TIPANAN - ilc-nes.philc-nes.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ILC-NES-PH-Publication.pdf · official...
72
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE ILC-NES PHILIPPINES VOL. 1, NUMBER 1, AUGUST 2017 TIPANAN
Transcript of TIPANAN - ilc-nes.philc-nes.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ILC-NES-PH-Publication.pdf · official...
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE ILC-NES PHILIPPINES VOL. 1, NUMBER 1, AUGUST 2017
TIPANAN
The National Engagement Strategy (NES) was initiated as a response to the need for the International Land Coalition (ILC) to engage in selected countries in a focused, coherent, and coordinated manner that emerged from past lessons. ILC has been a partner of Philippine CSOs engaged in promoting asset reform and pointing out the deficiencies of policies in current land and resource rights.
ILC NES in the Philippines synergizes the efforts of the civil society organisations (CSOs) with other stakeholders such as government and international organisations in building on previous efforts to increase and strengthen access to and control of land and other natural resources in rural sectors.Recognizing the need to address the land issues from an integrated and national perspective, ILC members aim to secure tenure rights of the rural poor. Specifically, the objectives of NES are the following:
NES Philippines
l pursue reforms and protect the gains of past and current asset reform policies and programs;
laddress inter-sectoral concerns on land and future legal frameworks;
lenhance the basic sectors’ capacities to demand and defend their rights and natural resources;
ldevelop a comprehensive and coherent land data system; and,
lenhance coordination among ILC members in the Philippines
Having a long history of involvement on land issues in the country, ILC members are pursuing the goal and objectives of NES, recognizing and respecting their respective institutional strategies and at the same time engaging the various campaigns pushing for policy reforms to enhance the poor’s access to land – and contributing to ILC’s people-centered land governance framework.
Secure Tenure Rights
Strong Small-scale Farming Systems
Diverse Tenure Systems
Equal Land Rights for Women
Secure Territorial Rights for Indigenous Peoples
Locally managed ecosystems
Inclusive decision-making
Transparent and accessible information
Effective actions against land grabbing
Protected land rights defenders
NES Philippines supports ILC’s 10 commitments on people-centered land governance.
TIPANANOFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE ILC-NES PHILIPPINES
Contents
Introduction
What Now for Agrarian Reform in the Duterte Administration?
National Land Use Act: A Policy Brief
The Philippine ICCA Bill: A Policy Brief
Updating the Philippine Land Sector Development Framework (LSDF) 2030: Insights and Recommendations
Status of Tenure Reform in Public Lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP): A Facilitation Process Report
Local and Collaborative Ecosystem Management in Kalatungan: The MILALITTRA - Payment for Ecosystem Services Experience
Delineation of the Lebak Ancestral Domain Claim
Engaging the Media Through Investigative News Gathering and Writing, and Media Relations: The NES Communication Workshop
5
9
13
17
21
29
41
46
57
64
4
TIPANAN is the official publication of the ILC NES Philippines platform. Tipanan means covenant. This publication contains the major outputs of the third year of implementation of the National Engagement Strategy in the Philippines. Due to space limitation, other knowledge products are to be published separately or uploaded in the NES website (ilc-nes.ph/).
Production Team: Nathaniel Don E. Marquez, Marianne Naungayan, Gerard Jerome Dumlao, Joseph Onesa, Lennie Rose Cahusay, Denise Hyacinth Joy Musni and Timothy Salomon
The photographs used in this publication are provided by the members of the NES Philippines platform.
This publication was made possible with the support of the the International Land Coalition (ILC). However, the views expressed in this knowledge product do not necessarily reflect those of ILC.
Introduction
The Philippines is an archipelago of some 7,100 islands with a total land area of about 300,000 square kilometers (or 30 million hectares). Its current population is estimated
at a little over 100 million. Since 2000, it has experienced an average annual population growth of 2 percent, down from a high 3 percent average annual population growth in the 1960s. Roughly one-half of the population live in the rural areas. For administrative purposes, the country is subdivided into 17 regions, 80 provinces, 136 cities, 1,499 municipalities, and close to 42,000 barangays1. The Philippines is considered one of 17 mega diverse countries in the world where over 52,000 terrestrial and marine species are found.
