Captain Hook and The Run-Away Train:Assessing the Management Contexts within

Philippine Air Quality Monitoring and Evaluation

Rejene Tan LakibulUniversity of San CarlosCebu City, Philippines

The Philippine Air Quality Monitoring andEvaluation has a metaphor of a run-away train. Itsstructural, agential, and legal impetuses are fast-moving in their attempt to achieve the mission of aclean air for all. Its management culture is orientedwithin development administration and ideal-visionworldview and is meant to be individual-politicaland technocratic-traditional - that which gives riseto the rowing of the present-age Captain Hook.

Over the years, we still struggle with air quality as agreatly overlooked yet ironically glaring issue thatchallenges the foundation of our environmental governance.The pivotal move now is to transcend the creed ofenvironmental fervour into “All living things need clean airquality monitoring and evaluation” but beyond the overtnessof figures and glaringness of statistics. In responsethereof, this paper provides an assessment of perceivedmanagement contexts within Philippine Air Quality Monitoringand Evaluation (AQME) by making use of legal-rational,descriptive-contextual, and qualitative assessment tools.The target of this case study is the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources-Environmental ManagementBureau.

The paper’s over-all contention is that the management ofPhilippine AQME adapts an individual-political andtechnocratic-traditional culture that is supportive of the

1

ideals of development administration and ideal-world vision.Metaphorically, it is represented by Captain Hook whoseillusory impression of autonomy and formalism is stilldeeply entrenched with dimensions of power-valueorientation, hierarchical structure, static-reactiveinstrumentality, and centralized participation. Thesedimensions are fast-moving like a run-away train in theirattempt to achieve the mission of a clean air for all.Conscientious paradigm shift is then recommended to makemanagement independent from the control of legality andresistive to the complete dictates of developmentadministration.

Breathing Beyond Statistics and Figures

An elementary yet powerful reinforcing statement about

air quality is simply phrased as “All living things need

clean air” (EKO, 2010). However such statement should no

longer be debated upon as it brings about universal truth

and practical acceptance. It is pivotal to transcend such

creed into “All living things need clean air quality

monitoring and evaluation.” Apparently over the years we

still find ourselves struggling with air quality as an

otherwise greatly overlooked, yet ironically compelling

2

issue that breaths upon our neck and challenges the

foundation of our environmental governance. Verily, air

pollution may be a mundane issue for policy consideration.

Numerous empirical researches are published almost every

year to highlight significant changes in the rise and fall

of total suspended particles among other technical

quantifications. But rarely do we read unpublished

discussions beyond the overtness of figures and glaringness

of statistics.

As such, it is the aim of this paper to assess the

perceived management contexts in the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) specifically in its

role in the Philippine Air Quality Monitoring and Evaluation

(AQME). The use of legal-rational, descriptive-contextual,

and qualitative assessment tools is complemented with

metaphorical presentation of arguments such as Captain Hook

as the embodiment of development administration paradigm and

the Run-Away Train as the depiction of ideal-world vision.

The first part of this paper provides an exposition of

literatures that answer why the twin concept of monitoring

3

and evaluation is considered critical in project management.

It is then followed by a presentation of the legal impetuses

behind the operation of Philippine AQME. The third section

elaborates frameworks about the prevailing perceived

management contexts within the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources - Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-

EMB). After which are discussions on Captain Hook and Run-

Away Train and how they are argued to metaphorically

represent a pressing reality within AQME. The concluding

part provides an over-all working contention that the

management culture and worldview of Philippine AQME is also

observable and replicative in other government agencies

within Philippine bureaucracy.

Exposing the Breadth and Breath of Monitoring and Evaluation

The fundamental concern of air quality management is to

attain economic awareness and regulatory objectives that are

geared towards the development of an effective air quality

management plan. One crucial ingredient in this plan is the

reliability of information on ambient pollution levels. This

4

is recognized in Agenda 21 of United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (Hester & Harrison, 1997). Thus,

in establishing the reliability of information we take into

account what Gary Haq and Dieter Schwela value as the

relationships between the data collected and the information

derived from them. Given these relationships, a monitoring

programme must be planned, executed, and reported (Haq and

Schwela, 2008).

A sustainable system of air quality management is

substantially dependent on how effective is its

environmental monitoring and evaluation since it is the

foundation for adaptive management and sound decision

making. Monitoring and evaluation is therefore the key to

measuring and reporting progress (UPAP, 2007).

To this end, environmental monitoring can be defined as

the “process of repetitive observing for defined purposes,

of one or more elements or indicators of the environment

according to pre-arranged schedules in space and time, and

using comparable methodologies for environmental sensing and

data collection” (SCOPE as cited in Agarwal, 2005). Some of

5

the objectives of monitoring include the following:

determining present conditions and trends, validating

environmental models, understanding phenomena, making short-

term predictions and long-term assessments, and optimizing

the utility and cost-effectiveness of the preceding

variables (Munn, 1980).

Jon Bower in his scholarly write-up, “Ambient Air

Quality Monitoring” espoused the concept of monitoring as a

powerful tool in identifying and tackling air quality

problems. When taken as part of an integrated approach to

air quality management, the utility of monitoring increases.

Bower contends that such case happens when monitoring is

used in conjunction with predictive modelling and emission

assessments (Hester & Harrison, 1997). Though approaches and

motivations for monitoring and evaluation vary, the twin

concept is found to be critical for improving project

management (Stem et. al., 2003).

Legitimizing Philippine Air Quality Management

6

Republic Act No. 8749. This is also known as the Philippine

Clean Air Act of 1999 which provides a comprehensive air

pollution control policy in the country. This legislation is

intended for the pursuit of development side-by-side

environmental sustainability. The policy thrust includes

pollution prevention rather than control that is within the

ambit of cooperation and self-regulations amongst citizens

and industries, promotion of education and participation,

and creation and enforcement of a system of accountability.

In fact, Article 1, Section 4 of the aforementioned

legislation recognizes the enjoyment of basic human rights

beginning with the right to breathe clean air and the right

to file cases in court if deemed necessary.

Imperatively, the law demands that environmental

responsibility be decentralized and area-based. Multi-

sectoral governing boards amongst airsheds - those areas

with similar climate, weather, meteorology and topography –

are supposed to formulate and implement policies and

standards within their respective local government units

(DENR-EMB, 2009). Under the auspice and primary leadership

7

of DENR and the equally significant roles of national

government agencies, the implementation of Clean Air Act is

envisioned to be a collaborative venture. A matrix of such

collaboration between or amongst DENR and other governmental

offices is created below. The inputs in this matrix are

derived from the salient features of the Clean Air Act as

well as from scholar R.E. Dunn’s environmental literature on

monitoring.

