The Philippine Council for Sustainable Development

Pia C. Bennagen

Introduction

The year 1992 saw the gathering of government and non-government representatives

from both the developing and developed world in Rio de Janeiro for the Earth Summit.

While the official representatives of governments met to discuss various issues and

concerns related to sustainable development, a parallel meeting among non-governmental

organizations was being held. At the end of the Rio affair, one of the key documents

which the participants came up with was the Agenda 21. Two of the main proposals that

came out of the Rio Summit were the formulation of a national Agenda 21 and a national

sustainable development council in each of the participating countries. Responding to

this challenge, the Ramos administration immediately went to work. Within a span of

three months from the conclusion of the Rio Summit, the Philippine Council for

Sustainable Development (PCSD) was set up. The Philippines was one of the first

countries to have established its own national sustainable development council. And in

September 1996, the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21) was launched in response to the call

to formulate a national Agenda 21. These are the two mechanisms by which the

Philippine commitments made during the Rio Summit are being operationalized and

implemented.

The presence of civil society organizations in all these initiatives was very much evident

— in the preparations for the Earth Summit, during the Summit proceedings, in the

preparations for the PCSD and PA 21, and in various other sustainable development-

related activities. Even before the Earth Summit, civil society organizations in the

Philippines have already been involved in natural resource and environmental

management. Hence, to say that the civil society community was actively involved

would be an understatement. In fact, to a certain extent, one could say that in certain

Page 1 of 29

initiatives, the civil society organizations were the pivotal actors in the sense that they

pushed government to do its sustainable development work effectively and efficiently.

This case study’s main focus is the participation of civil society organizations in the

PCSD. More particularly, it deals with the following questions:

(1) In general, what is the niche of the PCSD within the Philippine political

system? Within in the PCSD, what roles are performed by civil society

organizations?

(2) What has been the impact of civil society participation in the PCSD --- in

terms of government decision-making procedures, of policy substance,

and on civil society itself?

(3) From the perspective of civil society, what have been the gains and the

costs arising from engaging with government? From the perspective of

government, what have been the gains and the costs resulting from

engaging with civil society?

(4) What factors contribute to smooth working relations between the

government and civil society within the context of the PCSD? What

factors hinder good working relations? What steps need to be taken in

order to strengthen the relations between government and civil society?

(5) What lessons about civil society-government relations can be drawn from

the PCSD experience? And what are the prospects as far as civil society-

government relations within the PCSD are concerned?

To address these questions, data were gathered from primary and secondary sources.

Published materials from the government and from civil society organizations were

utilized. A main source of information were the interviews with government and non-

government individuals who are (or were) involved in the PCSD. The key informants for

this case study came from the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)

and the NEDA-Agriculture Staff and various non-governmental and people’s

organizations (NGOs and POs) such as the CODE-NGO, National Peace Conference

(NPC), Center for Alternative Development Initiatives (CADI), Earth Savers Movement

Page 2 of 29

(ESM), Lingkod Tao Kalikasan (LTK), Miriam PEACE, and Women’s Action Network

for Development (WAND).

On balance, the PCSD can be said to be a relatively successful experiment in civil society

participation in governance and in government-civil society partnerships, that is,

compared to other multisectoral bodies of the same nature. But while the PCSD exercise

has promoted the principle of multistakeholdership or counterparting, it should be pointed

out that success has been more evident at the procedural than at the substantive level. In

addition, civil society’s involvement in the PCSD has also revealed its strengths and

weaknesses vis-a-vis the government. As such, civil society has come to recognize that

before it can maximize its participation in the PCSD in particular and in governance in

general, it has to get its act together.

The Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD)

The PCSD was created by former President Fidel V. Ramos through the issuance of

Executive Order No. 15 on 15 September 1992 in order “to ensure that the commitments

made at Rio de Janeiro, and the implications of the Earth Summit to the Philippines are

implemented, periodically monitored and coordinated at the global level”.1 Among other

things, the PCSD has the following powers and responsibilities:

(1) to review and ensure the implementation of the commitments made by the

Philippines in light of the United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development (UNCED) and the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21);

(2) to establish guidelines and mechanisms that will expand, concretize, and

operationalize the sustainable development principles, as embodied in the

Rio Declaration, the UNCED, Agenda 21, the National Conservation

Strategy, and PA 21, and incorporate them in the preparation of the

Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan, both at the national and local

1 Taken from the speech by then President Ramos during a conference on “The Philippine Agenda 21: Reaffirming Our Commitments to the Earth Summit,” Manila, 15 September 1992.

Page 3 of 29

levels, with active participation from the non-government sector and

people’s organizations (underscoring supplied);

(3) to formulate policy reforms, programs, and projects and recommend new

legislations that respond to continuing and emerging issues, and chart

future actions related to environment and sustainable development;

(4) to provide policy advice to appropriate bodies on environment and

sustainable development issues of national interest;

(5) to institutionalize a mechanism that would ensure linkage among the

legislative and executive branches, local government units (LGUs), non-

governmental organizations (NGOs), business and other concerned

entities/sectors, in the formulation of policies and decision-making on

sustainable development concerns;

(6) to act as the coordinating mechanism with the United Nations Commission

on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), through the Department of

Foreign Affairs (DFA), and actively solicit assistance and cooperation

towards the realization of the Philippine commitment made at the

UNCED;

(7) to review and monitor plans, policies, programs, and legislations on

sustainable development and recommend mechanisms/strategies for

promoting efficiency and timeliness of their execution;

(8) to establish a networking mechanism that will establish links with local

and international organizations involved in sustainable development;

(9) to call on any and all government agencies, resource persons and other

groups, whenever necessary, to assist the PCSD in the performance of its

role and functions; and

(10) to catalyze the formation and institutionalization of local councils for

sustainable development, in close coordination with local authorities.2

Organizationally-speaking, the PCSD has a council, an executive committee, four major

committees, eight subcommittee, and a secretariat and civil society counterpart 2 National Economic and Development Authority-Agriculture Staff, “Philippine Council for Sustainable Development,” March 1997, pp. 3-4.

