal of waste for DOH. The second hypothesis was set to establish the impact of PFI on OMECP with respect to an enhanced community participation paradigm before and after PFI as preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province. Community participation as designed in the implementation of the PFI refers to active participation from the grassroots. But due to limited time as required by the study and more on ECSOM which requires about five (5) months to complete the study plus the wide coverage of the study, the community participation discussed here also somewhat changed. Community participation refers to the limited representation of the grassroots who were represented by their respective barangay captains and some PO representatives during meetings and symposiums which were conducted at their respective municipalities. The paradigm shift on the level participation of the community as perceived by the PSs and GCSs were surveyed through questionnaires before and after PFI. Statistical results were presented in Table 3. Table 3. t test results for an enhanced GCSs role paradigm Stakeholders Degree of t computed t tabular values at levels Opinion Freedom value of significance (two
21
tailed test) 5% 1% PSs 19 5.3 2.093 2.861 ns GCSs 29 0.7 2.045 2.756 The alternative hypothesis must be accepted that there is a significant difference on the community participation paradigm shift before and after PFI as preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province as perceived by the PSs. However, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference on the community participation paradigm shift as perceived by the GCSs themselves should also be accepted. There seems to be conflicting answers here. While the planners foresee that there was really a paradigm shift among the GCSs, the GCSs themselves claimed there was none. This could be attributed by the fact that the planners rated more the change in attitude of the leaders in the community on whom they usually have more contact while the GCSs rated the overall participation of the community-the grass root levels as a group. With the planners perspective, they rated the very strong community formation that was observed among ASCOT, the other planners and particularly the general community leaders. Involvement of the community leaders in all parts of the planning process was found to increase. Likewise, their level of understanding and concern on environmental changes also increased significantly. Since the motion was already set, planners expected it to be sustained thus rating a paradigm change among the community leaders. With the community leaders (barngay captains) perspective, they rated the questionnaire on how the general community-the grassroots level looked at the impact of the PFI. Involvement of the local people or the grassroots in all parts of the planning process was very minimal because the researcher was able to penetrate only some barangays in two municipalities. This is expected as these results require a full ECSOM installation process. Using the third hypothesis which sought to prove that ECP will be advanced significantly with respect to an enhanced individual participatory action paradigm before and after PFI. Individual here refers to the individual respondents
22
who answered the questionnaires. They represent all the planners and the overall reactions of the barangay captains and PO representatives. The individual involvement of the PSs and the GCSs were assessed before and after the intervention. Statistical results are shown in Table 4. Table 4. t test results for an enhanced individuals role paradigm. Stakeholders Degree of t computed t tabular values (two tailed Opinion Freedom value test) 5% 1% PSs 19 11 2.093 2.861 GCSs 29 3.9 2.045 2.756
Since both the computed t-values for the planners and GCSs are larger than the t tabular values, we accept the alternative hypothesis that there is a significant difference on their individual participation (respondents) on the SD program in the Province of Aurora. Therefore, there is change in the PSs and GCSs (respondents) perspective on the way they individually participate in the SD program. There was a change on the way every respondent participates in resource management group meetings and activities regarding environmental protection, in the identification of environmental problems found within my community, in suggesting ways or finding possible solutions of minimizing or preventing ecological/ environmental problems and in the use resources sustainably with emphasis on the needs of future generations and activities such as reforestation. Likewise, they understand more Auroras three environments: marine, forest and agriculture and how they are linked and see themselves environmental stewards. They are more likely to seek out livelihood alternatives, avoid over-exploitation of resources, and accept change on ecology based management. With the evolving role of the LGUs, facilitation then played a key role on the expansion of peoples participation in governance from planning to evaluation through the organization structure espoused by the systemhousehold clusteringand diffuse situational assessment to the stakeholders. Facilitation then played a key role. The processes were aligned (from groundwork,