TABLE 1: Matrix of Functions and Achieved Monitoring Objectives: The Clean Air Act and R.E Munn’s Design of Environmental Monitoring Systems

GovernmentAgency

Unshared Functionaccording to Clean Air

Act

Shared Functionaccording to Clean

Air Act

What Munn’smonitoringobjective isdominatinglyadvanced?

Department ofTransportation

andCommunication

(DOTC)

design, imposition andcollection of regular emission fees; implements emission standards for motor vehicles

establishment of procedures for the inspection of motorvehicles

* control and optimization of its utility and cost-effectiveness

Department ofEnergy (DOE)

set specifications for all types of fuel and fuel-related products to improve fuel composition

* validation and/or calibration of environmental model

Department of

8

Trade andIndustry (DTI)

* set specificationsfor all types of fuel and fuel-related products to improve fuel composition

* establishment of procedures for the inspection of motorvehicles

* development of action plan within the Integrated Air Quality Management Framework

* validation and/or calibration of environmental model

* control and optimization of its utility and cost-effectiveness

* understanding phenomena and making short-termpredictions and long-term assessment

Department ofScience andTechnology(DOST)

establishment of National Research Development Program for prevention and control of air pollution

* set specificationsfor all types of fuel and fuel-related products to improve fuel composition

* development of action plan within the Integrated Air Quality Management Framework

* validation and/or calibration of environmental model

* control and optimization of its utility and cost-effectiveness

* understanding phenomena and making short-termpredictions and long-term assessment

Department ofEducation(DepEd);

Commission onHigher Education

(CHED)

encouragement of participation from government agencies and private sector in a multi-sectoral campaign

* optimization ofthe utility and cost-effectiveness of determining trends

9

Department ofInterior and

Local Government(DILG)

* encouragement of participation from government agencies and private sector in a multi-sectoral campaign

* development of action plan within the Integrated Air Quality Management Framework

* optimization ofthe utility and cost-effectiveness of determining trends

* understanding phenomena and making short-termpredictions and long-term assessment

PhilippineInformationAgency (PIA)

encouragement of participation from government agencies and private sector in a multi-sectoral campaign

* optimization ofthe utility and cost-effectiveness of determining trends

PhilippineNuclear ResearchInstitute (PNRI)

regulation of all projects involving theuse of atomic and/or nuclear energy

* validation and/or calibration of environmental model

PhilippineAtmospheric,

Geophysical andastronomical

ServiceAdministration

(PAGASA)

regular monitoring of meteorological factorsaffecting environmental conditions including ozone depletion and greenhouse gases

* validation and/or calibration of environmental model

It is noticeable that significant few unshared

functions are assigned to selected government agencies.

10

These are technically inclined agencies whose perceived

thrust has been to produce quantifiable results that are

demanded from empirical studies, which have become part of

the unshared function exclusively delineated to them in the

first place. The primary action agenda is based on

statistics, therefore the instruments to be used in

monitoring and evaluation are of solid pure science

approach. This scientific knowledge as the precursor for

unshared function is argued to be limited to regulation and

control since it restricts environmental proactivity to mere

ad hoc status – that which is activated on predetermined

dates and dictated by the availability of technical

equipment and institutional funding.

On the other hand, there are quite a number of shared

functions scattered across different government agencies.

These shared functions have the common thrusts of validation

and optimization. It is inferred that these shared functions

are dependent on what the unshared functions recommend. In

other words, the shared functions operate on frameworks pre-

set and recommended by government agencies solely tasked to

11

put scientific and quantifiable values to studies-turned-

policies. As a result, the shared functions exist primarily

to supply data for another round of empirical studies. They

are meant to validate and provide inputs but do not possess

the mandate to concretize change at the outset. This

restrictive-bureaucratic recommendation stance serves as a

requisite for policy change. What is even more exciting to

note is that DENR has been serving as the umbrella agency

that is lodged with both shared and unshared functions.

Local Government Code of 1991. The legal backbone does not

end with Clear Air Act. As a matter of fact, the Local

Government Code of 1991 devolves political powers to local

government units (LGUs) even to the extent of creating

mechanisms for environmental protection. Some pertinent

environmentally responsive provisions in the Code include

Chapters 2 (sec. 17), 3 (sec. 26), and 4 (sec. 36) among

others. These provisions advance the idea that local

government units and their chief administrative officers are

given the political and administrative right to

institutionalize an environmental management system replete

12

with penalties in order to address violations against the

environment. Additionally, Chapter 5 of the same Code

legally allows LGUs to partner with peoples and non-

governmental organizations for the promotion of environment-

related activities. On a personnel perspective, there is

Article XIV of still the same Code that highlights the

qualifications, powers, and duties of the environment and

natural resources officer (LGC, 1991). Indeed, it can be

inferred that even at the barangay, municipal, and

provincial levels there are legislations that are readily

available for the purpose of institutionally supporting the

mandate for environmental sustainability.

1987 Philippine Constitution. Clean Air Act also intends to

create a comprehensive national program that is anchored on

a provision in the fundamental law of the State. Article 2,

Section 16 of the Philippine 1987 constitution dictates the

need to “protect and advance the right of the people to a

balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and

harmony of nature”. It is to this effect that Clean Air Act

serves as one blueprint on how the Philippines can

13

concretize its advocacy for sustainable development with

local government units expected to be at the forefront in

dealing environmental problems and concerns (R.A. 8749,

1999). Inferably, the implementation of Clean Air Act is

operating in a multi-disciplinary, multi-approached, and

multi-pronged operational framework and action agenda.

Philippine Agenda 21. On a global scope, Clean Air Act is

analysed to be a by-product of Philippine Agenda 21. With

the aim of igniting a shift in developmental thinking and

approach, Philippine Agenda 21 breathes life into Clean Air

Act by highlighting a scale of area-based intervention,

integration, multi-stakeholdership, consensus building and

operationalization of pursuit for sustainable development –

that which has become an international implant and common

parlance that has reached its pinnacle during the United

Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in

1992 at Rio de Janeiro. In the words of Meadowcroft and

Dryzek, sustainable development “had become a new ‘meta-

narrative’ subscribed to by local, national, and

14

international government and non-government organizations

and institutions” (Paton, n.d.).