Page 4 of 29

secretariat. (Please refer to Appendix A for a description of the functions of each of these

units.) Since the PCSD is founded on the principle of multistakeholdership or

counterparting, both government and civil society representatives sit in the PCSD.3 The

NEDA Director-General serves as the Chairperson of the PCSD while the Secretary of

the Department of Environment and Natural Resources serves as the Vice-Chairperson.

The NEDA Deputy Director-General acts as the PCSD Coordinator. The government

secretariat is based at the Agriculture Staff of the National Economic and Development

Authority (NEDA) while that of civil society is called the Civil Society Counterpart

Council for Sustainable Development Secretariat (CSCCSD Secretariat).4

There have been questions raised regarding the niche which the PCSD is trying to fill in

the larger context of Philippine society. Basically, the main concern has to do with the

distinction between the PCSD and the other multisectoral bodies that are in existence

(e.g., the Social Reform Council under the Ramos administration, for example). Various

views abound with respect to this matter. One is that the PCSD should be seen as a talk

forum through which consensus-building among all stakeholders can be forged. It is an

arena where business, government, and civil society can come together to address the

pressing development issues at the national and local levels. Moreover, it is a mechanism

by which information exchange in terms of programs, policies, and methodologies can be

conducted. The PA 21 provides the common framework which guides such discussions

and information exchanges.5 It was not established as the authoritative body that will

decide on all matters related to sustainable development. The PCSD is, after all, a

recommendatory body as is provided for in its mandate.6

Another view is to see the PCSD as an oversight body that will debate on whether a

particular policy is consistent with or contradicts PA 21. Basically, the PCSD should be

a proactive body geared towards influencing the strategic thinking of government so that

3 There have, however, been questions regarding the equal representation of government and civil society in the PCSD because there are more government officials sitting in the Council and in the Committees and Subcommittees than civil society representatives.4 Ibid., pp. 4-7. 5 Interviews with Mr. Jim Sharman, Center for Alternative Development Initiatives, Quezon City, 26 October 1999 and Prof. Donna Reyes, Miriam PEACE, Quezon City, 27 September 1999.6 Interview with Dr. Cielito Habito, Metrobank Plaza, Makati City, 25 November 1999.

Page 5 of 29

conflicts among policies and programs will be avoided.7 The PCSD is also the arena for

discussing cross-sectoral issues and concerns (i.e., those that are not in the area of

responsibility of a single department or agency solely). However, because the niche of

the PCSD not that clearly delineated, there have been some instances when the PCSD had

to intervene even in issues that are purely sectoral in nature. Here, the PCSD’s role is to

bridge the gap arising from, for example, mistrust among the different stakeholders and

to provide a venue where conflicts can be resolved.8 From the perspective of civil

society, the PCSD provides another means by which NGOs and POs can influence

decision-making in government. More particularly, it is a body which the NGOs and POs

can tape with the end in view of asserting the civil society concept of sustainable

development. The PCSD can also be seen as an add-on to the efforts of LGUs and Local

Development Councils (LDCs) in the area of sustainable development.9 The myriad

views regarding the PCSD’s role in Philippine society, while not necessarily conflicting,

reflects the lack of clear definition and operationalization of the PCSD’s niche. As a

consequence, there are questions regarding the utility of the PCSD in the long-run.10

On Civil Society Participation in the PCSD

Philippine civil society has had a long history of involvement in activities related to

environment and natural resource management. Even before the concept of sustainable

development came to be in vogue, NGOs, POs, and other community-based organizations

were already participating in or initiating their own programs, particularly at the

grassroots level. Aside from having a long history of involvement, environmental and

sustainable development organizations come from varying backgrounds and viewpoints.

It has been said that the civil society organizations involved in environment and

7 Interview with Mr. Dan Songco, CODE-NGO, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, 14 October 1999.8 Interview with NEDA Deputy Director-General Raphael Lotilla, NEDA, Pasig City, 4 October 1999.9 Interview with Ms. Karen Tañada, Women’s Action Network for Development, Quezon City, 21 December 1999.10 Some groups, such as the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center Inc. (LRC), have questioned the viability of multistakeholder bodies with extremely comprehensive mandates like the PCSD. The LRC was initially part of the PCSD PO-NGO Counterpart Council but it has opted out of the body.

Page 6 of 29

sustainable development activities can be likened to a Philippine dessert called halo-halo

(i.e., a mix of various sweets, ice cream ice, fruits, gelatin, beans, corn, and milk). This

mix which may be called the environmental and sustainable development movement is

composed of four main ingredients: (1) large, mass-based POs set up along sectoral

lines; (2) NGOs working for the promotion of the interests and demands of the POs; (3)

spontaneous citizens’ formations organized around local environmental issues; and (4)

environmental organizations whose ranks come from POs, NGOs, and previous

unorganized but concerned citizens of the middle and upper classes of society.11 Given

their different histories, membership, and orientations, it is to be expected that even as

these groups articulate the same primary goals --- effective and efficient environmental

and natural resource management and promotion and attainment of sustainable

development --- they do not necessarily subscribe to the same strategies and mechanisms

by which these goals can be achieved. It is this variation in civil society’s approaches to

environment and sustainable development issues, among others, that contributes to the

dynamism within the PCSD.

Most of the NGOs and POs that are currently involved in the PCSD were the very same

organizations that were part of the preparatory committee for the 1992 Earth Summit.

Along the way, other groups joined the PCSD while some opted out. At present, there

are some 50-60 civil society organizations involved in the PCSD.12 As was mentioned,

civil society has its own counterpart council and secretariat. These instrumentalities

serve as venues where civil society can discuss and consolidate its own agenda in

preparation for consultations with its government counterpart. Since 1997, the PCSD

NGO-PO counterpart council has been involved in a project geared towards the

localization of PCSD mechanisms. The CSCCSD seeks to operationalize sustainable

development through, among others: (1) the establishment of local councils for

sustainable development as key governance mechanisms for consensus multistakeholder

decision-making and (2) the formulation of local Agenda 21, guided by PA 21, which

shall serve as the basis for emerging policies, legislation, and development plans, 11 Robin Broad and John Cavanagh, Plundering Paradise: The Strugle for the Environment in the Philippines (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), pp. 133-135.12 There is no exact figure as regards the number of CSCCSD members because of questions about the definition of membership in the counterpart council.

