The Problem and Its Setting
This chapter consists of ten sections. The first section begins with the statement about the Earth as our home and our moral task to save this home sustainably; sadly today’s lifestyle and erroneous values are continuously creating our home unsustainably. Our own Filipino value nakakaluwag serves as a condition for integrating the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development and harmonizing sustainable relationships essential in making decisions to live sustainably on day to day basis. The second section presents its ethical option as necessary to live sustainably on Earth in the context of the ecological revolution; thus it is inevitable to further investigate through hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry the Filipino value nakakaluwag, its meaning, pedagogical character and relevance to justice, peace and integrity of creation. The third section refers to the context of the study containing the global and local policies on Sustainable Development (SD) from 1992 to 2009. On the one hand, the global context consists mainly of the two global conferences on SD namely, the 1992 Earth Summit and the 2002 Earth Summit. On the other hand, the local context comprises the 1992 Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21) and the 2009 Enhanced Philippine Agenda 21 (EPA 21). The fourth section enumerates a series of statements on the global crisis: that this is a deep spiritual crisis of the meaninglessness of life (Statement of the consultation on african and asian spirituality, 1993, p. 6); that our selfishness and greed exploited God’s creation (Orthodox perspective on creation, 1987, par. 45); and that life-giving relationships are turned into death-dealing ones (Wessinger, 1993). All these domination and exploitation are disconnecting us from our indigenous roots, disintegrating our cultural belief systems and making the essential social structures fall apart. Based on the above declarations, the writer conducting this study has considered Thomas Berry’s viable solutions deriving from which three (3) broad but mutually interdependent perspectives and directions assuring us a sustainable earth community and reconnecting us with our indigenous roots, namely complimentary unity as cosmic-anthropological, cosmic relationality as holistic and stewardship responsibility as pedagogical. Lagdameo (2009) borrowed Einstein’s words in affirming the global crisis: “We will not solve the problems of the world from the same level of thinking we were at when we created them” Billions are presently at risk of dying from starvation and disease, Lagdameo (2009) asserts that we will not solve our problems [today] — religious, social, economic, political, and ecological — by insisting on doing the same things that have produced these problems. The next two sections include the statement of the problem and the research questions. The former states that this study is an interpretation-description process (exploration, analysis, reflection and synthesis [EARS])  of the nakakaluwag lived-experiences in view of a holistic relationality rooted in people’s shared-beliefs and shared-practices both cosmic-anthropologically oriented and pedagogically viable. The latter enumerates the three (3) research questions, first, on the significance of nakakaluwag lived-experiences; second, on its pedagogical implications for sustainable living; and lastly, on finding a common ground for an approach to living sustainably. The seventh section indicates the scope and limitations of the study focusing on the interpretation of the Filipino value nakakaluwag lived-experiences in view of the fourfold relationality and also identifying, analyzing and assessing the implied pedagogy for sustainable living based from the lived-experiences of the fourteen (14) purposely selected co-researchers (Co-Rs) who are the multi-sectoral representatives of De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde (DLS-CSB). The eight section shows the time-table for this study from the month of February, 2010 until the month of March, 2011. This time-table describes the writer’s activities and tasks being done while conducting the study and it also indicates the expected completion of the said activities. The ninth section is the significance of the study, which claims that the Filipino value nakakaluwag is a unique cultural feature that contributes to the global ethic [universal value] for sustainable living. Its findings and results are significant in four ways: First, the writer may draw upon this Filipino cultural resource new insight into education and research for a sustainable living. Second, the integration of the Filipino value nakakaluwag with other Filipino beliefs and practices may introduce an alternative pedagogical frame for sustainable living. Third, the writer may propose values re-orientation or formation program for sustainable living. And finally, the Filipino value nakakaluwag may further unravel the meanings of these two values — ecological and social justice (eco-justice) — that we Filipinos firmly have upheld. Lastly, the final section is the definition of terms which are used in this study. The detailed outline of all the sections and sub-sections of this chapter is as follow:
Chapter 1: The Problem and Its Setting
A. Background of the Study
B. Objective of the Study
1. The Ecological Revolution.
2. Joining the Ecological Revolution
C. Context of the Study
1. Global Context
1.1 1992 Earth Summit
1.2 2002 Earth Summit
2. Local Context
2.1 1992 Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21)
2.2 2009 Enhanced Philippine Agenda 21 (EPA 21)
D. Motivation to Conduct the Study
E. Statement of the Problem
G. The Research Questions
H. Scope and Limitations of the Study
I. Research Time-Table
J. Significance of the Study
K. Definition of Terms
Background of the Study
“Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community life.” “We are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.” To bring these ethical values to life and to find a workable solution that is mutually agreeable to all appear to be a daunting task. Unfortunately, the 2009 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) declares:
Unsustainable production and consumption patterns are creating ecological impacts that compromise the options of current and future generations and the sustainability of life on Earth.… The world faces substantial, complex and interlinked development and lifestyle challenges… The challenges arise from values that have created unsustainable societies.
This declaration reaffirms the statement of Japanese Senior Vice-Minister for Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Toshio Kojima (2005) who contends:
By requiring us, individually and collectively, to make difficult choices about how we live, sustainable development is an ethical and moral challenge…. ESD should help us to address this challenge. Through ESD, we should acquire a better understanding of the complex interdependence between human needs and the natural environment, between economics and culture, and between the local and the global (p. 17).
Both Bonn Declaration and Kojima’s contention are further challenged by Paul Hawken’s (2009) commencement message addressed to the graduating class of 2009 of the University of Portland:
You are going to have to figure out what it means to be a human being on earth at a time when every living system is declining, and the rate of decline is accelerating. —Forget that this task of planet-saving is not possible in the time required. Don’t be put off by people who know what is not possible. Do what needs to be done, and check to see if it was impossible only after you are done (pars. 2 & 4).
However, the First GEO-5 Multi-Stakeholders Consultation held in Nairobi, Kenya, March 29–31, 2010 even admits that:
Since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, global, regional and national concern for environmental and developmental issues has increased. This has led to an extensive range of internationally agreed environmental and development goals. However, progress towards meeting these has in many cases, been slow (no. 7).
The above declarations and admissions are disappointing, depressing and alarming. In fact as early as 1991, these ecological and ethical concerns have been reiterated by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Centesimus Annus:
At the root of the senseless destruction of the natural environment lies an anthropological error, which unfortunately is widespread in our day. Man, who discovers his capacity to transform and in a certain sense create the world through his own work, forgets that this is always based on God’s prior and original gift of the things that are. Man thinks that he can make arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without restraint to his will, as though it did not have its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose (n. 37).
Addressing this anthropological error that brought about ecological and ethical problems, John Cairns, Jr. (2003) in his paper, ‘Integrating Top-down/Bottom-up Sustainability Strategies: An Ethical Challenge,’ puts forward, “There must be a global strategy for sustainability (top-down strategy) but also a strategy that considers the unique issues and ecosystems of each bioregion (bottom-up strategy). —Both top-down and bottom-up sustainability strategies will require synthesis…. Again, ethics [or values] should be a major factor in the decision making process” (pp. 45 & 47).
To expound on these two contrasting orientations, each approach is described in the subsequent discussion. Several identified organizations, agencies, institutions and individuals are presented below that adopted either top-down or the bottom-up approaches as a modality for an appropriate education, training and public awareness for protecting, conserving and enhancing our global environment in the interests and for the benefits of both present and future generations.