I argue that the move for cleaner Philippine AQME has

long been supported by local, regional, and even

international legislations. Having a multi-tiered legal

backbone as depicted in the illustration below, the

Philippine AQME has a definite start and legal standing. The

challenge now has always been how to maximize these

legislations in order to produce the best available outputs

and gains for environmental monitoring and evaluation as

well as how to coordinate such maximization with

administrative capacity, management culture, and political

will.

15

Figure 1: AQME Multi-tiered Legal Backbone

Despite the passage of the aforementioned landmark

legislations and their operations for more than 10 years

now, pollution levels remain in excess of the DENR’s

standard of 90 micrograms of pollutants per cubic meter. On

March 2, 2010, Business Insight Malaya, Inc. even reported

that the stretch of EDSA alone is recorded to have the

16

dirtiest air (BIMI, 2010), while many other cities in the

country have air pollution levels that have exceeded the

national standards. The Philippine Environment Monitor (PEM)

also contends that the concentrations of particulate matter

have found to be on an average scale of three times higher

in urban than in the rural areas (Burgonio, 2007).

As a matter of fact, according to Yale Center for

Environmental Law and Policy, the environmental performance

index of the Philippines in 2010 scored 65.7 or an

equivalent ranking of 50 out of 163 countries across the

globe. This tells us that the country’s performance in the

areas of environmental vitality and health is neither

impressive nor something to be relaxed about. Being

awkwardly situated in the median scale despite the richness

of legalities could mean several things: it can suggest that

much is yet to be realistically accomplished and that bold

moves are yet to be concretized.

On the other hand, it may suggest that existing network

of monitoring stations across the nation are challenged by

the quality of questions it is capable of answering as well

17

as the confidence level derived out of those questions

(Munn, 1980). It is also possible that the main focus of

administrative and regulatory instruments has been to

control pollution rather than institutionalize proactive-

preventive actions in improving air quality. In the

fulfilment of such actions, much weight is given to

mechanisms of monitoring, permitting, and closing of

pollution sources after the imposition of fines has already

been exhausted. Thus, “since the system was excessively

prescriptive and intrusive, it is but natural that hostility

and resistance would often ensue between the DENR and the

industries” (Pascual, 2005). In addition to that is the

recurring problem of environmental management as being

impeded by “inconsistent laws, inadequate regulations, over-

lapping institutional mandates, weak enforcement and funding

shortages” (World Bank, 2005). As a consequence, air quality

monitoring in the country “has been sporadic and lacks good

quality assurance” (Krupnick, et. al., 2003).

Uncovering the Management Contexts in Philippine AQME

18

When seriously analysed, the Philippine Air Quality

Monitoring and Evaluation uncovers several potentials for

reassessment, improvement, and further studies. It has been

realized that there are both structural and non-structural

intervening variables that hamper efficient system of

monitoring and evaluation. But what becomes the overbearing

issue that is worthy of analysis and has yet to be exposed

to the public are the management contexts within DENR-EMB

and how these contexts have been determining and influencing

the progression of Philippine AQME over the years.

It is argued that the management of Philippine AQME is

adapting an individual-political and technocratic-

traditional culture that accentuates the principles of

development administration and embraces the ideal-world

vision. Such argumentation can be explained using the

following dimensions: power-value orientation, hierarchical

structure, static-reactive instrumentality, and centralized

participation. Before elaborating the aforementioned four

dimensions, it is necessary to operationalize development

19

administration and ideal-world vision in order to guide our

contextual pacing and qualitative assessment.

Development Administration. This is defined as an essential

ingredient in societal development that is heavily

influenced by overall political, economic, and cultural

variables within the society. The objective of which is to

determine “how ideas and mechanisms of public administration

can be used as instruments of social and economic

development” (Graduate School of APS, 2008). Fred W. Riggs

simply explains it as “the combined process of both the

‘administration of development’ (implementation of

development policies and plans) and the ‘development of

administration’ (improvement of administrative

capabilities)” (Haque, 2010).

Ideal-World Vision. On the other hand, ideal-world vision

holds with it the ultimate aim for success. The author of

this paper would operationalize the term as the vision for

success - that which is characterized by a direct yet

concise description of what the organization or community

should look like after it successfully implements its

20

strategies and achieves its full potential. It is an

expression by the people, not solely their representatives,

about what they want the organization to be (University of

Wisconsin, 1998). Thus, some of its fundamental

requirements would include effective information

accumulation, development, and exploration of strategic

alternatives that are geared to reveal future implications

out of the present decisions (Green, Haines, & Halebsky,

2000).

It is precisely the workings of development

administration and the ideal-world vision which breathe upon

power-value orientation, hierarchical structure, static-

reactive instrumentality, and centralized participation as

underlying variables in the management of Philippine AQME.

It is to this effect that an illustration is created below

to capsulize some perceived management contexts that are

normally not reported in scientific facts and figures.

Succeeding such illustration are descriptions and narrative

story telling on how the AQME management framework is able

to bring to life and operationalize the roles, functions,

21

and metaphor of Captain Hook enshrined at the outset of this

paper.

Figure 2: AQME Management Framework

Captain Hook as the Power Vacuum Holder

The author of this paper argues that AQME management is

power-oriented and confusion-laden. The Environmental

Management Bureau (EMB) through its regional offices is

tasked to monitor industrial firms and to issue notices of

22

violations and permit-to-operate in the Philippines. The

bureau is delegated to implement the national program for

air pollution. Amongst its mandates include but may not be

limited to the following: formulation, integration,

coordination, supervision, and implementation of all

policies and programs of actions in consonance “to the

prevention and control of pollution as well as the

management and enhancement of environment” (DENR AO, 2002).

Arguably, the bureau is assessed to be sharing a thrust that

is ideally compact and multi-pronged on the one hand and

critical and risky on the other hand. It is adapting a

policy mandate that attempts to fix one problem yet create

several more. In the sharp words of Wildavsky (1979), its

purposive social action brings with it certain unintended

consequences. Referring to it, Robert E. Goodin and his

academic fellows say that the “policy is its own cause”

(Goodin, 2007).

In addition, the environmental agency is perceived to

be mistakenly or perhaps purposefully performing confusing

identity roles. It serves the function of an implementer and

23

a regulator at the same time. This becomes biased and

conflicting, depictive of that science of “muddling through”

- which intertwines ends and means (Lindblom, 1959). It can

be contended then that in the attempt to operationalize a

holistic framework for air quality management, DENR-EMB is

laid back with confusion in its roles and responsibilities.

