 |
|
I. NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS INTO THE POLICY DECISION PROCESS
[ I-A | I-B
| I-C ]
C. Strengths and weaknesses of the structures
[ C-1 | C-2
| C-3 | C-4 ]
1. Institutional structures
A cursory look at the mandates and functions of the above mentioned structures will reveal overlapping concerns. Great potential for duplication of effort exists in that regard.
Nonetheless, there is recognition of the functional equivalencies in the various units under each system.
For example, the NEDA Board Infrastructure Committee is the functional equivalent of Cluster D of the Cabinet Cluster System; thus greater synchronization of initiatives is required by the various committees concerned.
On the other hand, the existence of the various systems ensures that a particular issue is looked at from all possible perspectives, and effectively broadens the range of views which must be taken into account in each decision.
That is especially significant in view of the mandates of the different bodies which are essentially to recommend and advise.
The President needs to make a decision based on the examination of each issue from all possible angles.
To the extent that the focus of each body varies, as well as the degree of importance that they attach to various concerns and competencies, their existence assures a well-rounded perspective.
That can be regarded as a radial approach to decision-making, which offers a distinct advantage over an approach that is more vertical and hierarchical.
Apart from any apparent overlaps, the above structures reveal that PCSD is only a venue for discussing related issues.
In considering the PCSD structure, and the mandate and the policy-making structure in the Philippines, it can be seen that the role of PCSD is merely recommendatory.
That is especially true for those issues that are the specific concerns of the policy-making bodies (e.g., trade, financial incentives and tax reforms).
Each PCSD decision must still go through other policy-making bodies, the members of which may not necessarily have the same perspectives on sustainable development.
Also, those bodies may have other priorities, as dictated by their mandates.
In most cases, those bodies view environmental concerns as only a secondary issue instead of an integral component of the decision at hand. The level of membership in PCSD committees reflects the level of priority by the different agencies in the integration of environment into policy-making.
Despite the limitations of PCSD, it provides the structure necessary for the involvement of the private sector, NGOs and people's organizations in addressing development issues and formulating consequent policy recommendations.
PCSD provides a venue for those sectors to voice their concerns and gain a perspective on specific policy issues.
For example, members from NGOs and people's organizations provided a critique of the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan. Their comments led to a review of some policies espoused in the plan (e.g., fast-tracking of the formulation of the Land-Use Code, and a review of the key production area approach of the Department of Agriculture).
|
|
|