Giving serious weight to the critical role of ethics, as stated above by the 2009 Bonn Declaration and 1991 Centesimus Annus, likewise Cairns, J.’s recommendations are also congruent with the observation of Sister Marjorie Keenan, RSHM (1992) who claims that, “While we address the symptoms of the ecological crisis by the means at our disposal —education, legal measures, international cooperation— we must not forget that the root of the problem is elsewhere: on the level of faith, on the level of ethics (par. 30). Likewise, Chowdhry (2002) pointed out that Elizabeth Dowdeswell, a former Executive Director of UN’s Environment Program (UNEP), commented on the sustainability debate. She said, “ultimately sustainable consumption is not a scientific or a technical question, that it really is first and foremost a question of values” (p. 3). Moreover, Rabbi Denise L. Eger (2007) said in his Jewish New Year’s sermon, “for the Earth’s environmental woes are not only environmental disasters, it is symptomatic of a deep spiritual crisis.”
Convinced that ethics may furnish a common ground (or middle-in or middle level approach) where diversity can be appreciated and not divisive, Cairns, J. (referring to Küng’s definition, 1998) defines:
a comprehensive ethic—founded on the bedrock of mutual respect and humane treatment of all beings—that would encompass the ecological, legal, technological, and social patterns that are reshaping civilization. If humans are going to have a global economy, a global media, a global technology, Küng argues that there must also be global ethics to which all nations and peoples of the most varied backgrounds and beliefs can commit themselves. Earth can and should be held together by ethics (p. 5).
Likewise, UNESCO as the lead agency behind the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD, 2005–2014) finds a common ground (or middle-in or middle level approach) through the integration of:
the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning, in order to address the social, economic, cultural and environmental problems we face in the 21st century (Education for sustainable development, 2010).
In consideration of the premises above, should ethics [or values] be sought in sustainable development as an essential factor in making and implementing decisions in day to day practices? Should the world adhere, in general, to a global ethics [or universal values] as the common ground where top-down and bottom-up approaches to sustainable living reach synthesis? And for the purpose of this study, should every Filipino advance one step further, in particular, to take a second look on the Filipino value nakakaluwag as both the locus and context of the Filipino value of pakikipagkapwa (the principle of Filipino relationality), which is a sine qua non of integrating and harmonizing one’s sustainable relationships (1) with fellow human beings, (2) with herself/himself, (3) with nature (creation) and (4) ultimately with God?
Objective of the Study
1. The Ecological Revolution
Neal Pargman (2003), president and founder of The Save the Earth Foundation, states, “Today more than ever we must acknowledge the fact that a great many environmental violations of the past continue to haunt us in the present.” Now, here is the good news: Hawken (2009) proclaims, “What I want you to imagine is that collectively humanity is evincing a deep innate wisdom in coming together to heal the wounds and insults of the past” (par. 11). These words encapsulate what he intends to convey in his hopeful book, entitled, ‘Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came Into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming.’ Also in his website, www.blessedunrest.com, it says that organizations that are dedicated to restoring the environment and fostering social justice are:
collectively comprise[d] the largest movement on earth, a movement that has no name, leader, or location, and that has gone largely ignored by politicians and the media. Like nature itself, it is organizing from the bottom up, in every city, town, and culture. And is emerging to be an extraordinary and creative expression of people’s needs worldwide (par. 2).
It’s too late to be a pessimist. In the face of misery and suffering, millions of NGOs prove that solidarity [relationality] between peoples is stronger than the selfishness of nations. Thus, everyone, from richest to poorest, can make a contribution (Arthus-Bertrand, 2009). As Hawken (2009) pointed out, “Inspiration is not garnered from the litanies of what may befall us; it resides in humanity’s willingness to restore, redress, reform, rebuild, recover, reimagine, and reconsider” (par. 7).
2. Joining the Ecological Revolution
According to Hessel (1996) as he cited Larry Rasmussen:
We are now entering the human world’s fourth great revolution. The first three were the agricultural, the industrial, and the information revolutions. The fourth great social revolution must now come to pass, for survival’s sake. It is the ecological revolution…. [And since]…the great struggle for humane survival in a sustainable earth has already begun. So choose to reform… (pp. 4–5).
In the subsequent discussion, the writer recognizes and acknowledges, in particular, these compassion-driven peoples of Earth who are committed to live sustainably because they are all convinced that it is both an ethical option and a necessity to live sustainably on Earth, Arthus-Bertrand, 2009; Braudis, 2006; Cairns, J., 2003; Hawken, 2009; Pargman, 2003 and Ramirez, 2009.
As peoples of Earth, we have to recognize, in general, all of them, and acknowledge all the efforts of “all caring persons, of all faiths, of all ethnicities, of all traditions, of all nations, who take responsibility, for trying to make changes to improve the perilous conditions of humankind, working together to foster understanding among the diverse peoples of the world” (Lamont, 2007 ). Hence, the writer joins the ecological revolution with the following research objectives in mind for the present study:
1. further investigate through hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry on how Filipino value nakakaluwag: 1.1 provides conditions conducive to live sustainably in view of holistic relationality and 1.2 furnishes common pedagogical ground where top-down and bottom-up approaches to sustainable living reach synthesis;
2. introduce the Filipino value nakakaluwag in view of holistic relationality as a pedagogically-oriented frame for a sustainable living; and
3. propose sustainability initiatives towards justice, peace and integrity of creation in view of the above frame.
Context of the Study
1. Global Context
1.1 1992 Earth Summit
The achievement of the United Nations Conference on the Environment (UNCE) held in Stockholm, Sweden, June 5–16, 1972, was the establishment of United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in Nairobi, Kenya. Although it took humanity twenty years to prepare for a global conference on Sustainable Development (SD) known as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 2–14, 1992, nonetheless the so-called 1992 Earth Summit “was a milestone in the creation of consensus on the complex inter-linkages between environment and development” (Corell & Susskind, 2000).
The 1992 Earth Summit produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international environmental treaty engaged in sustainable reform with an ultimate objective of achieving:
Stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner (UNFCCC, Article 2).
On August 2005, the “UNFCCC had 197 State Parties, making it one of the most universally-supported multilateral environmental agreements” (Global agreements, 2008). Linked to UNFCCC is an international agreement known as the Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto, Japan, December 11, 1997), which commits 37 industrialized countries and the European community aimed at fighting global warming by reducing GHG emissions (Unfccc kyoto protocol, 1997). While 169 countries have ratified the agreement, Australia and USA refused to ratify it until December of 2007. It came into force with Russia’s ratification on February 16, 2005 (Bloch, 2007). This agreement which expires on 2012 urgently needs for a new climate protocol (Edge & Adam, 2009).
Based on the Principles of the 1992 Earth Summit, it was agreed that environmental protection and social and economic development are fundamental to SD and to achieve such development, world leaders adopted a global programme entitled Agenda 21 (The united nations today, 2008). Agenda 21, the world’s blueprint on SD, is considered an unprecedented global plan of action for SD. But the best strategies are only as good as their implementation (Basic Information: What is johannesburg summit 2002?, 2006). In Rio we had good ideas, good vision, and good dreams but were not successful in igniting action (Chowdhry, 2002). The negotiations leading up to Johannesburg had not provided any reason to expect dramatic break-throughs, and there were none (French, 2002 ). The decade between Rio and Johannesburg has seen the almost complete failure of Rio, its Declaration and its Agenda 21 to produce meaningful results (French, 2002 ). Although little forward movement was discernable on the sustainable development agenda in the decade following Rio, this does not mean that the world stood still (French, 2002 ). But then again, over the course of 10 long years,
Chowdry (2002) enumerated his disappointments with UN for not doing stronger measures to put into effect Rio’s goal:
We have had ten years of experience to realize what has gone wrong in our attempts to move towards ‘sustainability’. We have had ten years of various negotiations to reduce environmental damage; ten years of addressing poverty issues without much success; ten years of increasingly unsustainable businesses; and ten years of ever more increasing consumption. What have we learnt in these ten years so that in Johannesburg we can focus on relevant issues and move forward in accepting what it takes to harmonize present development with the future of the world (p. 2).