The ideas and tools needed in the implementation of projects

are un-delineatedly shared and lodged altogether into both

the agency’s roles as implementer and regulator. The

implementing rules and procedures become both the means and

ends of regulation, while the regulating arms and conducts

become the reinforcements of implementation. These scenarios

create a vacuum of power that prevents efficient

accountability and predictability measures. Precisely, one

contention is that there is no structure that would allow

for coordination to be “imposed upon the work-division units

of an enterprise” (Gulick, 1937). The reason could be that

there are no work-division units available at the moment

that would dichotomize the implementing and regulating roles

of DENR-EMB. Even if there are existing work-division

24

units, they are relatively weak and fail to maintain an

identity that is capable of expressly delineating and

focusing on only one of the two functions – performing

either a purely regulatory function or an independent

implementing function. The repercussion of which is a “boxed

in” administrative practice that diametrically influences

the operation of AQME within DENR.

Indeed, the administrative value of power presented

hereinbefore is not even a misnomer. Its actual relevance

can even be traced from the established administrative

culture during the totalitarian regime of the late president

of the Philippines Ferdinand Marco up to the democratic

regime of his successor Corazon Aquino. To help us situate

our understanding within the reality of local administrative

culture, we have Amelia P. Varela (1996) and her concept of

Filipino bureaucratic ambiguity and dualism. Considered as

one facet of administrative culture, bureaucratic ambiguity

creates a “legal jungle” that is brought about by the

multiplicity of conflicting laws, unclear and frequently

changing characteristics of regulations and organizational

25

actions, as well as confusion in the interpretations of

policies and rules. No matter how clear the policy may be,

its interpretations are often relegated to what Amelia

Varela describes as “culturally acceptable” or “personally

beneficial” or “face-saving”. The dimension even extends to

dualism where cacique relationship between Filipino elite

and the common citizens accentuate differences in the

treatment of government agencies and their respective

officials and groups of personnel. Such dualism in policy

implementation has for so long years been serving as

duplications of the “double standard in society covering all

aspects of life: familial, social, political, economic, and

even religious” (Varela, 1996).

It is possible then that the value on bureaucratic

power entails a system of government where the control

completely resides in the officials and the power

“jeopardizes the liberties of the ordinary citizens” (Laski

as quoted in Smith, 1988). Sadly in this aspect, we allow

the reality of Beamtenherrschaft to take effect wherein “the

burden of omniscience on the ruling class becomes virtually

26

intolerable…and the underpinnings of social solidarity

crumble entirely” (Shea and Wilson in 1975 as cited in

JMorrow223, 2002). Concordantly, a framework is established

below to show the connection of Captain Hook to the power-

oriented and confusion-laden stance of AQME management.

Figure 3: Dimension of Administrative Culture(Power-Oriented and Confusion-Laden)

Captain Hook as the Bureaucracy Framer

The prior dimension revealed the prevailing values

underpinning the system in DENR-EMB. Equally significant it

is to expose the hierarchical structure where the values

anchor themselves to. Thus in this section we look into AQME

management as one that is hierarchy-based and complex.

27

Basically, DENR-EMB consists of its central, regional,

provincial, and other create-when-exigency-arise offices.

These offices serve as the implementing arms of the Bureau -

that which exercises supervision and control. The

organizational structure is vertical with the leadership of

the Executive Director and concomitantly followed in the

hierarchy by the Regional Director, Pollution Adjudication

Board (PAB) Technical Secretariat, National Solid Waste

Management Commission (NSWMC) Secretariat, National Ecology

Center, Project Management Staff, Internal Audit,

Administrative & Finance Service, and Environmental Planning

& Policy Service to name just a few. There are also several

subsections or divisions in almost each of the foregoing

entities. As a matter of fact, the EMB central office is

complemented with additional one hundred forty six and still

counting positions on top of its existing bloated list of

positions (DENR AO, 2002).

Verily, the perceived positive implications of such

bureaucratic set-up would be increased opportunities for

democratic decision-making and policy formulation, minimized

28

monopoly of knowledge and high regard for specialization,

and greater safeguards to dysfunctionality to mention some.

However, most of such implications are observed to be

minimally present and/or ineffectively put forward within

DENR-EMB. They lack significant strength to offset the

impact brought about by deficiencies. It can be assessed

therefore that DENR-EMB has been operating in a vertical

inter-organizational setting for its air quality monitoring

and evaluation. Although certain assignments and functions

for different governmental departments are outlined in

several legal documents, there are no clear-cut

delineations, and all the times complicated and similar

efforts are required and grappled amongst the departments

all the time. In this set-up, “the differing routines and

specialized languages, not to mention the distinct ways of

seeing the world” would mean daunting challenges and

increased chances of complexity and conflict that will

overwhelm efforts to make things happen (O’Toole, 2007).

For example, the Air Quality Management Division (AQMD)

is under the Laboratory Services and Pollution Research

29

Division which is under the Standard Setting & Monitoring

Service. The latter office is then under the Information

Technology & Statistics Division which is finally under the

Planning and Policy Division of the Environmental Planning &

Policy Service. This same set-up occurs in numerous other

divisions within the DENR-EMB agency. Apparently, if we try

to analyse closely, AQMD tends to be specific, delimited and

too specialized such that the possibility of competition and

de-synchronization with its regional counterparts is greater

than envisioned. The presence of other offices that may be

sharing closely similar and almost undistinguishable set of

responsibilities is also an added area for reflection. To

come up with a detailed list of those offices would just

highlight the bloated bureaucracy operating within DENR in

particular and in the Philippine public sector as a whole.

One case to support this is what happened during the

administration of then president of the Philippines Corazon

Aquino. Despite the incessant attempt to restore pure

democracy, her administration was still held captive to the

continued practice and expansion of patronage – catering to

30

appointment of more undersecretaries and assistant

secretaries from one to about five to seven per department.

This patronage as one facet of administrative culture has

unduly increased the size of the upper bureaucracy despite

earlier pronouncements of streamlining it. Confusion is an

obvious observation especially when local government

officials are removed from office to be replaced by

officers-in-charge. It is also observed that there is

unequal treatment between members of the top and upper

bureaucracy and those who belong to the lower bureaucratic

hierarchy. In the final analysis, Philippine bureaucracy is

a carry-over from its societal culture of manifest elitism,

cacique-ism, personalism, familism, and popularism – a

culture which permeates severely in both political and

technical functions of the bureaucratic personnel system

(Varela, 1996).