Page 7 of 29

projects, and programs for both the private and public sector, with the involvement of a

wide range of Philippine NGO-PO networks.13 In addition, within the PCSD, civil

society representatives sit together with their counterparts from the government. While

the government representatives sit in the PCSD by virtue of their positions as, for

example, department secretaries, civil society representatives come from PCSD-member

organizations and are elected through a process agreed upon by civil society itself. This

is part of civil society’s efforts to maintain a certain degree of autonomy from

government and of government’s recognition that civil society is an entity that is

fundamentally distinct from government.

In the PCSD, civil society is involved in various activities and performs different roles.

First, as stakeholders in the development process, the NGOs and POs are part of the

agenda-setting process. They bring into the discussions the view points and interests of

the people at the grassroots level which may never be raised should the process be limited

to government only. Hence, they act as interest articulators for the faceless millions who

are usually marginalized from the mainstream decision-making process. Second, civil

society is seen as a monitor or checker of government’s performance and excesses. It is

also a mechanism by which people can hold the government accountable to its promises.

Third, not only does civil society link the government to the people, it also links the

government to the many other NGOs and POs that are not formally part of the PCSD but

are also working in sustainable development-related areas. This contributes to the task of

broadening the constituency for environment and sustainable development issues in the

Philippines. This also operationalizes the principles of inclusivity as opposed to

exclusivity. And fourth, civil society is the main actors in the process of localizing the

sustainable development agenda in the Philippines. Given its comparative advantage in

engaging the people at the grassroots level and organizing and mobilizing them, they can

initiate the process of localizing the Philippine Agenda 21 that will hopefully mainstream

the agenda in barangays, municipalities, and cities across the archipelago.14

13 Philippine Council for Sustainable Development, Rio in Retrospect: Philippine and Global Agenda 21, 1992-1996 (Pasig City: PCSD, 1997), p. 36.14 For instance, in 1999, CADI was commissioned by the PCSD to formulate a strategy for localizing sustainable development. The output was the Sustainable Integrated Area Development Guidebook, released in the latter part of 1999, which brings PA 21 a step further by showing how sustainable

Page 8 of 29

The Impact of Civil Society Participation: Gains and Costs

The participation of NGOs and POs in the PCSD brings with it several benefits and costs.

One can also make a distinction between the substantive and procedural consequences of

civil society participation. On balance, it appears that the impact of civil society

participation has been more procedural than substantive. Civil society was very

instrumental in designing and maintaining the multistakeholder character of the PCSD

and it has consistently reminded government of the need to utilize democratic and

participatory decision-making strategies.15 Furthermore, civil society’s participation in

the discussions have facilitated the making of decisions through the articulation of

different views early on in the process, thereby avoiding conflicts in the more crucial

stages of decision-making. Civil society has likewise made it possible for government to

gain access to the sentiments of the larger society and this proves useful in the process of

mobilizing support behind sustainable development initiatives in the country.16 The fact

that civil society participation is slowly being mainstreamed in other decision-making

arenas is a testament to the positive impact that the presence and involvement of civil

society organizations has had on decision-making procedures in government.17

On the other hand, procedurally, the inclusion of civil society in decision-making has

made the process more time-consuming. This is particularly true for civil society which

has expressed a certain degree of frustration as regards the amount of time devoted for

meetings and discussions as compared to that allocated for actual projects.18 This is due,

in part, to the consensual approach to decision-making which, when carried to the

extreme, can be hazardous. Another factor that contributed to the lengthening of the

development can be operationalized at the local level — a strategy that continues to put the multistakeholdership principle at its core. Interview with Mr. Sharman, 26 October 1999. 15 Interview with Mr. Songco, 14 October 1999. 16 Interview with Ms. Liberty Guinto, PCSD Secretariat, NEDA, Pasig City, 15 September 1999.17 For instance, aside from their active involvement in the drafting of PA 21, civil society representatives have also been part of the drafting of the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan for 1998-2004 and of PLAN 21. This is a new but welcome development in the making of government policy documents.18 Interview with Mr. Sharman, 26 October 1999.

Page 9 of 29

decision-making process is the fact that civil society is not a monolithic entity (and so is

government). As such, even if agreement is reached between government and certain

groups, other NGOs and POs within PCSD may express disagreement.19 However,

viewed from another perspective, while the consensual and multistakeholdership

strategies may have prolonged the decision-making process in certain instances, if there

was no participation from civil society, the process may still be time-consuming because

of resistance coming from the people. It is this resistance which may be lessened or

totally eradicated if the people are made part of the process.20 Still in the realm of

procedures, one of the downside is that PCSD has not been able to draw the participation

of the basic sectors in the same way that the Social Reform Agenda (SRA) did. One

reason for this is that the basic sectors were not as concerned with cross-sectoral issues

and with their respective sectoral agenda and they did not see any venue within the PCSD

structure for the articulation of their interests.21

As regards the impact on substance, perhaps the most important manifestation of this is

civil society’s contribution to PA 21 — the core document that provides the common

framework for all sustainable development efforts. In this context, the articulation of

varying views has enriched the plans that have been made. Compared to the times when

decision-making was dominated by the government, and the private sector at times (i.e.,

business), the inclusion of civil society perceptions has led to the consideration of views

that may not have been raised at all without the presence of NGOs and POs. Therefore, it

can be said that civil society participation has led to outcomes that would have been

different had civil society not been involved in the process.22 Some organizations were

19 Interview with Atty. Lotilla, 4 October 1999. An example of this is when an agreement is reached within PCSD but when they consult with the NGOs and POs in the regions, these groups insist on their own wordings in the documents and they do not want their words to be changed or diluted. This points to a certain possessiveness over ideas not only within civil society but also in government. This point was also raised during the interview with Prof. Roger Birosel of the Earth Savers Movement. 20 Interview with Ms. Tañada, 21 December 1999. 21 Interview with Ms. Teresita Quintos-Deles, GZO Peace Institute, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, 4 November 1999.22 Interviews with Ms. Guinto, 15 September 199 and Dr. Habito, 25 November 1999. According to Dr. Habit, civil society’s involvement in the process of improving the environmental clearance processes in the country shows how its participation can alter the outcomes. Initially, the objective of government was to streamline the processes (i.e., lessen the levels and requirements involved or simplify the entire process). However, due to inputs coming from civil society, the environmental clearance processes that are now in place are deemed to be more rigid than the previous ones as they include requirements such as social