In Nelson Mandela’s autobiography, ‘Long Walk to Freedom,’ he wrote: “Rhetoric is not important. Actions are.” After thirty years, since the 1972 Stockholm Conference, “our legacy to our children will [now] depend on whether more companions will join the long walk to sustainability” (Earth summit calls for action, not just rhetoric, 2002).
1.2 2002 Earth Summit
The World Summit of Sustainable Development (WSSD) or 2002 Earth Summit held in Johannesburg, South Africa, August 24-September 4, 2002 presents an exciting opportunity for today’s leaders to adopt concrete steps and identify quantifiable targets for better implementing Agenda 21 (Basic Information: What is johannesburg summit 2002?, 2006). In a nutshell, People, Planet and Prosperity are the catchwords of Johannesburg. These words captured the three dimensions of SD — an integration of social equity, environmental quality and economic growth for the benefit of this and future generations (Earth summit calls for action, not just rhetoric, 2002). Johannesburg is different because of ‘partnership initiatives’ and it is hoped that these initiatives will ensure that the targets agreed to in Johannesburg are met (French, 2002 ). On the contrary, Beckerman (2002) insists that whatever fine, ringing pronouncements did emerge from Johannesburg; they are doomed to failure because the scope for international action to improve respect for basic human rights in the many countries where they are violated is limited (par. 9). This would simply mean that the task is becoming ever more urgent as the human costs of environmental degradation and social despair continue to mount (French, 2002 ).
The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as the Copenhagen Summit held in Copenhagen, Denmark, December 7–18, 2009 adopted a declaration, which according to Müller (2010):
The main outcome of the summit, which was held in parallel to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference and attended by over 110 heads of government and state, was the ‘Copenhagen Accord’. It was drafted in the final 24 hours of the conference by twenty-odd leaders convened by the Danish Prime Minister as ‘Friends of the Chair’. The Accord contains 12 paragraphs in just over two pages. (p. 5).
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon admitted the Accord “cannot be everything that everyone hoped for, but it is an essential beginning” (Feiner, 2009). Todd D. Stern, US Special Envoy for Climate Change, said that the Accord “is a very important step forward” (Fischer, 2010). “It is a challenge to see how they could come back in a year and make serious, legally-binding 2-degree commitments” (Spratt & Lawson, 2009).
The Accord is saying that to prevent GHG emissions significantly impacting the global climate through temperature rise, deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science as soon as possible that the increase in global temperature should be below 2°C (Spratt & Lawson, 2009).
However, the negotiations on extending the Kyoto Protocol had unresolved issues and the next meeting in November in Mexico will return to this (Wood, 2009).
The decisions in the Accord were not legally binding, and did not commit countries ever to agree on a binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol (Wynn & Hemming, 2009). Moreover, it has:
no mechanism to enforce them. Nor does it offer any global emissions targets. Even if fully implemented, the Accord would allow greenhouse-gas emissions to continue rising beyond 2020, and would put the world on a course towards a warming of nearly 4 °C by 2100 (After copenhagen, 2009).
It is suggested that there are better ways to address this issue proactively than just simply wait and do nothing. The problems facing our planet Earth is not exclusively the UN’s responsibility. Researchers need to do more to “develop a holistic view of carbon trends across farms, cities, wetlands, oceans and every other part of Earth.” Essential discipline to counter the effects of global warming is the social sciences in order to have a better understanding of people, communities and society which should be central to devising solutions that realistically can be implemented (After copenhagen, 2009). World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Scotland director Dr Richard Dixon was saying that “this weak Accord will not keep global warming below the danger level of 2C.” He added that the, “Governments must act urgently to set out a clear timetable for when a legally binding agreement will be reached.” “In the meantime, we need to encourage more local action to reduce emissions. From the village level up to states…” Then, he continued on by saying, “If our global governments continue to fail us, we must act locally” (Copenhagen: Global green lobby united in condemnation of accord, 2009). “It may be better to build on the international momentum that has been achieved by individual nations pursuing their own goals on climate. Such individual efforts can reinforce one another, even without explicit global coordination” (After copenhagen, 2009).
2. Local Context
2.1 1992 Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21)
Three months after the 1992 Earth Summit, the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) was established by virtue of Executive Order No. 15 signed by former President Fidel V. Ramos on September 1, 1992. PCSD was created for the following reasons: (1) the 1987 Constitution mandates to ensure the protection and advancement of the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accordance with the rhythm and harmony of nature; (2) the National
Conservation Strategy as early as 1989 has taken a balanced and integrated approach to environment and development issues by incorporating sustainable development principles and concepts in the national priorities of government as spelled out in the Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development (PSSD); (3) the strong adherence to the principle of sustainable development and firm commitment to principles set forth in (Global) Agenda 21; and (4) the principle of SD must be integrated in the Philippine national policies, plans and programs involving all sectors of the society (E.O. No. 15 s. 1992). Isberto (1998) attests by saying that “it has long been a source of pride for the Philippine government that Manila was among the first to take action on its commitments to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)” (p. 2).
Three years later, former President Fidel V. Ramos issued Memorandum Order No. 288 on ‘Directing the Formulation of the Philippine’s Agenda 21 and Activating its Formulation Process’ (M.O. No. 288 s. 1995). Cajes (2008) explains that the memorandum has declared the State’s vowed policy, in pursuit of its key objectives of global competitiveness and poverty alleviation, to bring about sustainable development, for the benefit of present and future generations of Filipinos (par. 3).
The following year, the Memorandum Order No. 399 and Executive Order 370 were both issued and signed by former President Fidel V. Ramos on September 26, 1996 (M.O. No. 399 s. 1996; E.O. No. 370 s. 1996). The memorandum ordered (1) the adoption and operationalization of the Philippine Agenda 21 as the national action agenda for sustainable development and (2) the monitoring of its implementation. Former President Ramos’s excerpt of his speech during the launching of PA 21 has captured PA 21’s significance:
[W]e do not intend to ‘Grow now and clean up later.’ –When I say, we clean up in terms of our culture, we intend, for example, to grow and develop with our spirituality and sterling Filipino values intact. –Cleaning up as we grow in the realm of culture to me means to harness Filipino creativity, values, talents and skills to create a new model of development, one that is not only democratic, environmentally friendly and cost-effective, but also celebrates the vibrancy of our diverse cultures as well as respects and develops the tremendous potential that resides in every one of us. This, after all, is what being maka-Diyos, maka-tao, maka-kalikasan, and maka-bayan mean in real terms (Philippine Agenda 21, 2001).
On that very same day, PCSD issued the 163-page document entitled, ‘The Philippine Agenda 21: A National Agenda for Sustainable Development for the 21st Century (PA 21),’ which was drafted after 14 months of consultations between various sectors all over the country. What is PA 21? It is the PCSD’s most important accomplishment which translated Rio Summit’s Global Agenda 21 into Philippine conditions which comprises three major components, namely (1) The Principles of Unity; (2) The Action Agenda; and (3) The Implementation Strategies (Isberto, 1998, p. 4). First, The Principles of Unity refer to the common ground which will enable the key actors in the SD process to unite in their pursuit of SD. The said principles addressed the following questions: (1) Where are we now? (2) What is sustainable development? (3) Where do we want to go? (4) How do we get there? (PA 21, Principles of Unity, Chapter 1, par. 1). Then, The Action Agenda of the PA 21 detailed the mix of strategies that integrate the SD parameters in the country’s overall development strategy. In formulating the action agenda, PA 21 was guided by the following key concepts: (1) Integration, (2) Multistakeholdership and consensus-building and (3) Operationalization (PA 21, Action Agenda, Chapter 2, par. 1). Finally, The Implementation Strategies of PA 21 must be anchored on the basic principle of collective choices and responsibility and its mechanisms must facilitate coherent and cooperative human endeavor from all sectors of society (PA 21, Implementation Strategies, Chapter 3, par. 1). Since the pursuit of SD involves a paradigm shift, which requires a re-orientation in the fundamental values of the society, PCSD considers comprehensive information, education and communication advocacy as an indispensable part of the efforts to mainstream the principles of PA 21 in the various development efforts of all stakeholders in the SD process (PA 21, Implementation Strategies, Chapter 3, par. 44).