This set-up entails processes that are too elaborate

and complex. The end result would mean that it is harder to

determine the following: who is responsible for establishing

the implementation effort, what type of policy is involved,

31

the extent of the national role or presence in the program

area, the level of risks and sanctions for non-conformance,

the level of diversity of practices across the country, and

several important others (Radin, 2007). It is then easy to

consider J. E. Jane’s conception of bureau as applicable to

DENR-EMB in which the “bureaux display inherent tendencies

to operate sub-optimally due to unintended and unrecognized

consequences of behavior in a complex structure” (Lane,

1993). A framework is presented below to summarize the

salient concepts in this sub-section.

Figure 4: Dimension of Administrative Culture(Hierarchy-based and Complex Bureaucracy)

32

Captain Hook as the Agenda Pacesetter

We have already identified the prevailing systemic

values anchored on DENR’s hierarchical structure. We now

highlight on how such values and structure are translated

within the working capability of a bureau in the areas of

decision-making and agenda setting.

The Land Transportation Office (LTO) enforces

compliance with emission standards for mobile sources, while

multi-sectoral governing boards amongst airsheds formulate

and implement policies and standards within their respective

local government units (DENR-EMB, 2009). Along with these

two entities is the authority of EMB over stationary

emission sources. The staff bureaus have sectoral

representatives in regional offices across the archipelago.

They perform regulatory functions, to wit: review of

environmental impact statements, permitting, compliance

monitoring, and inspection (Krupnick, et. al., 2003). These

regulation and enforcement procedures are heavily dependent

on ambient air quality and national emission standards,

which make DENR-EMB’s leadership goal as pacesetting.33

According to Daniel Goleman’s scholarly article entitled

“Leadership That Gets Results,” such a leadership style

operates in a modus operandi that sets a high standard of

performance using such underpinning catch phrase as “Do as I

do, now”. Although the pacesetting style works best to get

quick results, it entails negative overall impact on the

climate (IME, 2009) - the climate of monitoring and

evaluation.

It can also be inferred that the monitoring schemes

undertaken by government agencies is done “to uncover and

deter rule-breaking” (Milner-Gulland and Rowcliffe, 2007:

245). The government entities mentioned at the outset of

this paper are regarded as instruments in the monitoring and

evaluation phase. They are believed to only track the

process of strategy formulation and implementation (process

monitoring) or evaluate the actual outcome of the measures

taken (outcome monitoring) (Hogl, et. al., 2008: 4). Their

focus then is on making monitoring and evaluation as a mere

transaction that sets out management by objectives,

organizational process analysis and clarification, and

34

recognition and delegation of responsibility, instead of

empowering people and not controlling them.

For instance, the common framework and direction

adapted by DENR-EMB is for monitoring and evaluation to be

done in order to determine the areas where the government

agency can find bases for the formulation of policies and

guidelines (Metin, 1992). To situate the aforementioned

statements into rational perspective, James McGregor Burns

in his 1968 academic write-up entitled “Leadership” espoused

the four theories of management namely: management by

command, objective, communication, and vision (IME, 2009).

Using the legal-rational framework, it is thus

imperative to note that DENR-EMB’s management is a mixture

of command and communication. Those in the upper positions

of the hierarchy usually tell their subordinates what to do.

They assume those under them to follow orders without any

question, discussion, and dialog. Management directives

concentrate more on communication, primarily the sourcing

out of information, because employees are expected to have

aligned their objectives and outputs directly and without

35

dissent to the organization. Management revolves around its

technocratic supremacy, leaving its subordinates mere

followers of orders. Management training becomes minimal

because the employees are conditioned not to take a great

deal of responsibility for others (IME, 2009).

Eventually, the approach to air quality management of

DENR-EMB is static-reactive since the thrust is primarily to

set and enforce management rule in a seemingly one-

directional pacing; monitoring outcomes come only as a by-

product of such pacing, and change happens only if something

goes wrong. At its downside, it can cause delay in the

response and may even be missing better options (Milner-

Gulland and Rowcliffe, 2007). A framework is provided

herewith to capsulize the descriptive discussion on AQME

management as instrumental and static-reactive, thereby

pacesetting the agenda for monitoring and evaluation.

36

Figure 5: Dimension of Administrative Culture(Instrumental and Static-Reactive Agenda Pacesetting)

Captain Hook as the Development Prescriber

AQME management is further described in this section as

non-participatory. The focus of discussion now is on whether

or not there is an avenue for participation within an

established pre-set agenda that has been anchored on

hierarchical administrative value-system.

In 2005, the DENR-EMB provided the criteria in the

selection and implementation of qualified or eligible

37

projects and activities to be supported by the Air Quality

Management Fund (AQMF). Memorandum Circular No. 010, dated

July 15, 2005, mandates that these projects/activities must

have relevance to air quality monitoring, reporting or

management; public awareness and air quality campaigns; air

pollution-related researches; capacity building on air

quality management; and roadside apprehension/emission

testing (DENR-EMB, 2005). In fact, efforts in compliance to

such memorandum include but are not limited to the

operationalization of Motor Vehicle Inspection Stations

(MVIS); Euro 2 Type approval standards; hydrocarbon emission

standards; anti-smoke belching operations (Atienza, 2009);

alternative fuels and/or fuel switching program of DOE;

emerging use of Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs (CFLs); clean

transport technology shifts such as the retrofit of

motorcycles to reduce two-stroke tricycles; and electric

jeepneys in the cities of Bacolod and Makati as well as

electric tricycles in Bicol (CAI-ASIA, 2008).

The above-given projects/activities are noble and

contributory to air quality management, but do not reflect

38

the idea of a working participatory air quality monitoring

and evaluation. The management of programs is still

observed to be authoritative and on a top-down basis. Local

people do not carry out the initiatives by themselves and

are not provided with key positions in the active management

of resources. Even if the support of the local people to

such projects/activities can be noted, innovative ideas are

not generated from and entrusted to the local people.

Responsibilities in crafting the ideal-world vision are

still heavily entrusted to governing authorities, leaving

the local people’s supposed active involvement irrelevant.

Such scenarios are not “keeping track of changes with the

community stakeholders” (NGO Programme KTN, 2005), and that

“the action plan would likely be implemented if stakeholders

have local ownership” (CAI-ASIA, 2009) even up to the stage

of monitoring and evaluation. It is surprising to note that

there are a few select registered environmental non-

government organizations in the Philippine Council for NGO

Certification as of the year 2010. A map is presented below

to spatially locate the areas where these selected few NGOs

39

operate. There are several implications of this. One is that

a smaller number of accredited NGOs could serve to hold back

genuine decentralization in areas of decision-making and

vision-setting, as well as in project implementation,

monitoring, and evaluation by the people outside the

government. Amelia Varela (1996) puts forward an end-result

within the culture of arrogance attributable not only to the

elitist character of the top and middle bureaucracy, but

also to the “ingrained characteristics of western

bureaucracy with its requisites, the values of impersonality

and universalism.”