1 Barangay’ is the pre-Hispanic term for a ‘village’ with a chieftain and followers, and extended clan members.
Of the country’s total land area of 30 million hectares, 15.039 million hectares are classified as upland/forest ecosystem (areas with at least a slope of 18 percent), with unclassified forest lands at 0.753 million hectares.
There are 14.208 million hectares classified as alienable and disposable lands (A&D), which are open for titling. All A&D lands of the public domain devoted to (or suitable for) agriculture were included in the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for distribution to landless individuals (Polestico, Quizon, Hildemann, 1998). Of these A & D lands, the Forest Management Bureau (2005)
estimates that about two-thirds have already been titled, leaving an untitled balance of only 1.1 million hectares (see Table 1).
The country’s rich resources are the source of subsistence and livelihood for majority of the Filipinos. The forest ecosystem directly supports approximately 30 percent of the population, including indigenous peoples (MTPDP, 2004–2010). According to Gould, 60 percent of Filipinos made their livelihood in some form of forestry or agriculture in 2002.
According to the 2002 Labor Force Survey (LFS) of the National Statistics Office (NSO), the agriculture sector accounts for one third of the country’s total employment. Over 31 million poor Filipinos are found in rural areas (World Bank, 2004). Within agriculture, farm workers in sugarcane, small farmers in coconut, rice and corn, fishermen, and forester households were found to be among the poorest of the poor, accounting for about 70 percent of all subsistence households in 2000 (NSCB, 2000). On the other hand, fisheries provide employment to 1.37
million Filipinos (BFAR, 2002). About 80 percent of the municipal fishing families in the country are estimated to live below the poverty line. These families are entirely dependent on the coastal ecosystem for their livelihoods (PARRC, 2008).
Land classification Land area (%)
Certified A&D 47.36
Established timberland 33.64
Reserve 10.74
NP/GRBS/WA 4.48
Unclassified 2.51
Civil reservation 0.55
Military & naval reserves 0.42
Fishponds 0.30
TOTAL 100.00
Table 1. Land classification in 2005, with total land area of 30-million hectares.
5
Since the time of Spanish colonization in the 16th century, the Philippine agrarian structure has been highly skewed, causing intense land-related conflicts. Before the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of 1988, the Philippine government estimated that only 20 percent of Filipino families controlled 80 percent of the country’s lands. Traditional customary lands were all subject to the Regalian doctrine by Spanish rule, which put all public lands under State ownership.
Following the Second World War, the ratification of land reform policies was primarily a response to quell social unrest. The 1963 Agricultural Land Reform Code tried to replace feudal tenancy systems while Presidential Decree 72 subjected rice and corn lands to land distribution. After the 1986 People Power revolution, the country saw
the upsurge of perhaps the most progressive laws on resource tenure reform in Asia. Foremost among these is the 1987 Constitution that showed a consistent policy linking land ownership and use to equitable distribution of wealth and a balanced ecology. Corollary to this main policy are progressive asset reform laws on the alienation of lands and their use, resource conservation and protection, and recognition of the rights of farmers, indigenous communities and other marginalized groups.
These progressive asset reform laws included the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), Forestry Code, National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS), and Fisheries Code. These reform laws were passed largely through the hard work and sacrifice of many groups from the marginalized sectors
Key legislation Year enacted Brief description
RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) 1988
Enacted in 1988, CARL expanded the coverage of the agrarian reform program to all agricultural lands regardless of crops planted. It mandated CARP to redistribute around 8.1 million hectares of agricultural land and Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) areas to 3.9 million landless tenant farmers and farmworkers over a 10-year period (1988-1998).