Page 10 of 29

direct participants in the writing of certain sections of the document.23 Others were

involved in the various consultations and information dissemination activities conducted

prior to and after the drafting and publication of PA 21.24 Civil society’s failure to

influence the substance of policies to as great a degree as its influence on decision-

making processes can be attributed in part to its weak research capacity and lack of

access to vital information compared to the government. It is in this respect that civil

society cannot match the resources that government has on its hands.25 But instead of

looking at this as a problem, it would be better to treat it as a possible area for

cooperation where government can utilize its comparative advantage in research (arising

from its more extensive technical capability and its access to data) and civil society can

assist government in the translation of research into concrete projects at the local level

(due to its linkages with communities and its expertise in community organizing and

mobilization).

In terms of the impact of participation on civil society itself, NGO and PO representatives

are of the opinion that their involvement in the PCSD has had a “unifying impact” and

this is particularly evident whenever there is a need for them to negotiate with

government on certain matters.26 Even during the conceptualization of the PCSD, the

opportunity to participate in government affairs and to influence policy decisions forced

civil society organizations to organize themselves because they had to choose their own

representatives from among themselves and they had to agree on the principles that will

guide decision-making and consensus-building within their sector. To a certain extent, it

may be said that the creation of the PCSD and the inclusion of civil society in this body

forced the latter to develop a democratic process that helped to unite them despite their

diversity.27 The unifying effect, however, varies from issue to issue. Certain issues like

the lobby against the appointment of Secretary Antonio Cerilles to the DENR has led to

acceptability of projects.23 Prof. Reyes of Miriam PEACE, for instance, contributed to the writing of the section on information, education, and communications, an area which is the main concern of her organization.24 Sister Aida Velasquez and her organization, Lingkod-Tao Kalikasan, prepared and published primers on PA 21 and the PCSD as part of their efforts to raise awareness regarding these initiatives.25 Interview with Mr. Songco, 14 October 1999.26 Interview with Ms. Tañada, 21 December 1999.27 Interview with Dr. Habito, 25 November 1999.

Page 11 of 29

the forging of tactical cooperation among NGOs and POs but on other issues where no

consensus exists, they articulate their own views and respect each other's stand (e.g.,

issue of charter change).28 On the whole, the PCSD has provided a venue where NGOs

and POs who are working on sustainable development issues can talk to and debate each

other and where consensus within civil society can be forged so that its initiatives in this

area can be coordinated with government efforts.

Clearly, civil society’s participation in the PCSD has had positive and negative

consequences both on decision-making processes and on the substance of plans and

projects, albeit to a lesser degree. Those who have remained in the PCSD despite

criticisms of the body are of the opinion that the benefits of participation far outweigh the

costs. Moreover, civil society organizations view the costs that they have faced, most of

which are not financial in nature, as part of the learning process. The time spent meeting

with government officials, debating issues, and formulating plans has been well spent if

only for the fact that this has given them a chance to become more familiar with the

workings of government, the nuances of the bureaucracy, the intricacies of decision-

making, and with the constraints which officials face in making policy decisions. The

PCSD has also afforded them the opportunity to touch base with other civil society

organizations and with local communities. In the final analysis, both the government and

civil society have benefited from the participation of the latter in the PCSD thus far.

On Government-Civil Society Relations in the PCSD

The PCSD provides several venues for interface between the government and civil

society organizations. Interaction can take place at all levels of the PCSD — from the

subcommittees to the Council itself. While meetings and discussions take place at all

levels, the nature of interaction varies from level to level. For instance, in some

28 Interview with Prof. Reyes, 27 September 1999.

Page 12 of 29

subcommittees, there is a tendency for government to dominate the discussions (due in

part to the fact that the chairpersons of subcommittees are undersecretaries or assistant

secretaries of the different government departments involved in the PCSD). Also, within

subcommittees, there is a tendency for work to be done not as a single body (i.e., as

PCSD) but on their own.29 Within the Council, discussions usually revolve around the

general framework of action, the paradigm of sustainable development, and the general

direction that the PCSD should take. Interaction also takes place on a more regular basis

given that Council meetings are scheduled more often than those at the lower levels of

the PCSD. This affords the government and civil society representatives who sit in the

Council more opportunity to become familiar with one another and to establish personal

networks that facilitate future interaction between both sectors. These personal networks

between particular individuals in the government and NGOs and POs have helped sustain

the multistakeholder orientation of the PCSD. As regards the nature of the discussions at

particular levels, substantive deliberations occur primarily at the level of the committees,

after which issues are brought to the attention of the Council members. As for the

Executive Committee, its members are tasked to handle cross-cutting issues which do not

require decision-making by the full Council.30

It has not, however, been smooth sailing for government-civil society relations in the

PCSD. Former NEDA Director-General and PCSD Chairperson Cielito Habito recounts

the early years of the PCSD:

The initial years were not easy. The road we took was a tortuous, sometimes frustrating, one that seemed overly dominated by organizational and operational concerns. We took time to achieve a leveling of perspectives, paradigms, expectations, and mindsets among the governmental members and the civil society members of the Council ... Our first order was to instill trust in each other and, in turn, to work to merit the other’s trust. We spent time agreeing on protocols for agenda setting and decision-making, until we finally agreed to be

29 According to Prof. Reyes, this is true for the IEC Subcommittee where there is not much collaboration in terms of actual projects. Nevertheless, the PCSD is an arena where each party can share what they are doing and in the process, they are able to promote sustainable development initiatives. For example, after attending a subcommittee meeting on behalf of Miriam PEACE, she would go back to her organization where they will formulate their own project proposal, find their own partner, package training programs, and conduct these on their own. They would, however, provide feedback to the others members of the subcommittee through their meetings and through information exchange, they are able to learn about each other’s initiatives, formulate a convergence policy, and, when necessary, pool resources together with the objective of setting the directions of future activities. Interview with Prof. Reyes, 27 September 1999.30 National Councils for Sustainable Development Network, ”The NCSD Sustainable Development Report: Republic of the Philippines,” document downloaded from http://www.ncsdnetwork.org/global/reports/ncsd1999/phi.htm on 1 March 2000, p. 5.