40

As such, DENR-EMB is still stacked up on the framework

of development administration that puts high regard on

institution-building rather than agential considerations. It

is preoccupied with expediting development programmes and

strengthening administrative capabilities – leaving

incompatible “bureaucracy as a form of institutionalized

social control and development” (Hazary, 2006). The result

41

Figure 6: PCNC Accredited Environmental NGOs

Philippine Council for NGO Certification (PCNC) has only four duly registered environmental non-government organizations as of 2010. None of the four is coming from any Mindanao region.

is bureaucratic corruption – a perceivable conflict brought

about by incompatible agendas of the legal norms and social

norms. The former is an imposition by the bureaucratic

system, while the latter is implanted by internalized

individual and group value system. In this inherent

incongruence we notice the clash of bureaucratic values of

efficiency, rationality, equity, impersonalism, universalism

and discipline with the cultural values of personalism,

familism, pakikipagkapwa, pakikisama, hiya, utang-na-loob, and damayan

(Varela, 1996).

42

Figure 7: Dimension of Administrative Culture(Development Prescriber)

Connecting the Metaphors and Realities in Captain Hook andRun-Away Train

Captain Hook is an infamous fictional character

immortalized by James Matthew Barrie, a Scottish dramatist

whose enduring tale of Peter Pan has captured the attentions

of literary enthusiasts over a century now. The symbolisms

attached to Captain Hook are reflective of life situations

and cues that transcend beyond the fictional stance.

Epitomizing both gentleness and villainess when provoked,

Captain Hook was considered as someone of significant value

prior to his transformation into a complicated scoundrel.

Although there are a myriad of theories pertaining to the

inspirations that fictionally brought to life Captain Hook,

“none have been indefinitely proven as the source of

Barrie's creativity, nor did Barrie reveal a particular

individual that led him to author Captain Hook” (McGinnis,

n.d.).

It is according to this premise that an operationalized

characterization of Captain Hook is developed in this43

academic paper. Thus, the silver hook attached to his left

hand is representative of development-administration

paradigm, while the pirate clothing/slops that he wears are

indicative of traditional-political disposition. The hook

and the slop stand out to be the defining essentials of

Captain Hook, the ones which authorize him to navigate the

course and vision of the ship, to dictate the

responsibilities of the crews, and to put forward the agenda

for development. These are consistent with Fred Rigg’s

version of what development administration has turned out to

be. It caters for an administrative system that provides an

illusory impression of autonomy and formalism despite its

being deeply entrenched in the remnants of the older and

more traditional socio-economic and political system

(University of Wisconsin, 1998).

On another note, the run-away train is probably the

fastest single-lane means of transportation that continues

to grow in value especially amongst highly urbanized

economies. Inspired from a movie in 1985 entitled Runaway

Train, this type of transportation has no brakes and no

44

driver, thereby making it uncontrollable. Its high speed is

notable, its direction already pre-set, and its development

agenda put alongside risk. It may seem impossible to have

such a set-up functioning in industrialized states. However,

even the most high-tech-controlled trains are prone to

deadly disasters such as in the case of China’s bullet train

which crashed in the province of Zheijiang in July 2011. The

foregoing scenario is no different from what Ferrel Heady

identifies as the common administrative realities present in

developing countries and their type of development

administration. These realities include imitation rather

than development of indigenous public administration,

bureaucratic deficiencies of skilled workers, nonproduction-

oriented bureaucracy, formalism and autonomy (University of

Wisconsin, 1998).

Truly, Captain Hook and the Run-away train are

metaphors that could underpin belief, a kind of belief that

will eventually underpin actions. These metaphors would be

able to link conceptions of nature with political

prescription, “potentially powerful political arguments,

45

aesthetically compelling and culturally resonant

representations of nature” (Saward, 2006) within all

dimensions of the Philippine AQME.

Transcending a Conscientious Paradigm Shift

The management of Philippine AQME is driven by an

individual-political and technocratic-traditional culture.

According to the thesis of Daniel Elazar, the government

(examined in this paper as DENR-EMB) is perceived to embrace

a very practical orientation. It was instituted to

rationalize utilitarianism even if it does not have direct

concern and priority towards the questions on good society.

In almost all aspects, its role is limited to securing the

maintenance of existing social order. While there are

several actions for change, DENR-EMB maintains a traditional

politics that is plagued with “backdoor” set-up and rigid

hierarchical divisions (Elazar, 1972). For these reasons,

we can stereotype DENR-EMB as the present-age Captain Hook.

The management culture within DENR-EMB is perceived to

be power-oriented and confusion-laden in its roles and

46

responsibilities, hierarchy-based and complex in its

structure, instrumental yet static-reactive in its

initiatives and actions, and centralized in its

participation and vision-setting and decision-making. Such

culture is propagated and has been circulating in the air to

legitimize or delegitimize some actions and behaviours of

managers. In the process, it is shaping the “intellectual

and normative order within which all day-to-day decisions

(are) made” (Ghoshal, 2005).

Verily, there is a need to reassess – to both monitor

and evaluate - the management of Philippine AQME. In order

to increase the utility of monitoring and evaluation, an

integrated approach must be institutionalized and adapted.

These can be done through close consideration of the

following governance values (Sosmeña, 2010), which I have

tailored fit to address the management contexts within AQME.

These governance values are also illustratively summarized

in Figure 7: The Air Quality Governance Culture.

47

Active Effectiveness: by transcending well-designed

monitoring and evaluation systems away from their

mere passive, “ad hoc”, and exigency-oriented status

Vigilant Participation and Responsible Equity: by

intensifying participatory management decisions and

practices from empowered bottom where representation

is multidirectional and equitable

Adequacy and Responsiveness: by making the

management active-adaptive through agential reform

and enabling participatory environment that is

replete with well-discerned incentives, public

awareness, education and action

Objective Appropriateness: by operationalizing a

management style that must change from one of

control to one of instruction and guidance (Herrera,

2001) and proactive deliverance, rather than of

subjective pacesetting and cultural conformance

Focused Timeliness and Efficiency: by creating a

bold effort for conscientious paradigm shift –

making management independent from the control of

48

legality, resistive to the complete dictates of

development administration, and transcendentally

supportive to the values of good governance.