The Executive Order 370 on ‘Strengthening the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development,’ mandates the council to institutionalize the support of other key sectors of the society and to further enhance its ability to coordinate (1) planning and (2) policy formulation, (3) monitoring and (4) evaluation in the pursuit of sustainable development. Section 2 which describes the “Composition of the Council,” identifies the categories of membership according to (1) civil society, (2) government, and (3) labor and business. Council members from the civil society category shall include the following major groups: women, youth, farmers, fisher folks, indigenous people, Moro and Cordillera people, urban poor, persons with disabilities, academe, professionals, media, religious groups and NGOs (E.O. No. 370 s. 1996).
From 1992 until 1998 PCSD had realized some accomplishments though credit for these cannot be exclusively attributed to the council for it usually acts in concert with other agencies and organizations. The following are the said accomplishments: (1) integrating sustainable development concerns into the macro-planning processes of the national government, (2) supporting initiatives to create local SD councils through technical assistance and training at the regional level, (3) helping develop a Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluating (MRE) system on the state of environment and SD in the country, and (4) phasing out leaded gasoline in major urban centers throughout the country by the year 2000 (Isberto, 1998, pp. 4–6).
But even with such great expectations and list of activities, Isberto (1998) would admit that criticism was inevitable. NGO members of the PCSD expressed their dissatisfactions and disappointments because the council had been preoccupied with an agenda too abstract to be of much practical value to proponents of sustainable development. PCSD had not made a significant dent on policy on the environment code, mining code, the ancestral domain law, and tariffs and import liberalization policies. It was a case where process triumph over results for it was incapable of addressing issues that divide the multi-stakeholder body and of tackling controversial or difficult issues (pp. 5–6).
Perlas (1999) even enumerated three examples on how this major policy document is misunderstood and misinterpreted. In the preface of the PA 21 Handbook he said that, (1) PCSD members who helped draft portions of the said document would later, even without malicious intent, drew out erroneous policy proposal or problematic educational materials; (2) although Memorandum Order No. 399 was issued for the adoption and operationalization of the PA 21 as the national action agenda for sustainable development, a significant number of policies are not aligned with PA 21; and (3) the Memorandum Order No. 47 was issued directing all local government units (LGUs) to localize PA 21, but many of them have neither heard nor exactly know what PA 21 (Perlas, 1999, p. 6).
Nevertheless despite discontent and frustration, it proceeded on with a general sense of optimism as Medalla (1999), on the Statement of the Republic of the Philippines to the Hague Forum (February 8–12, 1999), which reported that:
[T]he Philippine government worked closely with NGOs and peoples’ organizations to push reforms that promote development that is broad-based, sustainable and focused on human resources. These initiatives recognize the vital role of population and human development and seek to attain rapid economic growth without sacrificing the environment. –[O]ur development plans are consistent with what we call the Philippine Agenda 21, our Blueprint for Sustainable Development, which is also in keeping with our commitment to the Rio Agenda 21(pp.1–2).
A month prior to the Hague Forum, the Memorandum Order No. 47 was issued on January 25, 1999 by former President Joseph E. Estrada re-affirming PA 21 as the country’s framework for sustainable development, which strengthens the operations of PA 21, monitor its implementation and directs all local government units (LGUs) to localize PA 21 through sustainable integrated area development (SIAD), recognized as a potent framework for poverty eradication (M.O. No. 47 s. 1999; Local Agenda 21, 2008).
The following year, May 4, 2000, the eighth session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) stressed the importance of early and effective preparations for the 2002 review and assessment of progress achieved in the implementation of Agenda 21 and further invited all government, including the Philippines, to undertake national review processes as early as possible. Three months later, the Memorandum Order No. 110 ‘Directing the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) to Make Necessary Preparations for and Effective Participation in the Ten-year Review of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Commitments’ was issued on August 19, 2000 by former President Joseph E. Estrada. PCSD is directed to review the progress of the national implementation of the UNCED commitments made in 1992, specifically the implementation of the Action Agenda of PA 21 (M.O. No. 110 s. 2000).
In an article entitled, ‘The Essence of Philippine Agenda 21,’ which was written three years after the 2002 Earth Summit and nine years after PCSD issued The Philippine Agenda 21’s document, Killip (2005) cited a paragraph from that same document under the heading: How do we get there?:
Operationally, sustainable development is development that draws out the full human potential across ages and generations and is, at the same time, ecologically friendly, economically sound, politically empowering, socially just and equitable, spiritually liberating, gender sensitive, based on holistic and integrative science, technologically appropriate, builds upon Filipino values, history, culture, and excellence, and rests upon strong institutional foundations. (Section 1.5, Chapter 1).
By comparing the cited paragraph above to the reality confronting the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), Killip (2005) claims it is far from the agenda’s essence:
On matters of consultation, sad to say, it still has much to be desired. Consensus is not prevailing. Legislations, programs, and projects are not being discussed on their merits at the grass root level before being implemented or enacted. –From the San Roque Multi-purpose Dam to a fly over project to a water source and distribution system, some sectors perceive the non-revelation of complete details by the proponents. On environmental preservation and equitable use of resources, indigenous practices have proven to be superior than modern concepts. The muyong system of the Ifugaos on watershed management and the lampisa system of Sagada on irrigation water management are two examples why the rice terraces in the Cordillera survived hundreds of years. This is sustainable development in its purest sense (pars. 11–14).
In order to address similar (or more serious) issues and concerns raised by Killip, in 2007 the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) and The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) published ‘The Handbook for Mainstreaming Sustainable Development in Public Sector Decision Making’ or ‘SD Handbook’ funded by and in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The SD Handbook serves as a guide for policymakers and planners in mainstreaming sustainable development (SD) in public sector decision making, specifically in planning, programming, and budgeting (Philippine Council for Sustainable Development, 2007).
The SD Handbook explores how development decisions and actions can be implemented in a sustainable way to achieve intergenerational wellbeing or the wellbeing of all present and future Filipinos. It also looks into the social, economic and environmental effects of development decisions and actions that lead to the attainment of intergenerational wellbeing. One of its objectives is to enhance the understanding and capability of policymakers and planners in mainstreaming sustainable development (SD) in public sector decision making, specifically in planning, programming and budgeting The SD Handbook as guide is a modular approach of lectures and workshops consisting of four topics: (1) Module I: The Concept and Principles of Sustainable Development and Some Related Issues, (2) Module II: SD-Enhanced Situational Analysis, (3) Module III: SD-Enhanced Development Plan and (4) Module I: SD-Enhanced Investment Plan (Philippine Council for Sustainable Development, 2007, p. 1).