23
community entry, data-gathering, and planning) with LGUs mandated processes to build on these instead of competing and duplicating these efforts. Significance of the Study Data on this study could be used at the national and local levels, at Aurora State College of Technology and other institutions. 1. ASCOT - The study has been a big step forward for the Office of Extension and Training in terms of exploring the role of ASCOT in catering the needs of Aurora Province in sustainable development or SD. Efforts to use the current work in the development of SD and livelihood programs for residents of Aurora is ongoing. Results of this study are also being integrated with ASCOTs other SD efforts currently under development. For example, the ECSOM approach is a significant part of the approach to developing a Marine Science program (Watts et al. this volume). Likewise, at ASCOT the hope is that others will increasingly incorporate the results of the current study on extension services and eventually curriculum for Agriculture and Forestry, Environmental Science as well as on the organization and management courses at the Masters level. The process itself is an educational experience not only for the researcher, but also for the institution as it involves itself into community synergy. 2. Local Level the ECSOM Consortium would involve the development of a primary data base in the Province of Aurora at the provincial, municipal, and barangay level which could greatly enhance the secondary sources used in the Provincial Physical Framework Development Plans, Municipal Physical Framework Development Plans and Barangay Investment Plans. Data serve as inputs for monitoring of the impact of programs undertaken by the national and the LGUs in their respective communities. 3. National Level - through the PFI, the current work attempts to provide planners at the national level an intervention that could be used as a model for Provincial SD program and. the linkages to the Philippine based MTKISD. 4. International level - The next step in applying the current study is to report the details of the investigation through two distinct lines of international communication: action research and sustainable development. This significant
24
step involves the reformulation of the thesis itself (Macose 2008) to provide contributions that would fit with the international standards of these two disciplines. This will involve some of the information above, as well as the results for all hypotheses tests, requiring further discipline specific analysis and background research. REFERENCES Agardy T, Alder J (2005) Coastal Systems. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Chapter 19, pp 513-549 Akester, R, J. Imson, Y. Matteau & P.D. Watts 2007. Sustainability: environment, education, livelihoods. Dumaguete, 2006. International conference on sustainable development in the Philippines. Volunteer Services Overseas Philippines, 21 pages. Available on UNDP site: www.pvpnetwork.net/index.cfm?module=Library&page=Document&DocumentI D=6336. Anabieza, M., M. Pajaro, G. Reyes, F. Tiburcio and P. Watts IN PRESS Philippine Alliance of Fisherfolk: Ecohealth Practitioners for Livelihood and Food Security. EcoHelath: Argyris, C. & Schon D. A. (1991). Participatory action research and action science compared. Newbury Park, N.J.: Sage, p. 86. ASEAN. (2003). Private sector participation in managing the environment. Sisingamangaraja. Jakarta 12110. Asian Development Bank. (2005). ADB study: Rural development for the Philippines. ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong. PO Box 789 0980 Metro Manila, Philippines. Bass, S., Dallal-Clayton, B. & Pretty, J. (1995, May). Participation in strategies for sustainable development. Environmental planning issues. No. 7,
25
International Institute for Environment and Development. 3 Endsleigh Street, London, UK Baskerville, R.L. 1999. Investigating information systems with action research. Journal of Information Systems 2: Article 19. Bjonnes, R. (2003). A New Vision of Development. Proutist Universal Global Office. Proutist Universal. Denmark. Brahic, C. (2007, Oct. 25,). Unsustainable development puts humanity at risk. NewScientist.com.http://environment.newscientist.com/article.onlinenews_rss20 Bridges, G. (2007). Water for all. Asia-Pacific water forum: Asian water development water outlook. ADB. Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, Philippines. Center for Alternative Development Initiatives. (2000, May). An overview on poverty eradication through sustainable integrated area development: Framework for the Localization of Philippine Agenda 21. WebRing Inc. Center for Alternative Development Initiatives. (2001). Globalization: Civil Society, Cultural Power and Threefolding Shaping
Christensen, V. and D. Pauly 1995. Fish production, catches and the carrying capacity of the worlds oceans. Naga, the ICLARM Q. 18(3): 34-40. Christensen, V. and D. Pauly 1996. Ecological modeling for all. Naga, the ICLARM Q. 19(2) 25-26. Cronholm, S. & Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Conceptualizing participatory action research: Three different practices. Department of Computer and Information Science, Linkping University, Sweden, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 2 Issue 2.