Figure 8: The Air Quality Governance Culture(No to Run-Away Train, Yes to Revolutionized Multi-cycle)

A matrix of comparison is also provided below to distinguish

the differences in the values and thrusts advanced by two

competing development frameworks.

49

TABLE 2: Matrix of Comparison: Development Administration VS Governance

DimensionDevelopment

Administration andIdeal-World Vision

(Values andThrusts)

Governance Culture(Values and Thrusts)

Orientation

power-orientedand confusion-laden

* un-dichotomized implementing and regulatingroles

* “boxed-in” administrative culture

* bureaucratic ambiguity and dualism

Appropriateness

*operationalizing a management style that is geared towards instructionand guidance

* Timeliness

* Efficiency

* conscious and conscientious paradigm shift fromdevelopment administration to contemporary governance

Structure Hierarchical bureaucracy

* several subsections or divisions within oneoffice

* fuelled by societal culture ofelitism, cacique-

Effectiveness * move out

from the practice ofcreating adhoc or exigency-driven government offices

50

ism, personalism, familism, and popularism

* conflicting roles and interlocking responsibilities

Instrumentality

static-reactiveagenda setting

* “Do as Ido, now” as the underpinning pacesetting agenda

* “to uncover and deter rule-breaking” as the monitoringscheme

* command and communication as managementimperatives

* Adequacy*Responsiveness

* mainstreaming active-reactive management

* creating incentive mechanisms

Participation Centralized * top-down

development prescripti

* Equity * Participation

* intensification of participato

51

on

* clashingbureaucratic and societal values; culture ofarrogance

ry management decisions and practices from empowered bottom

* making representation multidirectional

Conclusion: Integrating an Air Quality Governance

There is transcendental importance in mainstreaming a

clean air quality monitoring and evaluation that sets

standards beyond statistics and figures and sensitizes

administrative vision and culture. This can be realized

through conscious and conscientious paradigm shifting from

traditional development administration to contemporary

governance. Verily, if the above-provided recommendations

are not seriously considered, the Philippine AQME will

continue to be at its runaway-train mode where passengers

are given no alternatives but just one-way tickets. Going

back to their original destinations will be a hassle or,

52

worse, not an option at all because the discretionary rowing

abilities of Captain Hook are tolerated or, worse,

completely left to both choice and chance. It is important

then that we formalize and strengthen the need for a

conscientious paradigm shift. That way we can truly say we

have achieved the mission of a clean air quality monitoring

and evaluation for all. And so we quote Yasmin Roselle

Caparas (2011), "Every Filipino is a partner for clean air.

The air quality principles embodied in the Clean Air Act

says it all: “a clean and healthy environment is for the

good of all and should therefore be a concern of all.”

53

References

Agarwal, S.K. (2005). Environmental Monitoring. Kul Bhushan, Nangia, New Delhi: A.P.H. Publishing Corporation.

Atienza, Lito. (2009, December 15). DENR Secretary Lito Atienza: Implementing the Clean Air Act. Lito Atienza’s Blog. Retrieved from http://litoatienza.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/denr-secretary-lito-atienza-implementing-the-clean-air-act/.

Burgonio, TJ. (2007, September 4). Air pollution kills nearly 5,000 Metro residents yearly. Inquirer. Retrieved from http://www.klima.ph/news/pm.htm.

Business Insight Malaya, Inc. (2010, March 2). Clean Air Law: 10 Years After. Retrieved from http://www.malaya.com.ph/03032010/auto1.html.

Caparas, Yasmin Roselle (2011). The Philippine Clean Air Act: Eleven Years of Partnerships for Cleaner, Healthier Air. Retrieved from http://www.denr.gov.ph/index.php/news-and-features/features/29-the-philippine-clean-air-act-eleven-years-of-partnerships-for-cleaner-healthier-air.html

54

Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-ASIA) Center. (2009, October). Philippine Country Profile: Focus on Smaller Cities. ASEAN – German Technical Cooperation.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Environmental Management Bureau. (2005, July 15). DENR Memorandum Circular No. 010. Retrieved from http://www.emb.gov.ph/laws/air%20quality%20management/DMC%202005-10.pdf.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources AdministrativeOrder Number 17. (2002). Defining the Organizational Structure and Major Responsibilities of the Environmental Management Bureau as a Line Bureau by virtue of Section 34 of the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 (RA 8749)

Elazar, Daniel J. (1972). American Federalism: A View from theStates. 2nd edition. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Retrieved from http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/421elazar.htm.

Energy for Keeps Organization (EKO). (2010, August 19)Energy, Health, and the Environment: How Energy Choices Affect our Health and the Environment. Retrieved from http://www.energyforkeeps.org/book_chapters/eforkeeps_pre_ch4.pdf .

Environmental Management Bureau, Department of Environment andNatural Resources. (2009). National Air Quality Status Report (2005-2007).

Ghoshal, Sumantra. (2005). Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education (Vol. 4. No. 1, 75-91). UK and London Business School: Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM)

Goodin, Robert et.al. (2007). The Public and Its Policies. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Pp 3-35.

55

Graduate School for Asia and Pacific Studies. (2008). Public Administration: Concepts and Practice. University of Waseda, Tokyo, Japan.

Green, G., Haines, A., and Halebsky, S. (2000). Building our future - A Guide to Community Visioning. University of Wisconsin-Extension Publications (No. G3708).

Gulick, Luther (1937). Notes on the Theory of Organization, inShafritz, Jay, Hyde, Albert and Parkes, Sandra (eds) Classics of Public Administration (5th ed). USA: Thomson Learning, Inc. Pp. 90-98.

Haq, Gary and Schwela, Dieter (eds). (2008). Monitoring. Foundation Course on Air Quality Management in Asia. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI).

Haque, M. Shamsul. (2010). Rethinking Development Administration and Remembering Fred W. Riggs. Internal Reviewof Administrative Sciences. SAGE. National University of Singapore.

Hazary, N. (2006). Development Administration. APH Publishing. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=Fe1LklBr08MC&dq=Characteristics+of+development+administration&hl=en&source=gbs_navlinks_s.

Herrera, Jaime S. (2001,October). Participatory Management, Teamworkand Leadership: Key Requirements for the Success of Organizations in the Twenty First Century. San Jose, Costa Rica.