2.2 2009 Enhanced Philippine Agenda 21 (EPA 21)
Tarradell (2004) finds out that the initiatives on SD in the Philippines can be traced back as early as the 1980s where the first concentrated move towards it has started in 1987 with the drafting of PSSD. While the overall goal of the strategy is ‘to achieve economic growth with adequate protection of the country’s biological resources and its diversity, vital ecosystem functions and overall environmental quality,’ its focus is limited mainly on two dimensions of SD, the economic and the environmental. Then came the adoption of the national plan of action for SD in 1996, which was called, ‘The Philippine Agenda 21: A National Agenda for Sustainable Development for the 21st Century (PA 21)’ (Tarradell, 2004, pp. 3–4). Encabo (as cited in Tarradell, 2004) promised that refinement and enhancement of the PA 21 to the so-called Enhanced Philippine Agenda 21 (EPA 21) will be completed by June 2004 and will then be presented to the PCSD for approval. The promised of EPA 21’s completion by 2004 took five years before it was approved on February 9 2009 by PCSD during its 50th meeting; an assembly presided over by former Secretary Ralph Recto. What is EPA 21? The PA 21 was updated into the EPA 21, particularly noting the following three (3) areas of concern, namely (1) the rise of globalization and the creation of an external environment of finance, markets, and technology did not seem conducive to sustainable development; (2) the civil society needs to specify its commitments and contributions to achieving sustainability in the updated document; and (3) the government departments need to be imbued with the sustainable development perspective with which to handle issues properly (Environmental Education and Information Division, 2001).
The key feature of EPA 21 is the shift from an ecosystem-based agenda to a more focused thematic program thrusts covering the following seven (7) areas: (1) Eradicating Poverty; (2) Managing Globalization; (3) Achieving Social Equity; (4) Securing Peace and Solidarity; (6) Maintaining Ecological Integrity; and (7) Promoting Empowerment and Good Governance (Philippine Council for Sustainable Development, 2009).
To simultaneously see what has been happening both globally and locally, Table 1 shows both the Global and Local Policies on Sustainable Development from 1992 to 2009. The first column indicates the different local policies and the dates they were issued. The second column provides the names of the incumbent presidents who issued these policies, their terms of office, and the policies’ legal abbreviations and citations. The last column gives the different international sustainable development highlights from 1972 to 2009.
Table 1. Global and Local Policies on Sustainable Development 1992–2009 at a Glance
Executive Order /
Memorandum Order /
Date Issued and Signed
Incumbent President /
Term of Office /
Conferences on Environment
|Memorandum Order No. 110.Directing the PCSD to make a ten year review of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) commitments,Issued/signed19 August 2000.||Pres. Joseph E. Estrada(1998–2001)M.O. No. 110 s. 2000 Republic of thePhilippines. (2000). Memorandum Order No. 110.||2009 Copenhagen Summit/ United Nations Climate Change ConferenceCopenhagen, Denmark, December 7–18, 2009. The main outcome of the summit was the ‘Copenhagen Accord,’ which is saying that to prevent GHG emissions deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science as soon as possible that the increase in global temperature should be below 2°C2002 Earth Summit/ World Summit of Sustainable Development (WSSD)Johannesburg,South Africa, August 24-September 4, 2002. People, Planet and Prosperity are the catchwords of Johannesburg. These words captured the three dimensions of SD — an integration of social equity, environmental quality and economic growth for the benefit of this present and future generations|
|Memorandum Order No. 47. Directing the strengthening and the operationalization and localization of Philippine Agenda 21 and monitoring its implementation.Issued/signed25 January 1999.||Pres. Joseph E. Estrada(1998–2001)M.O. No. 47 s. 1999Republic of thePhilippines. (1999). Memorandum Order No. 47.|
|Memorandum Order No. 399. A memorandum directing the operationalization of the Philippine Agenda 21and monitoringits implementation,Issued/signed on26 September 1996.||Pres. Fidel V. Ramos(1992–1998)M.O. No. 399 s. 1996Republic of thePhilippines. (1996). Memorandum Order No. 339.||1997 Kyoto ProtocolKyoto,Japan,December 11, 1997. Linked to UNFCCC led to an international agreement fighting global warming by reducing GHG emissions.|
|Executive Order No. 370. An executive order strengthening the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development,Issued/signed on26 September 1996.||Pres. Fidel V. Ramos(1992–1998)E.O. No. 370 s. 1996Republic of thePhilippines. (1996). Executive Order No. 370.|
|Memorandum Order No. 288. A memorandum directing the formulation of thePhilippines’ Agenda 21 and activating its formulation process,Issued/signed on 05 July 1995.||Pres. Fidel V. Ramos(1992–1998)M.O. No. 288 s. 1995Republic of thePhilippines. (1995). Memorandum Order No. 288.|
|Executive Order No. 15. An executive order creating a Philippine Council for Sustainable Development,Issued/signed on 01 September 1992.||Pres. Fidel V. Ramos(1992–1998)E.O. No. 15 s. 1992Republic of thePhilippines. (1992). Executive Order No. 15.||1992 Global Agenda 21, the world’s blueprint on SD, an international agreement to adopt global programme based on the principles of the 1992 Earth Summit that environmental protection and social and economic development as fundamental to SD. 1992 Earth Summit/ United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)Rio de Janeiro,Brazil,June 2–14, 1992. It has produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)1972 United Nations Conference on the Environment (UNCE) Stockholm, Sweden, June 5–16, 1972. It led to the establishment of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in Nairobi, Kenya|
Motivation to Conduct the Study
Providentially the 1992 Earth Summit event coincided with The Consultation on African and Asian Spirituality (Cosmic and Indigenous): New Awareness and Orientation (Colombo, Sri Lanka, June 18–25, 1992) which declares:
Underlying the history of the last five centuries culminating in the global crises of the last five decades is a deep spiritual crisis of the meaninglessness of life and of human civilization itself. It has been caused by the all consuming destructive power of organized greed for the accumulation of wealth, maximization of profits and the self aggrandizement of power. It can be symbolized in the biblical phrase “The Worship of Mammon” (Statement of the consultation on african and asian spirituality, 1993, p. 6).
The statement above reaffirms the report of the World Council of Churches Inter-Orthodox Consultation (Sofia, Bulgaria, October 24– November 2, 1987) which concludes:
But we stand today before a wounded creation which suffers under distorted conditions which are the result of the sin of humanity. In our selfishness and greed we have used our otherwise good technological abilities to exploit God’s creation, to destroy the balance of nature and to deform what God originally made to be in wholesome communion with us and with Him. Creation is no longer integrated with humanity nor is it in harmony with God (Orthodox perspective on creation,1987, par. 45).
Humanity has committed injustice, a great sin, when they lost their capacity to enter into a proper relation with nature and with the body of the creation. Enmity between human beings and the natural world has replaced the relationship of harmony and care. Domination and exploitation of the creation for their selfish ends and greed became the order of history. The American ecofeminist scholar and theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether reinterprets this sin as “a condition where life-giving relationships of equivalence are turned into death-dealing relationships of dominance and subordination” (Wessinger, 1993).
Humanity has viewed creation simply as a resource to be used for their pleasure and treated it as an enemy requiring forceful control which brought about today’s ecological crisis, “a human and a social problem, connected with the infringement of human rights and unequal access to the earth’s resources” (Communion and stewardship: Human persons created in the image of God, 2002).
Paul says in Romans 8:22, 21 & 23 (New American Bible), “We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now. It is in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. We also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” This scriptural evidence clearly indicates the object of redemption which is to free the whole creation from its “groaning.” Redemption’s ethic is an earth ethic that builds a sustainable earth community for creation’s well being without a return to Eden, and without utopias, and golden ages to which to aspire (Rasmussen as cited in Frohman, 2004).
Because of these domination and exploitation which have gone as far as disconnecting us with our indigenous roots, allowing our cultural belief systems to disintegrate and letting even the essential social structures fall apart, the writer has embarked on a search for a frame for a sustainable earth community sustaining the future, on a look for ethical principles that speak to the spirit. Providentially, he stumbled across a vision of a future based on Fritjof Capra’s new vision of reality “based on awareness of the essential interrelatedness and interdependence of al1 phenomena-physical, biological, psychological, social and cultural” (Capra, 1981, p. 265).