Page 13 of 29

guided by principles of counterparting and consensus-building in all that we work on. We gave time to forging mechanisms for funding our sustainable development efforts ... It turned out to have been time well spent. Through it all, we — Philippine government and civil society together — pursued a common advocacy for sustainable development in both international and domestic fronts.31

During the initial years of the PCSD, there was a need to embark on confidence and trust-

building measures to deal with the tensions that existed between government and civil

society. Differences had to be threshed out because if these were swept under the rug,

they may have rendered the PCSD unstable and eventually, useless. In order not to rock

the boat during the first three years of the PCSD, the government and civil society

avoided discussing the more controversial issues. This practice, according to Dr. Habito,

allowed them to get used to the workings of one another and to gradually build

confidence and trust in each other.32 On the other hand, since some government officials

and NGO and PO representatives already had the chance to work with each other even

before the PCSD was created, they did not need that much time to get used to each other.

The personal networks that have been established prior to the PCSD proved to be useful

in some instances. To a certain extent, the government-civil society partnership that was

established in the PCSD was anchored on such personal contacts and networks.

One source of problem in terms of furthering government-civil society relations in the

PCSD is the practice of some government officials to keep sending their representatives

to meetings instead of personally attending the meetings themselves. This is one

manifestation of the early difficulty of getting “consistent and sufficiently senior

representation in Council meetings from government agencies that are part of the

PCSD”.33 This practice made it frustrating to ensure continuity in the discussions and

coordination in the decision-making process because sometimes representatives did not

pass on the information to their superiors or to whoever is attending the next meeting.

31 Taken from the speech by former PCSD Chairperson Cielito Habito delivered during the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Overall Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of Agenda 21, New York, 23-27 June 1997.32 Interview with Dr. Habito, 25 November 1999. Dr. Habito admitted that the negative side of this practice is that no substantial or “big” decisions were arrived at because there more contentious issues were always left for later discussions.33 National Councils for Sustainable Development Network, “The NSCD Sustainable Development Report ...,” p. 7. In order to address this problem, it was agreed upon that government departments designate a principal and an alternative representative to the PCSD.

Page 14 of 29

Also, this created the impression on civil society that the government was not serious

about sustainable development and the PCSD. Changes in administrations, which imply

changes in the people occupying certain positions in government also created this

problem of discontinuity. Thus, compared to the NGOs and POs involved in the PCSD,

the government representatives had “shorter terms of office”.34 This proved problematic

especially in relation to the confidence-building efforts because just when confidence and

trust between the government and civil society are being strengthened, a new

administration steps in and the entire government contingent (or part of it) to the PCSD is

replaced by new people.35

This leads to one of the important factors that affect the nature of government-civil

society relations in the PCSD — the personalities at the top of the structure, both from

the government and civil society. There is the observation that had there been different

people in government in the 1990s, it may have taken longer for the Philippines to create

its own national sustainable development council. Also, due to the change in the

administration, there have been changes in the leadership in the NEDA. There are initial

observations that the current leadership is not as involved as the previous one in the

PCSD (i.e., less hands-on in terms of the approach to the PCSD). While the new

leadership continues to be open to civil society participation, it is not as heavily engaged

as the previous leadership. Personality clashes also result due to the different

backgrounds of the government and civil society representatives to the PCSD. Such

clashes usually occur when representatives from both sectors take on a hardline stance on

certain issues. In such instances, it becomes virtually impossible to arrive at a consensus

and as such, no PCSD decision is arrived at.

Perhaps another factor that has facilitated the forging of good working relations between

the government and civil society is that fact that from the start, there was an outright

decision on the part of government to welcome and encourage civil society participation

in the PCSD because it was, after all, civil society which pushed for the creation of the

34 Interviews with Ms. Guinto, 15 September 1999 and Ms. Karen Tañada, Women’s Action for Development Network, Quezon City, 21 December 1999.35 Interviews with Mr. Songco, 14 October 1999 and Dr. Habito, 25 November 1999.

Page 15 of 29

body. The government saw civil society as its partner in development. Moreover, it was

also agreed upon that civil society will choose their own representatives to the PCSD

through procedures that will also be developed by themselves.36 This non-intervention

principle somehow lessened the tension between the government and civil society

organizations as the latter saw that the government was willing to work with them while

at the same time recognizing and respecting their autonomy. On the whole, this policy of

promoting popular participation in governance was part of the 5 D’s of the Ramos

administration — democratization, decentralization, devolution, deregulation, and

development.

On a more substantive level, differences as regards the paradigms of sustainable

development and the strategies on how to achieve it continue to exist between

government and civil society and within civil society itself. There are observations that

some civil society organizations that are involved in the PCSD do no truly understand the

concept and are just in it due to the bandwagon effect (i.e., in order to create the image of

being pro-environment). They also lack the ability to comprehend the more technical,

economic, and scientific aspects of sustainable development issues.37 The different

sustainable development paradigms to which government and civil society subscribe

affect the manner by which they operationalize the concept and determine the strategies

to attain sustainable development. Hence, it is vital that government and civil society

agree on a common framework. To a certain extent, this was attained through the

formulation of PA 21 to which both government and civil society representatives

contributed. Nevertheless, even with the existence of PA 21, there continues to be a

debate regarding some of the particulars of that document. And as long as differences

continue, this may create the perception among the people that there is no unity among

the PCSD members as regards sustainable development and how it can be attained.

36 Interview with Dr. Habito, 25 November 1999. Prior to the determination of the procedures by which civil society representatives were to be elected, there were some problems within civil society itself as some NGOs complained that they were being excluded from the process. National Councils for Sustainable Development Network, “The NSCD Sustainable Development Report ...,” p. 7.37 Interview with Prof. Roger Birosel, Earth Savers Movement, Quezon City, 22 November 1999.