RA 9700 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension
with Reforms (CARPER)2009
The CARPER calls for the strengthening of the CARP primarily through the infusion of additional funding of Php 150 billion for the next five years and reform provisions that will accelerate agrarian reform (LAD phasing, provision of credit and initial capitalization).
RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act 1997
The IPRA seeks to recognize, promote, and protect the rights of IPs, that include the right to ancestral domain and lands, self-governance, and cultural integrity.
RA 8550 or the Fisheries Code 1998 The Code was enacted to promote the sustainable development of the country’s fishery resources and protect the rights of small fisherfolk over municipal waters. It also gave jurisdiction to the LGUs over their respective municipal waters.
Table 2. Asset Reform Laws in the Philippines
with the support of civil society organizations (CSOs).
Other laws that impacted positively on the enabling environment for asset reform are the Local Government Code, and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA). The features and status of the key asset reform laws are summarized in Table 2.
Asset reform redistributes resource endowments to designated marginalized sectors through a process that awards a tenurial instrument to target beneficiaries, providing them ownership or security of tenure over the subject asset. This is accompanied by support services designed to enable the beneficiary to make the most productive use of the redistributed asset. Further complementing the package are resource management and resource governance
6
mechanisms to provide the necessary enabling environment.
Unfortunately, after decades of implementing these laws, a number of implementation gaps need to be addressed to improve the situation of their intended beneficiaries. Specifically, the land acquisition and distribution component of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program with Extension and Reforms (CARPER) has yet to be completed, with an estimated balance of 200,000 hectares (from data gathered by CSOs). The implementation of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and the Fishery Code need to be enhanced as resource conflicts continue to exist. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) recorded seven clusters of IP rights violations where the most prevalent were violations related to (a) civil and political rights [e.g. extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances, tortures, murders and homicides], (b) ancestral domain rights [e.g. encroachments, displacement due to conflicts with settlers, development activities, and demolitions], (c) militarization and private armed groups, and (d) benefit sharing [e.g. unfair distribution and misappropriation of royalties, misunderstanding or non-implementation of agreements]. On the other hand, conflicts involving municipal waters include illegal, unregula-ted and underreported fishing activities, conflicts between
municipal fishers, commercial fishers and aquaculture operators, conversion of foreshore lands and mangrove areas to commercial establishments and mangrove destruction.
On the other hand, while a number of laws addressing land use issues have been passed, these policies are sectoral and fragmented in approach and do not address priorities for land use that cuts across sectors and puts a premium on long-term sustainability, local productive capacity and over-all social equity. Clearly, the absence of a land use framework result in increasing cases of conflicting claims on land use, which threatens the livelihood and security of the poor.
It is in this context that NES included in its work program the lobbying for the passage of a National Land Use Act. The said bill passed by the House of Representatives in the 16th Congress, but got stalled at the Senate.
On another note, protecting indigenous communities conserved areas need to be promoted as IPRA does not directly address the issue of protection of ecologically-important areas within their ancestral domains. Thus, the lobby for the Indigenous Communities Conserved Areas (ICCA) bill which aims to strengthen the Indigenous Peoples Right Act (IPRA) of
1997. The proposed bill seeks to protect and strengthen ICCAs and recognize the contribution of IPs in biodiversity conservation and establish a national ICCA registry.
As a number of legislative measures hang in the balance from the last Congress, CSOs working on resource rights need to muster and further strive to consolidate efforts in pushing land rights for all.
The International Land Coalition (ILC) is a global coalition of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) working on land rights. ILC is hosted by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in Rome, Italy.
In 2012, ILC started the National Engagement Strategy (NES) as a unified approach to bring CSO members at the country level to work on common agenda. Having a long history of involvement on land issues in the country, ILC members have agreed to pursue the goal and objectives of NES, recognizing and respecting their respective institutional strategies and at the same time engaging the various campaigns pushing for policy reforms to enhance the poor’s access to land.
Recognizing the need to address the land issues from an integrated and national perspective, ILC members aim to secure tenure rights of the rural poor.