Entering into this future, the writer has considered Thomas Berry’s three proposals as viable solutions worth pursuing at this very critical time in history. Berry (1996) declares that the first condition is the recognition “that the universe is a communion of subjects rather than a collection of objects. This has been recognized from an early period by the indigenous peoples of the world.” These two —human and natural— [the human world and the natural world] are not separate communities but one earth community of subjects [earth world]. Berry invites us “to begin thinking within the context of the whole earth, the integral community of non-living and living components” [non-human and human] (1996, par. 36). The second condition is the recognition that the living earth in the living universe is primary and humans on earth are derivative. As he puts it: The Earth is not part of the Human Story, the human story is part of the Earth Story (Berry, 1996, par. 37). All human activities must be judged first and foremost by the extent to which they generate and foster a mutually enhancing human-earth relationship. And the third condition is the recognition that in the future nothing much will happen within and to the natural world that does not involve humans (Hessel, 1996).
For the purpose of this study, the writer has derived three (3) broad but mutually interdependent perspectives and directions from Berry’s three proposals that have a likelihood of assuring us a sustainable earth community and reconnecting us with our indigenous roots. The first condition, which is a complimentary unity, is (1) cosmic-anthropological; the second, which is cosmic relationality, (2) is holistic; and finally, the third, which is stewardship responsibility, is (3) pedagogical.
Likewise, since the great struggle for human survival in a sustainable earth has begun, the writer is firmly convinced with Ruether’s stance that the Church’s mission of redemption of the world cannot be divorced from justice in society and the healing of the wounds of nature wrought by an exploitative human industrial system (2000). Journeying through Applied Cosmic Anthropology (ACA) orientation, the writer pursues to live and be dedicated to education for sustainable living as his personal choice and decision for a transformation and a science applied to a destiny that accepts, protects and fosters the earth community (Rasmussen as cited in Hessel, 1996).
Albert Einstein said, “We will not solve the problems of the world from the same level of thinking we were at when we created them” (Billions at risk of dying from starvation, disease, 2009). Thinking along this line, we will not solve our problems —religious, social, economic, political, and ecological— by insisting on doing the same things that have produced these problems (Lagdameo, 2009).We will solve them with a vision that creates “a mutually beneficial partnership with nature and to live within sustainable limits” (Billions at risk of dying from starvation, disease, 2009).
For every specific problem, there are many practical and attainable solutions which must be guided by a clear and correct vision. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to complex, real-world problems and widely diverse cultures and contexts when it comes to making measurable and manageable changes and to demonstrating tangible results for the promotion of sustainable living. But in any effort to adopt a solution, one condition is clear, which is captured in the following passage: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24, King James Version). Thus, “The Worship of Mammon” must and should be replaced by “The Worship of God.”
Statement of the Problem
In the light of the background, objectives, context and motivation above, this study is an attempt to further interpret-describe (exploration, analysis, reflection and synthesis [EARS]) the nakakaluwag lived-experiences, to seek specific and concrete solutions in view of holistic relationality that are embedded in the people’s shared-beliefs and embodied in their shared-practices, which are cosmic-anthropologically oriented and at the same time pedagogically viable, serving as guide for pro-ecological and ethical choices for sustainable living.
The Research Questions
To further investigate and take a second look on the nakakaluwag as a Filipino value that envisages a sustainable future with cosmic-anthropological in orientation, holistic relationality and pedagogically viable, the writer finds it reasonable to posit the following set of detailed research questions:
1. What are the significant nakakaluwag lived-experiences of the fourteen (14) co-researchers (Co-Rs) in terms of the fourfold relationality, with 1.1 God, 1.2 self, 1.3 fellow-human being, and 1.4 creation?
(1. Ano ang [pakiramdam ng] makabuluhang buhay na karanasang-nakakaluwag ng labing-apat (14) na mga kasamang-mananaliksik sa mga tuntunin ng apat na magkakaugnay na relasyon, sa 1.1 Diyos,1.2 sarili, 1.3 kapwa, at 1.4 sangnilikha?)
2. What pedagogical implications for sustainable living can be drawn from the nakakaluwag lived-experience narratives in view of the fourfold relationality?
(2. Ano ang mga implikasyon ng pagaaral para sa likas-kayang pamumuhay na maaaring makuha sa kwentong buhay na karanasang-nakakaluwag ayon sa pananaw nitong apat na magkakaugnay na relasyon?)
3. How can these pedagogical implications furnish a common ground for integrating the top-down and bottom-up approaches to sustainable living?
(3. Paano ang mga implikasyon ng pagaaral makapagbibigay ng pangkalahatang batayan para sa ipagkakasundo ng dulog na mula sa itaas at ng dulog na mula sa ibaba para sa likas-kayang pamumuhay?)
Scope and Limitations of the Study
This study will be limited and focused on understanding, illuminating and bringing to life a careful interpretation-description of the Filipino value nakakaluwag lived-experiences in view of the fourfold relationality and identify, analyze and assess the implied pedagogy for sustainable living that can be derived from the lived-experiences narratives embedded in the shared-beliefs and embodied in the shared-practices among the fourteen (14) purposely selected Co-Rs who are the multi-sectoral representatives of De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde (DLS-CSB) comprising of the following: two (2) administrators, two (2) teachers, two (2) regular staff, two (2) tuition-paying students, two (2) tuition-free (non-paying) students and four (4) agency/concessionaire hired employees. Their shared-beliefs and shared-practices about nakakaluwag lived-experiences will be further analyzed, reflected on and derived from which new insights in terms of Berry’s three conditions (1) cosmic-anthropological in orientation, (2) holistic relationality and (3) pedagogical viability.
DLS-CSB, a learner-centered community, is a member of network of 17 Lasallian schools known as De La Salle Philippines (DLSP). From 18 schools in its inception, the number of schools under the network was reduced to 17 when De La Salle Professional Schools was reintegrated to De La Salle University at the end of SY 2008-09.
Eleven (11) schools in Luzon — Jaime Hilario Integrated School-La Salle, De La Salle Araneta University, La Salle College Antipolo, La Salle Green Hills, De La Salle University, De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde, De La Salle Santiago Zobel School, De La Salle University-Dasmariñas, De La Salle Health Sciences Institute, De La Salle Canlubang, and De La Salle Lipa;
Three (3) schools in Visayas — University of St. La Salle, St. Joseph School-La Salle, and De La Salle Andres Soriano Memorial College;
Three (3) schools in Mindanao — La Salle University, La Salle Academy, and De La Salle John Bosco College — all work in communion to continue the mission that St. John Baptist de La Salle started some 300 years ago.
In DLS-CSB, Faith, Zeal in Service and Communion in Mission are its three guiding Lasallian principles. In DLS-CSB “learning is a continuing process of transformation” where it embraces “spirituality, creative pursuits, artistic endeavors, service to the community, awareness of environmental issues, and concern for the common good” (par. 4).
Housed in De La Salle University-Manila (DLSU-M) in 1980, DLS-CSB started as a night school for working students under the leadership of the late Br. Andrew B. Gonzalez FSC. Since the school became autonomous in 1988, it has evolved over the course of the last 22 years into a dynamic institution that is offering pioneering innovative degree and non-degree programs.
Table 2 below shows the time-table for this study beginning from the month of February, 2010 until the following year of the month of March, 2011. This time-table helps define the expectations from the writer at the individual level in carrying out these necessary activities.
It is also a tool that helps the writer effectively manage and organize. The first column describes the activities and tasks being done while conducting the study, while the second column indicates the expected completion and end date of the activities.