Page 16 of 29

Several mechanisms for conflict resolution within the PCSD have evolved through the

years of its existence. Aside from the formal process which involves issues being raised

at the lowest levels first before they are brought to the Council (or the President if

necessary), informal mechanisms have also been used. In the early years of the PCSD,

when then was still minimal trust and confidence between the government and civil

society, the latter would write strongly-worded letters addressed to the concerned

government officials criticizing the actions or decisions made by the government. The

government would respond by issuing its own strongly-worded statement. Words would

be exchanged but in the end, nothing would be resolved. However, through the years, a

more personal approach towards conflict resolution has been used. For instance, the

government and civil society would hold sessions specifically for the purpose of airing

grievances. Or sometimes, civil society representatives would have personal

conversations with Dr. Habito or NEDA Secretary Felipe Medalla in order to discuss

areas of conflict. This sort of “backroom-type” approach to conflict resolution has been

more effective compared to the earlier approaches which tended to further worsen the

situation.38 But if the conflict is between groups within civil society, they attempt to

resolve it among themselves and government does not intervene unless requested to by

civil society.

Despite these problems, government and civil society continue to work towards the

attainment of sustainable development in the Philippines. Gradually, they are ironing out

the differences that have slowed the pace of work. Consultations and discussion through

council, committee, and subcommittee meetings continue to be conducted. All these

avenues for interaction between government and civil society will hopefully contribute to

the ironing out of the differences between them. In the long-run, it is hoped that the

principles of unity articulated in PA 21 will be put into practice so that the Philippine

commitments made at the UNCED will be fulfilled.

Lessons From the PCSD Experience and Prospects for the Future

38 Interview with Mr. Songco, 14 October 1999.

Page 17 of 29

According to Dr. Habito, the PCSD experience has been quite positive even though the

body has had its share of problems. While there are still negative comments coming from

certain civil society organizations, there are more positive assessments than negative

views and the latter are usually articulated by those who feel excluded from the process.39

If this is the case, what lessons can be learned from this experience which may be

applicable to other multistakeholder and inter-agency bodies as the PCSD?

First, for any successful partnership to work, there must be trust and confidence among

the actors involved. These are, of course, not achievable overnight but are something that

evolved through years of working together. However, a minimum level of trust and

confidence is necessary for any engagement between the government and civil society to

take off. As the PCSD experience has shown, focusing on confidence-building during

the early years of a partnership will have its trade-offs. In the case of the PCSD, the main

trade-off was that the body avoided dealing with the more controversial policy issues

which led to the criticism that the PCSD was nothing more than a talk shop. But the time

spent building trust between the government and civil society was necessary “because the

building of strong partnerships among the actors involved now puts the body in a stronger

position to address the substantive issues at hand”.40 One may thus look at confidence-

building measures as a much needed investment in human resource.

Second, the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of civil society that was adopted

by the government appears to have facilitated the forging of relations between them. For

civil society, this was a sign that the government respects their independence and

recognizes that they are capable of handling their own affairs. This hands-off policy also

allows for flexibility in the way civil society manages its structures and procedures as

they can determine how they want to do things without government imposing certain

regulations or models on them.

39 Interview with Dr. Habito, 25 November 1999.40 Ibid.

Page 18 of 29

Third, having a common policy framework and action agenda also contributes to good

working relations between the government and civil society. It would also be good if

civil society is part of the formulation of such decisions. As a stakeholder, civil society

should be involved in decision-making at all levels of the process. In this way, conflicts

at the later, and more crucial, stages of decision-making will be avoided because various

sentiments and opinions have already been articulated and possibly reconciled at the early

phases. Of course, even if there is agreement on the general framework, it is unavoidable

that certain problems will arise especially with regard to how this framework is to be

operationalized. In the PCSD, varied interpretations are accommodated as long as these

do not negate each other and they do not conflict with the overriding concern of the body

— sustainable development.

And fourth, the mix of personalities, both from the government and civil society, is

another significant factor to consider. If the government leadership is acceptable to civil

society and is perceived to be sincere and committed to popular participation, then it

would be easier for civil society to engage government. And if civil society is seen as

serious about getting involved in governmental affairs and that they mean business, then

government will be open to them. The people involved must be willing to negotiate and

compromise. Hardliners on both sides will make decision-making more difficult and

consensus-building virtually impossible. As has been observed in the PCSD, there are

people from civil society who are difficult to deal with and those who are open to

compromise. On the other hand, there are people from the government who are well-

liked by civil society because they are seen as being true to their words and those who are

viewed as being distant and unprepared or unwilling to discuss with civil society.41 A

related factor is the manner in which each sector views the other. The multistakeholder

approach of the PCSD mandates that each stakeholder is on equal footing as the other —

whether one is a department secretary, an NGO worker, a businessman, a fisherfolk, and

so on. However, there are some government officials who feel that they are superior in

rank that their civil society counterparts and these are the people who have been

41 Interview with Ms. Guinto, 15 September 1999.

Page 19 of 29

hampering the efforts towards fully and effectively implementing the counterparting

policy. Therefore, the different personalities that are involved in the PCSD do matter.

In order to build on what has been done so far in the PCSD, the government and civil

society have to overcome certain challenges and these include:

(1) Strengthening the partnership further by improving the coordination

between the PCSD Secretariat based in NEDA and the CSCCSD

Counterpart Secretariat.42 This will facilitate the conduct of joint or

cooperative endeavors between the two sectors. As things stand now,

actual implementation of programs, especially at the local level, are

usually done by each sector acting on its own. Thus, there are few

programs which have been done by PCSD as PCSD. In preparation for

this, the CSCCSD Counterpart Secretariat has to strengthen itself first.

The Secretariat is a one-person affair and as such, it is unable to provide

the technical assistance needed by the civil society organizations involved

in the PCSD. The challenge, therefore, is for the CSCCSD (and

government if necessary) to allocate resources towards the hiring of

additional staff members who can assist the NGOs and POs in preparation

for meetings, conduct consultations, drafting of position papers and

proposals, and implementation of projects.