26
Daguilan, M. J. (2006, July 16). On our own terms: Women in population, environment, and development in the Philippines Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment. Atlanta, USA. DEFRA. (2007, March 27). Speech by Rt Hon David Miliband MP at the WWF one planet living summit: One-planet security. London. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from web page. http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/davidmiliband/dm070327.htm. Doyle, K. (2007, March). Remake a living: Sustainable development in todays job market. Accessed at (web page). http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/12/133943/972 Environmental Legal Assistance Center. (2000). Community direct action in Palawan, Philippines. Puerto Princesa City, Palawan 5300 European Environment Agency. 23 Nov 2005 The Ecological Footprint: A resource accounting framework for measuring human demand on the biosphere. European Environment Agency (EEA), Copyright 19952008. Copenhagen K, Denmark http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/Ann1132753060 Garcia, S. M., and Newton, C. H. 1994. Responsible fisheries: an overview of FAO policy developments (19451994). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 29(6 12): 528536. Gislason, H., Sinclair, M., Sainsbury, K., & OBoyle, R. (2000). Symposium overview incorporating ecosystem objectives within fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 57:476 Global Environmental Facility. (2004). Philippines and Indonesia: Marine aquarium market transformation initiative (MAMTI). p1. Global Footprint Netwok. (2005, Nov. 23). 2003-2007 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=footprint_hectares
27
Grazier, P. (1998, Jan.). Team Motivation Originally appeared in EI Network January, 1998 Grundy, S. (1986) Action research and human interests. in M. Emery & P. Long (eds) Symposium May 22-23 1986, Research Network of the Australian Association of Adult Education. http://www2.fhs.usyd.edu.au/arow/o/m01/rseymour.htm. Human and Ecological Security Consortium. (2004). Human and ecological security program for sustainable development. SD Learning Manual. Module 3. International Labour Organization. (1996-2008). Medium-term Philippine development plan: 2001-2004. Accessed at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/skills/hrdr/init/phi_7.htm Macose 2008. Initiating intervention: the preparation of a pre-feasibility installation project proposal (PFIPP) for ecosystem-based communitycentered sustainable development organization and management (ECSOM) in the Province of Aurora. Dr. of Philiosphy thesis SE Asia Interdisciplinary Development Institute. 106 p. Madukwe, M. C. (2004). Participatory approaches in ARD: Knowledge for development, observatory on science and technology. Wageningen, Netherlands. National Physical Framework Plan. (2001-2030). National framework for physical planning: 2001-2030. Executive Summary. p.7 NEDA. (2005, June). 2nd Philippines progress report on MDG. http://www.neda.gov.ph/Files/MDGReports/Pages1-23.pdf the
Pauly D, Alder J (2005) Marine Fisheries Systems. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Chapter 18, pp 477-511 PCSD. (1992). Primer on Philippine agenda 21. Philippine council for sustainable development.
28
P.D. 705 (1975) Revisiting the Presidential Decree no. 389 otherwise known as the forestry reform code of the Philippines. PPFP. (1993 2002). Provincial Physical Framework Plan (PPFP). Aurora Province. PPFP 2004 Sustainable development enhanced PPFP for for Aurora Province (2004-2014). Roxas, S. K. (2004, Nov. 2). Bretton Woods Examination. Roxas, S. K. & Imson, J. (2007, Aug. 21). PFIPP general outlines. Roxas, Susan. (n.d.). The state of the nation. Power Point Presentation for the Foundation for Community Organization and Management Technology Santos, R. & Schneider, H. (2001, June 18- 29). Strategies in networking: the experience of SPARK in Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand. Paper was written for the International Conference on Protected Area Management (ICPAM), June 18 to 20, 2001 at the Subic Bay Metropolitan Area (SBMA), Olongapo, Philippines SD-Enhanced PPFP. (2004-2014). Aurora Province Comprehensive Land user Plan. Segovia, V. &. Galang, A. P. (2002) . Sustainable development in higher education in the Philippines: the case of Miriam College. Higher Education Policy 15. Segreda, A. M. (2002). Sustainability and peace in Costa Rica: The case of University of Costa Rica. Elsevier Science Ltd. p.1 Steele, P., Everitt, R., Oviedo, G., & McCauley, D. (2007). Poverty, health, and ecosystems: Experience from Asia. p7. Thaman, K. H. (2002, June). Shifting sights: The cultural challenge of sustainability. International Association of Universities. Higher Education
29
Policy Vol. 15, Number 2. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Basingstoke, Hampshire, England.
Houndmills,
Tpfer, K. (1998, July 29). United Nations task force on environment and human settlements. Linkages Journal. Volume 3, Number 3. Traill, B. (2006). Northern Territory environment alliance advocates sustainable development. Northern Australia Environmental Alliance. November 18, 2006. ABC News Online. http://www.abc.net.au/cgibin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/htm UNESCO 2009. Marine Spatial Planning. Manual and Guides no. 53. United Nations Economic and Social Council for Asia and the Pacific. (1992, June 3-14). United Nations conference on environment and Development (UNCED): Agenda 21. Rio de Janerio, Brazil. Valente, M. (2007, Oct. 1).Environment-Latin development. Inter Press Service America: Unsustainable
Wackernagel, M. (Lead Author) & Russ, T. (Topic Editor). (2007). Ecological footprint. Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [Published in the Encyclopedia of Earth January 23, 2007; Retrieved August 20, 2008]. <http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ecological_footprint> Ward, N. (2002, Oct.). Europes rural features: The nature of rural development. The UK National Report. p 8. Wikepedia. (2008, Aug. 15). Ecological footprint. at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint Accessed
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future (The Brundtland Report). Accessed at: http://www.are.admin.ch/imperia/md/content/are/ nachhaltigeentwicklung/brundtland_bericht.pdf
30
Xinhua. (2006, November 17). China drafts law on circular economy. People's Daily Online. China Daily. p.2. http://english.people.com.cn/200611/16/eng20061116_321892.html.
31

Initiating An Education-Based Sustainable Development Framework in Aurora Province, Philippines

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Initiating An Education-Based Sustainable Development Framework in Aurora Province, Philippines

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010