Table 2. Research Time-Table February 2010 - March 2011
Date of Completion
|Writing and Development of Dissertation Proposal||
|Approval of the Dissertation Proposal||
June 5, 2010
|Recruitment of Co-Rs||
|Data Collection and Transcription of RJE, NEA and FIE||
|Enrollment for Dissertation Writing||
November 13, 2010
|Data Analysis and Interpretation-Description||
|Dissertation Writing (Analysis & Interpretation-Description)||
December, 2010-February, 2011
|Submission of the First Draft||
|Expected Date of the Final Defense||
|Submission of Bound Copy (Revised Final Manuscript)||
|Expected Completion Date of Doctoral Program||
Significance of the Study
The Filipino value nakakaluwag is a unique cultural feature that contributes to the global ethic [universal value] for sustainable living. The findings and the results of this study will be helpful to the following:
First, by doing a hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry into the Filipino value nakakaluwag that are embedded in the shared-beliefs and embodied in the shared-practices of the fourteen (14) multi-sectoral representatives of DLS-CSB, the writer may draw upon these Filipino cultural resource, anchor from which and apply new insight into continuing education and research for a sustainable living.
Second, by integrating the Filipino value nakakaluwag with other Filipino beliefs and practices in view of holistic relationality the writer may introduce such integration as an alternative pedagogical frame for a sustainable living.
Third, the writer may propose values re-orientation or formation program for sustainable living based on the above alternative pedagogical frame.
Finally, by taking a second look at the Filipino value nakakaluwag in view of holistic relationality, the writer may unravel these two ecological and social justice values (eco-justice) that the Filipinos firmly uphold, which are deeply woven into the fabric of their shared-beliefs and shared-practices.
Definition of Terms
The following terms and definitions will be used in this study.
Accord is a formal agreement between countries or groups (Macmillan English Online Dictionary). The main outcome of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Copenhagen, Denmark, December 7–18, 2009 and attended by over 110 heads of government and state, was the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ (Müller 2010, p. 5).
A System Theory refers to Fritjof Capra’s integrated whole framework, looking at the world in terms of the interrelatedness and interdependence of all phenomena (1981, p. 43).
Anthropological error referred to John Paul II’s definition as root of the senseless destruction of the natural environment. This error makes woman/man think that s/he can make arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without restraint to her/his will (CA n. 37).
Blueprint is a detailed plan for doing something new, or something that is a model for how something should be done (Macmillan English Online Dictionary).
Bottom-up strategy is an approach, which the writer considered as compassion-driven and community-sustaining in its orientation, it is also referred to groups’ and individuals’ initiatives engaged in organizing from the bottom-up and assumed the responsibility toward living sustainably and saving the Earth from its irreparable damage.
Compassion-driven peoples are groups of individuals who assume the responsibility toward living sustainably and saving the Earth.
Cosmic refers to an orientation that flows from fundamental knowledge and the wisdom and insight to apply that knowledge to assessing our place [and role] in the Universe (Tyson, 2007, par. 35).
Cultural belief systems refer to the belief systems that emanate from our culture that shape the way we think, live, act, and interact with each other and with those outside our culture…reflec[ting] our values and perspectives and at the same time can close our minds to accepting other ways of thinking and doing (McQuillan as cited in George, P. & Aronson, R., 2003).
Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference (DAI) refers to the impacts of climate change for not doing what must be done to avert it.
Death-dealing relationships of dominance and subordination refer to Rosemary Radford Ruether’s intepretations of sin where the enmity between human beings and the natural world has replaced the relationship of harmony and care, domination and exploitation of the creation for selfish ends and greed are the order of history.
Earth Summit refers to the 1992 and 2002 global conferences on Sustainable Development (SD): United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 2–14, 1992 and The World Summit of Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa, August 24– September 4, 2002.
Eco-justice refers to the two values brought together into the hyphenated word eco-justice, which affirms the emergence of constructive human responses that concentrate on the link between ecological health and social justice. It occurs wherever human beings receive enough sustenance and build enough community to live harmoniously with God, to achieve equity among humans, and to appreciate the rest of creation for its own sake (Hessel, 1996, p.12).
Encyclical is an official announcement by the pope in the form of a letter (Macmillan English Online Dictionary).
Global ethics (universal values) refers to Hans Küng’s definition of a comprehensive ethic—founded on the bedrock of mutual respect and humane treatment of all beings—that would encompass the ecological, legal, technological, and social patterns that are reshaping civilization and to which all nations and peoples of the most varied backgrounds and beliefs can commit themselves.
Global warming is the slow increase in the temperature of the Earth caused partly by the greenhouse effect increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Macmillan English Online Dictionary).
Hermeneutic phenomenology is to bring the interpretation of a phenomenon or phenomena to life by focusing on the lived experiences of people (Van Manen as cited in Fogel, 2009). It explores the participants’ experiences with further abstraction and interpretation by the researchers based on researchers’ theoretical and personal knowledge (Ajjawi & Higgs, 2007). The biases and assumptions of the researcher are not bracketed or set aside, but rather are embedded and essential to the interpretive process (Laverty, 2003, p. 17). It investigates [interprets] and describes a phenomenon as experienced in life through phenomenological reflection and writing by developing a description [and interpretation] of the phenomenon (Osborne, 1994 as cited in Flood, 2010). Independently, hermeneutics is interpretive and phenomenology is descriptive. But as combined discipline, it is both interpretive seeking meaning and descriptive focusing on how things appear (Douglas & Wykowski, 2001, p. 90–91).
Holistic Relationality also referred to as the essential relations that extend in four directions or fourfold relationality, namely to God, to oneself, to neighbors and to creation as a whole. Together with its nine principles, they are discussed with greater detail in the section of Review of Related Literature and Related Studies.
Indigenous is having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
Life-giving relationships also referred to as Holistic Relationality, see above definition.
Life-giving relationships of equivalence according to Rosemary Radford Ruether is a relationship of harmony and care between human beings and the natural world. For Ruether, the opposite of life-giving relationships of equivalence is relationships that constitute sin.
Maginhawang buhay is living together in peaceful harmony which is derived from the word ginhawa seeing the experience rest, respite or relief as delightful and something to be relished (De Mesa & Wostyn as cited in Ingles, 2006).
Middle-in strategy refers to the common pedagogical ground where top-down and bottom-up approaches to sustainable living reach synthesis.
Nakakaluwag The word nakakaluwag is derived from the Tagalog word luwag or maluwag, which denotes a notion of belongingness to the rich economic status of society. As a Filipino value, it is considered as a wide locus, which manifests a global ethic, a sustainable worldview and a condition for holistic relationality.
Pakikipagkapwa-tao is the root of both pakikiramay and malasakit the Filipino beliefs and practices that respect life and dignity of persons (Ingles, 2006).
Pakikiramay is the going out of one’s way in order to share the sorrow of others in times of crises (a genuine effort of giving care) and is the offshoot of the experience of nakakaluwag; the expression could even be used when one runs out of money, but not of love (kung minsan kulang ang pera, pero hindi kulang sa pagmamalasakit) Both pakikiramay and malasakit are traces and expressions of pakikipagkapwa-tao (De Mesa; Dolor 2001 as cited in Ingles, 2006).
Protocol refers to an international agreement, like the Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto, Japan, December 11, 1997) an agreement which expires on 2012 and urgently calls for a new climate protocol.
Redemption’s ethic is an earth ethic that builds a sustainable earth community for creation’s well being without a return to Eden, and without utopias, and golden ages to which to aspire (Frohman, 2004).
Sustainable Development (SD) is discussed with greater detail in footnote 5, page 5.
The Worship of God is a biblical phrase whose symbolic meaning is the direct opposite of “The Worship of Mammon.” The writer, in search for a frame for a sustainable earth community sustaining the future and on a look for ethical principles that speak to the spirit, providentially finds Worship of God in two articulations: First, based on Fritjof Capra’s vision of reality, which is an awareness of the essential interrelatedness and interdependence of al1 phenomena-physical, biological, psychological, social and cultural” (Capra, 1981, p. 265). And second, based on the justice concept as “Right-Relations” of Hebraic Covenant Theology or even better as Fuellenbach’s Life Giving Relationships (1) with their fellow human beings, (2) with themselves, (3) with nature (creation) and (4) ultimately with God (Fuellenbach, 1998, p. 195).