7
Specifically, the objectives of NES are the following:l pursue reforms and protect
the gains of past and current asset reform policies and programs;
l address inter-sectoral concerns on land and future legal frameworks;
l enhance the basic sectors’ capacities to demand and defend their rights and natural resources;
l develop a comprehensive and coherent land data system; and,
l enhance coordination among ILC members in the Philippines.
For the current implementation of NES, the priority policy interventions include: a) NOC extension bill, b) ICCA bill and c) national land use act. m
8
Land is the main driver of economic development in the rural areas. As an economic resource – access, ownership and control over land should be a fundamental right of all
men and women. With proper State interventions to secure property rights, smallholder farmers – including women and indigenous peoples, will have the opportunity to achieve food security and overcome poverty. Thus, rural development rests on the State’s capacity to redistribute its resources to the marginalized, and provide viable opportunities by which these resources can be sustained.
What now for Agrarian Reform Implementation in the Duterte Administration?THE STATUS OF CARP IMPLEMENTATION WITHOUT THE MANDATE TO ISSUE NOTICES OF COVERAGE
KAISAHAN tungo sa Kaunlaran sa Kanayunan at Repormang Pansakahan (KAISAHAN) and the People’s Campaign for Agrarian Reform Network, Inc. (AR Now!)
CARP Coverage and land distribution, expired?
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP/CARPER law1), though imperfect, resulted to the improvement of lives and security of land tenure of many agrarian reform beneficiaries that must be further improved and continued. In the 2015 accomplishment report, the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) has distributed a total of 4.724 million hectares to 2.790 million ARBs nationwide. Unfortunately, more than 600,000 hectares remain undistributed today excluding those landholdings that have yet to be issued Notices of Coverage (NOCs). The issuance of NOCs starts of the process of Land Acquisition and Distribution to final transfer of ownership to identified Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs).
Last 30 June 2014, the mandate of the DAR to issue Notices of Coverage (NOCs) for lands
intended for distribution under the CARP expired under CARPER or Republic Act (RA) 9700.
This deadline, however, does not indicate the end of agrarian reform implementation. This is expounded by Section 30 on Resolution of Cases of RA 9700, which states that “Any case and/or proceeding involving the implementation of the provisions of RA 6657, as amended, which may remain pending on June 30, 2014 shall be allowed to proceed to its finality and be executed even beyond such date.” This was supported by the Department of Justice Opinions 59 and 60 of 2013 which state, “The 30
June 2014 deadline indicated in RA 9700 is merely directory and not mandatory, as it simply emphasized the importance and urgency of the implementation
1 The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or CARP is the program implemented from the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or R.A. 6657 in 1988 while the CARP Extension with Reforms (CARPER) law or R.A. 9700 was passed in 2008 to extend the implementation of CARP.
“...more than 600,000 hectares remain undistributed today excluding those landholdings that have yet to be issued Notices of Coverage (NOCs).
9
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), ideally within the time frame provided.” Furthermore, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution guarantees just distribution of agricultural land2, support to agriculture,3 and resettlement of farmers and farm workers in the State’s agricultural estates.4
If there is a bill on agrarian reform that must be passed into law this 17th Congress, foremost must be a continuation of the DAR’s mandate to issue Notices of Coverage to complete the targets of CARP for Land Acquisition and Distribution. Already filed are House Bills 114 and 3051
and Senate Bills 28 and 1056 to address this current gap in agrarian reform implementation.Aside from the need for continuous coverage under CARP, the Government has yet to complete all land acquisition and distribution targets for agrarian reform estimated at around 600,000 hectares of agricultural land which remain undistributed as of 2016. Many agrarian-related cases are still pending in various judicial and quasi-judicial courts. There is also a need to ensure that agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) will continue to till their land productively, by providing them with access to appropriate and timely support services such as credit, infrastructure and extension activities.