(2) Enhancing the capacity of civil society to comprehend and act on the more

technical and economic issues related to sustainable development matters.

The weakness of civil society in this area prevents it from actively

participating in discussions and from maximizing its ability to influence

the policy decisions made within the PCSD. Unless civil society is able to

improve in this area, it will remain a passive observer when it comes to

making decisions regarding technical and economic matters.

(3) With respect to the PCSD per se, there is a move on the part of some

sectors to push for a legislation that will further institutionalize the PCSD.

Should this materialize, the existence of the PCSD will no longer be

42 Interview with Dr. Habito, 25 November 1999.

Page 20 of 29

subject to the whims of a particular administration. It will give the body

more permanence since now its mandate will be based on a law and not

simply a presidential issuance. Consequently, this will ensure that

sustainable development work done within the PCSD can be continued.43

(4) Despite the adoption of a common framework as articulated in PA 21,

there are still debates as regards the paradigm of sustainable development.

As a consequence, there have been different interpretations of PA 21 and

the concept of sustainable development between the government and civil

society and within civil society itself.44 For instance, there is a perception

that for the government, sustainable development is still largely an

environmental concept while for civil society, it has a broader meaning

(e.g., sustainable development has environmental and economic

dimensions as well as cultural and spiritual elements). While these

debates may never be resolved, steps may be undertaken to ensure that

these do not relegate the PCSD to being simply a venue for discussion

without anything ever being resolved.

(5) As regards the multistakeholdership or counterparting policy, there

continues to be some difficulty on the part of several government officials

in accepting civil society as equal partners. On the whole, it appears that

the government as a whole is not yet used to the multistakeholder

approach but, on the positive note, the NEDA, where the PCSD Secretariat

is based, is perceived to be sincere in its efforts to pursue and make use of

this approach.45 The challenge, therefore, for both the government and

civil society is to continuously work on and sustain the PCSD partnership

that has lasted for eight years now. The fact that the multistakeholder

partnership that has evolved in the PCSD has spilled-over to other arenas

43 According to Dr. Habito, it is in this aspect that the PCSD loses out to such bodies as the Palawan Council for Sustainable development which was established through a legislation. Given that an executive order can be revoked by any president at any time, the PCSD is always in danger of being abolished. But for as long as no president attempts to do this, then the PCSD will continue to exist. 44 Interview with Mr. Songco, 14 October 1999.45 Ibid.

Page 21 of 29

is a proof that this new approach to governance is slowly being accepted

in other arenas.

(6) The general political environment at present appears to be one of the

biggest challenges that civil society, in particular, needs to deal with.

There is a perception among civil society representatives that there has

been retrogression under the current leadership.46 The gains of the past

have been eroded due to the perceived closure of certain arenas for

participation that are open to civil society. As such, civil society is now

asking itself whether it has the resources necessary to continue the

struggle even under a leadership that is seen as being less sympathetic to

its cause that its predecessors.

Those who have opted to stick it out with the PCSD remain hopeful that they will be able

to continue the sustainable development initiatives that the PCSD has already put in

place. The PCSD has, thus far, proven to be a successful enterprise — relative to the

experiences of other multisectoral and inter-agency bodies such as the Social Reform

Council (SRC) and the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC). Be that as it may,

the PCSD is not perfect. It continues to different challenges and problems. But these

challenges notwithstanding, the prospects for the government-civil society relations in the

PCSD and for the PCSD itself are positive. Perhaps the succeeding quotation taken from

the National Councils for Sustainable Development's (NCSD) best sums it up:

The outlook for PCSD is very bright, especially if the ... action agenda is successfully implemented. PCSD has built a reputation that is recognized nationally and globally. It has proven its potency and effectiveness in the SD arena. It has overcome numerous internal and external problems and trials that have made it even stronger and wiser. It has continued to enjoy the trust and confidence of government despite the change in administration. More importantly, it has maintained the trust and confidence of the Filipino people that it is serving.47

46 Interview with Dr. Habito, 25 November 1999.47 National Councils for Sustainable Development Network, “The NCSD Sustainable Development Report ...,” p. 10.

Page 22 of 29

References

Broad, Robin and Cavanagh, John. Plundering Paradise: The Struggle for the Environment in the Philippines. Berkely: University of California Press, 1993.

Habito, Cielito. Speech delivered during the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the “Overall Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of Agenda 21,” New York, 23-27 June 1997.

National Councils for Sustainable Development Network. ”The NCSD Sustainable Development Report: Republic of the Philippines.” Document downloaded from http://www.ncsdnetwork.org/global/reports/ncsd1999/phi.htm on 1 March 2000.

National Economic and Development Authority-Agriculture Staff. “Philippine Council for Sustainable Development,” March 1997.

Philippine Council for Sustainable Development. Philippine Agenda 21. Pasig City: PCSD, 1996.

__________. Rio in Retrospect: Philippine and Global Agenda 21, 1992-1996. Pasig City: PCSD, 1997.

Ramos, President Fidel V. Speech delivered during a conference on “The Philippine Agenda 21: Reaffirming Our Commitments to the Earth Summit,” Manila, 15 September 1992.

Interviews

Interview with Prof. Roger Birosel, Earthsavers Movement, Quezon City, 22 November 1999.

Interview with Mr. Liberty Guinto, PCSD Secretariat, NEDA, Pasig City, 15 September 1999.

Interview with Dr. Cielito Habito, Metrobank Plaza, Makati City, 25 November 1999.

Interview with Atty. Raphael Lotilla, NEDA, Pasig City, 4 October 1999.

Interview with Ms. Teresita Quintos-Deles, GZO Peace Institute, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, 4 November 1999.

Interview with Prof. Donna Reyes, Miriam PEACE, Quezon City, 27 September 1999.

Interview with Mr. Jim Sharman, Center for Alternative and Development Initiatives, Quezon City, 26 October 1999.

Page 23 of 29

Interview with Mr. Dan Songco, CODE-NGO, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, 14 October 1999.

Interview with Ms. Karen Tañada, Women’s Action for Development Network, Quezon City, 21 December 1999.

Interview with Sister Aida Velasquez, Lingkod Tao Kalikasan, St. Scholastica’s, Manila, 13 November 1999.