Hester, R.E. and Harrison, R.M. (Eds.). (1997). Air Quality Management. Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Hogl, Karl; Nordbeck, Ralf; and Pregernig Michael. (2008). Types and Functions of Monitoring and Evaluation Approaches in Three Austrian Strategies for Sustainable Development. EASY-ECO Vienna Conference 2008 (March 11-14): Governance by Evaluation. Institute of Forest, Environmental

56

and Natural Resource Policy, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.wu.ac.at/inst/fsnu/vienna/papers/abstracts/hogl_a.pdf.

Institute for Management Excellence. (2009, June 5). Leadership Styles That Get Results. Online Newsletter. Retrieved from http://www.itstime.com/mar2003.htm.

JMorrow223. (2002). What is Beamtenherrschaft? Retrieved from http://osdir.com/ml/psychology.behavior-analysis/2002-04/msg00041.html.

Krupnick, Alan, Morgenstern, Richard, Fischer, Carolyn, et. al. (2003). Air Pollution Control Policy Options for Metro Manila. Discussion Paper 03-30. Washington, DC, USA: Resources for the Future.

Lane, J.E. (1993). The Public Sector: Concepts, Models, and Approaches. Pp. 47-68.

Lindblom, Charles E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through, in Shafritz, Jay, Hyde, Albert and Parkes, Sandra (eds). Classics of Public Administration. (5th ed). USA: Thomson Learning,Inc. Pp. 177-187.

Local Government Code of 1991 - R.A. 7160. (1991, July 21). Eleventh Congress, Republic of the Philippines

McGinnis, Rachel. (n.d.). The Real Life and Fictional Characters Who Inspired J.M. Barrie’s Captain Hook. Literary Traveller: Explore Your Literary Imaginations. Retrieved from http://www.literarytraveler.com/authors/captain_hook.aspx

Metin, Rolando L. (1992, October 15). Delineation of Functionsand Implementation of the Integrated Social Forestry Program after the Devolution of Functions to the Local Government Units (LGUs). Memorandum Circular No. 17. Retrieved from

57

http://www.tanggolkalikasan.org/elaws/mcn/Memorandum%20Circular%20No.17.htm

Milner-Gulland, E.J. and Rowcliffe, J. Marcus. (2007). Conservation and Sustainable Use: A Handbook of Techniques. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, USA: Oxford University Press.

Munn, R.E. (1980). The Design of Environmental Monitoring Systems. Progress in Physical Geography. SAGE Publication.

NGO Programme Karnataka-Tamil NADU. (2005, November). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Field Experiences. NGO PROGRAMME KTN Series 1. Intercooperation: Delegation – India, Hyderabad. Retrieved from www.intercooperation.ch/offers/download/ic-india/pme-1.pdf.

O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr. (2007). Interorganizational Relations in Implementation, in Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, Jon (eds). The Handbook of Public Administration. London,UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. Pp. 142-152.

Pascual, Regina Victoria (2005). Impacts of Philippine Environmental Regulatory Policies on PNOC-EDC’s Corporate Environmental Management Initiatives. Proceedings in World Geothermal Congress 2005. Antalya, Turkey on April 24-29, 2005.

Paton, Joy. (N.D.) What’s Left of Sustainable Development?. Journal of Australian Political Economy(No.62.) Pp. 8. Retrieved from Journal of Australian Political Economy database.

Radin, Beryl. (2007). The Instruments of Intergovernmental Management, in Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, Jon (eds). The Handbook of Public Administration. London, UK: SAGE PublicationsLtd. Pp. 365-376.

Republic Act 8749. (1999, June 23). Eleventh Congress, Republic of the Philippines.

58

Saward, Michael (2006). Representation.Dobson, Andrew and Robyn Eckersley (eds.). Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, B. (1988). Bureaucracy and Political Power. Sussex Wheatsheaf.Pp. 1-24.

Sosmeña, Gaudioso C. (2010). Local Government Performance Measurement, in How to Govern Locally After Winning An Election: A Guidepost. Makati City: Kondrad Adenauer Stiftung, Manila Office.

Stem, Caroline; Margoluis, Richard; Salafsky Nick; and Marcia Brown of the Foundations of Success (FOS) together with Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Conservation International (CI). (2003, September 8-18-). A Review of Monitoring and Evaluation Approaches and Lessons Learned in Conservation: Summary Results from the Measuring Conservation Impact Initiative. World Parks Congress: Benefits Beyond Boundaries. Durban, South Africa. Retrieved from http://fosonline.org/Site_Docs/FOS%20WPC%20submission.pdf.

University of Wisconsin-Extension. (1998). Strategic Thinking In-Service Materials. Retrieved from http://uwcc.wisc.edu/coopcare/docs/vision.pdf .

Update on Program Amendment Process. (2007, November 29). Monitoring and Evaluation Framework: November 2007 Discussion Draft – Possible Draft for Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program Amendment Process. Retrieved from http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/program/2008amend/framework.pdf.

Varela, Amelia P. (1996). Administrative Culture and Political Change. Diliman, Quezon City: College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines

World Bank. (2005).Philippine Environment Monitor 2005: Coastal and Marine Resource Management. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org.ph

59

Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. (2010). Environmental Performance Index 2010. Accessed from http://epi.yale.edu/.

List of

Figures

Figure

Title

Page

1 AQME Multi-tiered Legal Backbone 10

2 AQME Management Framework 14

60

3 Dimension of Administrative Culture 17 (Power-Oriented and Confusion-Laden)

4 Dimension of Administrative Culture 20 (Hierarchy-based and Complex Bureaucracy)

5 Dimension of Administrative Culture 23 (Instrumental and Static-ReactiveAgenda Pacesetting)

6 PCNC Accredited Non-Government Organizations 26

7 Dimension of Administrative Culture 27 (Development Prescriber)

8 The Air Quality Governance Culture 31 (No to Run-Away Train, Yes toMulti-Cycle)

61

List of

Tables

Table

Title

Page

1 Matrix of Functions and Achieved Monitoring Objectives: 5 The Clean Air Act and R.E Munn’s Design of Environmental Monitoring Systems

2 Matrix of Comparison: 31 Development Administration VS Governance

62

List of

Acronyms

AQMD Air Quality Management Division

AQME Air Quality

Monitoring and Evaluation

AQMF Air Quality Management Fund

63

CFLs Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs

DENR Department of

Environment and Natural Resources

DENR-EMB Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Environmental Management Bureau

LGUs LocalGovernment Units

LTO LandTransportation Office

MVIS Motor Vehicle Inspection Stations

NSWMC National Solid Waste Management Commission

PAB Pollution Adjudication Board

PEM Philippine Environment Monitor

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

64

65