HBs 114 and 3051 need to be enacted for the seamless implementation of the LAD and reaffirms this government’s dedication to fully implementing agrarian reform as mandated by the 1987 Philippine Constitution to undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands.
Issues
Increasing Erroneous Coverage The DAR in Negros Occidental province cites the non-passage of the NOC bill as a major factor for the delay and recalibration of their targets. DAR officials say many notices of coverage issued before the June 30, 2014 deadline were defective. After further
Source: The People’s Campaign for Agrarian Reform Network, Inc. (AR Now!)
2 Section 43 Section 5 4 Section 6
10
validation, DAR discovered that there are errors in the technical descriptions of the published NOCs. The discrepancies vary from the title numbers, location of the property and name of the registered landowners.
Among the reasons cited were old titles transferred to smaller landholdings and named after heirs or corporations; some NOCs not properly served to landowners prior to publication; some MAROs had no official documentation of the landowners’ refusal to accept NOCs before publication.
Landowner resistance
There is also a trend of landlords filing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the Registry of Deeds to annotate the NOC to the land title of the covered property and to register the Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs). The lower courts against DAR over CARP implementation apparently use this strategy to circumvent the CARPER provision that prohibits the issuance of a TRO.
“Chop-chop” of titles to justify erroneous NOCs
Some landowners or their heirs resort to subdividing the original lands covered by CARP and have them titled into smaller parcels under the name of the heirs. Hence, the NOC issued for the original title will now be contested by the owners of the smaller parcels of land. This strategy has
HOUSE BILLS 114 AND 3051
“AN ACT MANDATING THE COMPLETION OF THE LAND ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION (LAD) COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (CARP) PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW”, AS AMENDED
The proposed House Bill seeks to amend RA 9700, which limits the implementation of the provisions of RA 6657, as amended, to landholdings with pending case and/or proceeding as June 30, 2014. HBs 114 and 3051 proposes to give the Department of Agrarian Reform a fresh mandate to continue with the issuance of Notices of Coverage on CARPable areas, a stage in the Land Acquisition and Distribution process of CARP, until completion.
Main Features of the Bill
Section 1. The Land Acquisition and Distribution component of the CARP shall be CONTINUED UNTIL COMPLETION UPON THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT.
Whereas in the 16th Congress, this was limited to a period of two (2) years from the effectivity of the Act, comments from the DAR and agrarian reform advocates that this should be an ongoing mandate as set by the Constitution, convinced the authors to extend the issuance of NOCs until target agricultural lands are fully covered.
Section 2. Amends Section 30 of RA 9700 (CARP Extension with Reforms Act) stating:
“Section 30. Issuance of Notices of Coverage, acceptance of voluntary offer to sell and resolution of cases and/or proceedings – The DAR shall continue to issue notice of coverage and accept voluntary offers to sell by land owners of agricultural lands covered by Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. Such issuance of Notice of Coverage or acceptance of Voluntary Offer to Sell starts the proceedings in the implementation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended.
Any case and/or proceeding INVOLVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, AS AMENDED, OR as initiated by the issuance of Notice of Coverage or acceptance of Voluntary Offer to Sell; OR WITH PETITION FOR COVERAGE, shall be allowed to proceed to its finality AND COMPLETION.
Section 3. Funding for LAD will continue as provided under Section 21, RA 9700
Section 4. Extension of the term of the Congressional Oversight Committee on Agrarian Reform (COCAR)
11
been more commonly referred to as ‘chop-chop’ titles.
DAR under the Duterte administration
On the new DAR leadership under Secretary Rafael Mariano, although there are many pro farmer pronouncements, these are not translated into immediate resolution of many land issues favorable to farmers and into clear-cut and long-term policies to fast-track CARP implementation. There has been suspension of the implementation of some administrative orders (e.g., AO on Agribusiness Venture
Arrangements or AVA, AO 6 2016 on the guidelines for the issuance of DAR clearance to authorize the transfer of ownership of agricultural lands) but immediate action must be done to protect agrarian reform gains.