Page 24 of 29

APPENDIX AThe PCSD Structure and Organization*

The Council

The PCSD is composed of representatives of 18 line agencies of government, nine

members of civil society, and two members each from labor and business. The Secretary

of Socioeconomic Planning, who is also the Director-General of the National Economic

and Development Authority (NEDA) serves as chair. The Secretary of the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) serves as Vice-Chair. The other

government member-agencies are the following Departments: Agrarian Reform;

Agriculture; Budget and Management; Education, Culture, and Sports; Energy; Finance;

Foreign Affairs; Health; Interior and Local Governments; National Defense; Public

Works and Highways; Science and Technology; Social Welfare and Development;

Tourism; Trade and Industry; and Transportation and Communications.

The membership of civil society, and of the business and labor sectors in the

PCSD is determined through a process designed by each respective community.

The Council, as provided for in Executive Order No. 370, has the authority to

invite any government agency or non-government entity as resource person.

Executive Committee

To facilitate the deliberations of the Council, the Executive Committee acts on

issues requiring urgent decisions. This avoids the difficulties of convening the entire

Council in cases where more urgent decisions are needed. The Executive Committee is

also a multistakeholder committee, with representatives from government, civil society,

business, and labor.

* National Economic and Development Authority-Agriculture Staff, “Philippine Council for Sustainable Development,” March 1997, pp. 4-7.

Page 25 of 29

Committees and Subcommittees

The Council is supported by four committees which correspond to the four major

section of the Global Agenda 21, namely:

(1) Committee on Social and Economic Dimensions. This Committee tackles

issues related to poverty, consumption patterns, population, human health,

human settlements, and decision-making.

(2) Committee on the Conservation and Management of Resources for

Development. The Committee tackles primarily the physical dimensions

of the environment and issues associated with them. Given the breadth of

this subject matter, the Committee is divided into four subcommittees

tasked with specific areas of concern: the Subcommittee on Atmosphere;

the Subcommittee on Biodiversity; the Subcommittee on Water

Resources; and the Subcommittee on Land Resources.

(3) Committee on Strengthening the Role of Major Groups. This Committee

addresses the various needs as well as the roles of the major participants in

realizing sustainable development effort and ensures the creation of a

critical mass of advocates in both the government and non-government

sectors. The major groups envisioned to be the stakeholders and key

players in sustainable development are women, children, youth,

indigenous peoples, NGOs, local government authorities, trade and labor

unions, business and industry, scientists and technologists, farmers and

fisherfolks, and the physically-challenged.

(4) Committee on Means of Implementation. This is responsible for the

establishment of linkages with, and solicitation of assistance from,

international organizations in the fulfillment of Philippine commitments to

the UNCED. It is also tasked to identify local and institutional

arrangements and mechanisms that would facilitate the implementation of

Philippine commitments to the UNCED. The Committee is composed of

the Subcommittees on: (a) Financing Arrangements; (b) Science and

Technology; (c) Information and Education; and (d) Legal and

Institutional Arrangements.

Page 26 of 29

The different Committees and Subcommittees essentially serve as fora for: (a)

deliberation of specific policies, issues, and programs related to environment and

development and (b) formulation of specific objectives, strategies, and standards in the

context of fulfilling Philippine commitments to the UNCED.

Council Secretariat

The Council is assisted by a Coordinating Secretariat which is based at the NEDA,

the composition of which is determined by the Director-General; and a Counterpart

Secretariat, the composition of which is determined by the PO-NGO members of the

Council, and which is tasked to coordinate the activities of the non-government

community and to liaise with the Counterpart Secretariat. The PCSD Coordinating

Secretariat provides assistance to the Committees/Subcommittees in the performance of

their tasks and serves as the link between the PCSD and its committees.

Page 27 of 29

APPENDIX BGovernment Offices and Civil Society Organizations in the PCSD

Government Departments and Agencies

National Economic and Development AuthorityDepartment of Agrarian ReformDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of Budget and ManagementDepartment of Education, Culture, and SportsDepartment of EnergyDepartment of Environment and Natural ResourcesDepartment of FinanceDepartment of Foreign AffairsDepartment of HealthDepartment of Interior and Local GovernmentDepartment of National DefenseDepartment of Public Works and HighwaysDepartment of Science and Technology Department of Social Welfare and DevelopmentDepartment of TourismDepartment of Trade and Industry Department of Transport and Communications

Civil Society Organizations (partial listing only)

Ayala FoundationCagayan Valley Partners in People’s DevelopmentCaucus of Development NGO NetworksCenter for Alternative Development InitiativesConcerned Citizen Against PollutionConvergence for Community-Centered Area DevelopmentEarthsavers MovementEnvironment Broadcast CircleFoundation for a Sustainable Society, Inc.Haribon FoundationLegal Assistance Center for Indigenous FilipinosLingkod Tao KalikasanMindanao Environment ForumMiriam PEACENGOs for Integrated Protected Areas, Inc.Pederasyon ng mga Maliliit na MangingisdaPhilippine Business for Social ProgressPhilippine Ecological Network

Page 28 of 29

Philippine Uplands Resource CenterPhilippine Institute for Alternative FuturesSoutheast Asian Regional Institute for Community EducationTribal Communities Association of the PhilippinesUrban Poor Coordinating NetworkVisayas Cooperative Development CenterZamboanga del Norte Center for Social Concern and Development

Business and Labor Groups *

Management Association of the PhilippinesPhilippine Chamber for Commerce and IndustryTrade Union Congress of the PhilippinesLabor Advisory and Consultative Congress

* Under the framework of the PCSD, there are three pillars composed of government, civil society, and business. Thus, business groups (along with the labor sector) are considered distinct from civil society. It was not until 1996 that the PCSD was opened up to business and labor groups through the issuance of Executive Order No. 370 which provided for the strengthening of the PCSD. From the original seven civil society representatives in the Council, the number for expanded to nine members for civil society and two members each from both the business and labor sectors. Republic of the Philippines, “Executive Order No. 370: Strengthening the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development,” 26 September 1996, Section 2.

Page 29 of 29