The Worship of Mammon is the biblical phrase used by the Consultation on African and Asian Spirituality (Cosmic and Indigenous): New Awareness and Orientation held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, June 18–25, 1992 to symbolize the global crises of the last five decades which is a deep spiritual crisis of the meaninglessness of life and of human civilization itself that has been caused by the all consuming destructive power of organized greed for the accumulation of wealth, maximization of profits and the self aggrandizement of power. (Statement of the consultation on african and asian spirituality, 1993, p. 6).
Top-down strategy is an approach, which the writer considered as all the significant efforts that establish common standards in helping meet the global need to move toward sustainable development. These global standards are created by consensus, defined, approved and maintained by a recognized international body composed of representatives from member nations, including but not limited to international organizations, international nongovernmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations.
Trinity also known as Trinitarian God or Triune God refers to Gaillardetz’ definition that God’s very being, what it is for God to be, is loving, life-giving relationality. God does not just have a love relationship with us; God is loving relationality (Gaillardetz, 1997, p.12).
 EARS is an acronym for exploration, analysis, reflection and synthesis coined by the writer to refer to the four stages of Hermeneutic-phenomenology as an interpretation-description process, a combined discipline, which is both interpretive seeking meaning and descriptive focusing on how things appear (Douglas & Wykowski, 2001, p. 90–91) This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3: Methodology.
 The writer uses Co-Researcher / co-researcher for singular form and hereinafter referred to as Co-R, while Co-Researchers / co-researchers for plural form and also hereinafter referred to as Co-Rs, except in citations and quotations which used other terms for the same category, such as: “ subjects”, “informants”, “respondents”, “participants”, “clients”, etc.
 The Earth Charter, Preamble, par. 2, p. 1.
 The Earth Charter, Preamble, par. 1, p. 1.
 The term Sustainable Development (SD) was first used in 1981 by Lester Brown of the World Watch Institute. It was first given currency by the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN, UNEP, WWF 1980) (Tilbury, Stevenson, Fien, & Schreuder, 2002, p. 1). It later reinforced and acquired its fame when used by the Brundtland Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. The term was later brought to the attention of millions during the Rio Conference in 1992. The phrase ‘sustainable development’ was defined in the Brundtland Commission Report, as “that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Chowdhry, 2002).
 Bonn Declaration (UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development, Bonn, Germany, March 31– April 2, 2009), pars. 1–2. Source: http://www.esd-world-conference-2009.org
 First GEO-5 Multi-Stakeholders Consultation, Nairobi, Kenya, March 29–31, 2010, no. 7. Source: http://www.unep.org/PDF/geo5/GEO-5_FinalStatement.pdf
 John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, n. 37. Source: http://www.vatican.va
 This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature and Studies.
 For the purpose of this study, the term ‘common ground’ is operationally defined as something that can be agreed about and integrated with where the top-down and bottom-up approaches reach synthesis. It can be interchangeably used with the word ‘middle-in’.
 Küng, H. (1998). A global ethic for global politics and economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 The meaning of the Filipino value nakakaluwag as a word, a value and a context is explained with greater detail in Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature and Studies.
 For the purpose of this study, the term ‘writer’ is hereinafter referred to the researcher of this project.
 The objectives of the present study are congruent with the claim of Dr. Mina M. Ramirez that, “Phenomenology, a method of research that through a process of drawing out themes from narratives, becomes a basis for theorizing from experience, is also a pedagogical approach” (p. 23).
 This statement borrowed its concept from: “Life creates conditions conducive to life,” the exact words of wisdom of Janine M. Benyus, a sustainability-minded innovator, Cofounder, Biomimicry Guild and Author, “Biomimicry, Innovation Inspired By Nature.” Source: http://michaelprager.com/node/504
 “In an effort to provide some insight into impacts of climate change that might be considered Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference (DAI), authors of the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identified 5 “reasons for concern” (RFCs) (Smith, et al., 2009). The 5 RFCs include: (1) risk to unique or threatened systems (e.g., the loss of endangered species, unique ecosystems, indigenous communities, and island nations), (2) risk of extreme weather (e.g., more extreme heat waves, floods, and droughts, and more intense tropical cyclones), (3) distribution of impacts (i.e., the degree to which impacts are differentially harmful to different nations, regions, and populations), (4) aggregate damages (a set of climate change impact metrics measuring economic costs, lives affected or lost, etc.), and (5) risk of large-scale discontinuities (e.g., “tipping point” phenomena, which could include the sudden loss or partial loss of the continental ice sheets, and abrupt changes in the modes of behavior of the ocean–atmosphere system impacting, e.g., water resource availability, among other possibilities) (Mann, 2009).
 One of the PCSD’s duties is to establish guidelines and mechanisms that will expand, concretize and operationalize the sustainable development principles as embodied in the Rio Declaration, the UNCED (Global) Agenda 21, the National Conservation Strategy, and the Philippine Agenda 21, and incorporate them in the preparation of the Medium Term Development Plan both at the national and local levels with active participation from the non-government sector and people’s organization. Source: http://www.psdn.org.ph/agenda21/eo15.htm
 The World Conservation Strategy published in 1980 was prepared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, now called the World Conservation Union (IUCN) (Seema, n.d.). Its mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. It has promoted sustainability and helped over 50 countries to prepare and implement National Conservation Strategies. Source:
 Alan S. Cajes is a Fellow, Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP); Vice-President/Managing Director, DAP-Center for Sustainable Human Development (CSHD); Faculty Member, DAP-Graduate School of Public and Development Management; Assessor, Philippine Quality Award. Research areas: sustainable development, political philosophy, Philippine history. Source: http://alsalca.blogspot.com/2008/08/philippine-agenda-21.html
 Engineer Arthur Killip, the author, is an environment//sanitary inspector of the Baguio City Health Services Office (CHSO) involved in the city’s water concerns and regreening campaign.
 According to José de Mesa (1995), “Pagdama is the way Filipinos make sense of reality, their cultural mode of interpreting reality. It is the manner by which they read an event or something found in life. —There is no experience without pagdama.… Pagdama is more than just the feelings at work, no matter how sensitive they are. It incorporates also the rational component of being human and is in no way opposed to it as an opposite” (par. 18). Source: http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/eapr95/jdemesa.htm
 These students are highly motivated, low-income working individuals (with earning of not more than PhP140,000 per annum), who are at least 19 years old, and have not earned a diploma. Source: Blessed Arnould Study Assistance Program (BASAP) http://www.dls-csb.edu.ph/default.asp?section=60&what=100033
 These employees are either agency hired (AH) or or concessionaire hired (CH), one of them is a janitress (AH), the other one is Xerox Machine operator (CH), the remaining two are school canteen service crews (CH).
 This information is retrieved from: http://www.delasalle.ph
 This information is retrieved from “About the college” section of DLS-CSB website. Source: www.dls-csb.edu.ph
 The methods of data collection to be used for this study are the following: (1) Reflective Journal Entries (RJE), (2) Narrative Experience Accounts (NEA) and (3) Face-to-face Interview Exchanges (FIE). RJE , NEA and FIE are discussed in greater detail in “Chapter 3: Methodology” and in the succeeding discussion.
 Source: George, P. & Aronson, R. (2003). Pacific resources for education and Learning (PREL) briefing paper. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from http://www.prel.org/products/pn_/cultural-belief.pdf
 This is defined with greater detail in Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature and Studies.