Farmers cannot afford to wait much longer. The NOC issuance bills have been filed in both Houses of Congress but deliberations are at a standstill. Meanwhile, local DAR officials are at a loss on how to proceed in covering CARP targets without a new law. m
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Hearings Two Committee hearings and one Technical Working Group were conducted for the NOC Bill (January 18, March 1 and May 3, 2017).
Issues raised
Inconsistent DAR data• DAR mentioned during the last
committee hearing that there are only about 24,000 hectares that have yet to be issued NOC. This figure is not consistent with the earlier submitted figure of 69,000 hectares (data as of December 2016).
• It was not clear whether this figure included lands with NOC
as of June 2014 but now declared as erroneously covered. There is still no administrative policy directive from the DAR Central office on how to deal with NOC issuance issues since it expired last June 30, 2014.
• Are lands covered under AO 11 Series of 2014, which declared that no NOC is needed for cases won at the Regional Director level, not affected by this policy gap?
Legislators comments
• Rep. Gwen Garcia of Cebu insisted that the June 30, 2014 expiry was a sunset provision, therefore, the period for deliberation for the expiring provision has passed already.
• Rep. Arnulfo Teves, meanwhile, insists that there should be a review
of the land valuation provision in the CARP to be more favorable to landowners.
SENATE
Bills filed
Two bills were filed by Sen. Gringo Honasan (Senate Bill 28) and Sen. Risa Hontiveros (Senate Bill 1056).
Senate StandstillThe Senate Agrarian Reform Committee has not yet scheduled the NOC bills for deliberation since July 2016. The committee was formerly headed by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano but was turned over to Sen. Cynthia Villar, who is currently the committee’s acting chair.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
12
National Land Use Act: A Policy Brief
There are three categories of land in the Philippines: (i) protected areas, (ii) alienable and disposable land; and (iii) privately owned land. Of the total Philippine land area of
30 million hectares, 15.88 million are forest lands or protected areas and 14.12 million are alienable and disposable lands, which are mostly (64.8 percent) titled and privately owned. The remaining alienable and disposable (A&D) lands are patrimonial properties – public lands presently owned by the state for public use but which can be alienated if its present use is no longer appropriate. These figures, however, do not reflect actual land use because of the unclear delineation of forest lands. Forest lands have been defined as lands with a slope of greater than 18 degrees. However, forest lands may be reclassified if they are deemed to be more valuable for agricultural use.1
Aside from management and use, the other main issues of protected areas are conflict over property rights. Protected areas are characterized as common property, i.e., they are owned by the State, but private parties or groups through arrangements, such as leasehold, can enjoy usufruct rights. For instance, the enactment of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (Republic Act 8371 of 1997) resulted to conflicting claims between the
IPs and the State or other sectors on the ownership and use of ancestral lands and resources therein.
Another weakness of Philippine land policy is the failure to clearly identify society’s preferences regarding land use and the national framework over the use of our land and resources. Thus, significant problems arise in the use and allocation of land, e.g., the continuing tension behind the conversion of agrarian reform lands to non-agricultural use and exploitation of protected lands. Thus, without a clear and consistent land use policy, the
government finds itself in a policy bind: sometimes supporting sectors that would favor agricultural use over urban use, and on other occasions favoring those sectors that demand land for real estate development and other non-agricultural uses.
Various laws have been enacted for the classification or reclassification of lands into different uses (see Box on next page).
On top of conflicts on land and resource use in the Philippines, climate change even aggravated the condition of Filipinos, especially the most vulnerable sectors living in danger zones and hazard prone areas. A report by German Watch, an environmental organization, on the Global Climate Risk Index of 2015, lists the Philippines as a highly vulnerable country to weather-related disturbances, like storms, floods and heat waves.2 Risk experts also consider the Philippines as the tenth most-affected country by climate change with certain sectors- particularly the agriculture, farming, and fisheries sectors – bearing the most productivity and economic impact.
Evidently, the onslaught of natural induced disasters and calamities
1 Llanto, G.M and Ballesteros, M.M (2003). Land Reform Special Edition: Land issues in poverty reduction strategies and the development agenda. ISSN 0251-1894. Retrieved <http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5026e/y5026e0d.htm#bm13>
Campaign for Land Use Policy Now!(CLUP Now!)
13
brought about by climate change has been nothing but minimal. The damages to agricultural production brought about by extreme weather events such as typhoon, flooding, and droughts have accumulated to billions of pesos. On October 2015, the Department of Agriculture (DA) estimates a total of P5.9 billion agricultural damaged caused by Typhoon Lando.3 While in February 2016, strong El Niño damaged an estimate of P4 billion on Philippine farms that relates to a total of 79,617 tons of produce grew in 47,868 ha of farms tended by some 35,000 farmers.4 Farmers, who belong to the rural poor, suffer the most during these calamities where they rely on agriculture production as a source of income and livelihood.
Clearly, the effects of disasters bring about a domino effect to the lives of many Filipinos. With damaged crops and lands comes a decrease in food production. Decrease in food production result in higher prices of food commodities. With increased prices of food products, more people have lesser access to food.
It is in this regard that the Philippines needs a National Land Use Act, a proposed law governing the management of the country’s land and water resources amidst climate change and extreme weather conditions and events that has long been overdue. The 1987 Philippine Constitution mandates the Congress to “give highest priority
to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments. Although the Local Government Code of 1991, RA 7160 mandated Local Government Units (LGUs) to prepare their respective comprehensive land use plans enacted through zoning ordinance which shall be the primary and dominant bases for future use of land resources (Section 20, RA 7160). Still, up to this day, many of the LGUs either have no comprehensive land use plans (CLUPs) or have yet to update their CLUPs.
The National Land Use Act (NLUA), the proposed legislation that regulates the management of the country’s resources, has been pending in Congress for more than twenty (20) years. NLUA has been close to passing the last 2 congresses in both the Senate and the House of Representatives (HOR) but failed to be enacted. Now more than ever, we need a national land use law that will set the guidelines in delineating areas for protection, production, settlements and infrastructure in order to ensure that our lands and resources are protected and utilized in a manner beneficial and sustainable to all sectors of society
PHILIPPINES’ LAND CLASSIFICATION AND RECLASSIFICATION LAWS
1. Presidential Decree 399, which reserves strip lands along highways or public roads for human settlements and other non-agricultural uses;
2. Republic Act (RA) 7279, Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA);
3. RA 7916, Special Economic Zone Act, which identifies areas reserved for economic zone development and prescribes the manner of identifying such areas;
4. RA 7160, Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, which provides for the mechanism for apportioning agricultural lands at the local level;
5. RA 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), which provides restrictions on the classification of agricultural and agrarian lands including protected areas;
6. RA 8435, or the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA), which identifies a network of protected areas for agriculture and agro-industrial development, in effect impinging on existing laws on protected areas under the DENR;
7. RA 8850 or the Philippine Fisheries Code (PFC), which has provisions that run counter to earlier laws defining the utilization and disposal of mangroves;
8. RA 8370, the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA), which recognizes ancestral domains on lands including mineral lands and gives priority rights to indigenous peoples; and,
9. RA 7942 Mining Act, which provides that all natural resources, particularly minerals, are owned by the state. There is a need to review these laws in order to craft a consistent and socially acceptable land-policy framework that supports the requirements of sustainable economic growth, equity and poverty alleviation.
14
MAIN FEATURES OF THE NLUA
The NLUA seeks to institutionalize land use and physical planning to determine and evaluate appropriate land use and allocation patterns by crafting a National Physical Framework Plan (NPFP) with physical planning as the basis for development planning. The NPFP will follow a long-term planning of 30 years with regular review and updating every 10 years.
The framework of NPFP will follow the “ridge-to-reef” framework for physical planning. The NLUA will institutionalized four Land Use Categories indicating broad spatial directions and policy guidelines for land uses:
n Protection Land Use refers to the use of land primarily for rehabilitation, conservation, and protection purposes and the promotion of the country’s ecological and life-support systems. Planning for protection land use intends to achieve environmental stability and ecological integrity, ensure a balance between resource use and the preservation of some areas with environmental, aesthetic, educational, cultural and historical significance, aid and protect people and human-made structures from the ill-effects of natural hazards.
n Production Land Use refers to the most efficient, sustainable, and equitable utilization, development and management of land for productive purposes which are not classified for protection land use as defined in this section. Areas included in this category are agricultural lands, coastal and marine zones, production forest, mineral lands, energy resource lands, industrial, and tourism development areas where productive activities could be undertaken to meet the country’s requirements for economic growth and development.
n Settlements Development refers to the use of urban and rural lands for settlements development purposes and/or improvements on existing settlements involving the spatial distribution of population, identification of the roles and functions of key urban centers, determination of relationships among settlement areas, and the provision of basic services and facilities to such settlements.
n Infrastructure Land Use refers to the use of land dedicated to the provision of basic services that foster economic and other forms of integration necessary for producing or obtaining the material requirements of Filipinos, in an efficient, responsive, safe and ecologically friendly built environment. It includes, among others, sub-sectors like: road networks, transportation and communication facilities, social services, environmental service facilities, and utilities.
The land use categories identified in the national physical framework guidelines will be used at the local level to craft the CLUPs of each of the cities and municipalities. The planning process shall employ the combined top-bottom, bottom-up approach.
Other important provisions:
nThe NLUA proposes the creation of Inter-agency Technical Committee led by the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) to implement, coordinate and monitor the National Base Mapping Program to be created under the proposed Act. The spatial and non-spatial data created under this Act shall be downloaded to the LGU as well as existing land information data from the NGAs to be used as tools in crafting the CLUP. Moreover, National Geo-hazard Mapping Program to be initiated under this Act shall outline areas prone to liquefaction, landslides, severe flooding, lahar, ground rupturing, tsunami, river erosion, coastal erosion, earthquake, lava flow, etc.
nPrime agricultural lands for food security and self-sufficiency are protected from conversion to other land uses.
nAncestral Domain Management Plans or Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plans (ADSDPPs) shall be adopted in the CLUP and/or other plans that the LGU is mandated to produce. Right to self-determination and FPIC shall be upheld in formulation of all plans as provided for by the IPRA.
nSettlements Development – Settlements in particular housing or residential developments, within geo-hazard areas may be allowed provided that mitigating and/or protective measures are adopted to address the potential danger or risk to lives and property within such settlements. Residential zones as designated in the CLUP shall be considered as outside geo-hazard areas.
15
and the future generations. The proposed national land use law will help present and future generations of Filipinos to adapt to climate change, the growing population and its demands for safe and secure housing, food and livelihood.
17th Congress Legislative Updates
This 17th Congress, the National Land Use and Management Act (NLUA) was again refiled in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the HOR, there are seven (7) bills filed in the Special Committee on Land Use (SCLU) chaired by Rep. Christopher “Kit” Belmonte. During the organizational meeting of the SCLU on 11 October 2017, the
members of the Committee voted to move for the approval of HB 52 at the Committee level since it is essentially the same version that was approved on 3rd Reading last 16th Congress. The SCLU also conducted a Stakeholder’s forum on the condition of the Philippine land resources and the importance of the enactment of the national land use policy last January 20, 2017. Five (5) members of the SCLU attended the forum.
Last 7 March 2017, the Committee on Appropriations already approved the appropriation provisions of HB 52. On March 14, a day before Congress had its recess, Committee Report No. HB 5240, the consolidated version was approved on 2nd Reading at
Source: One of the photo entries for the Yuta photography contest of CLUP Now! - “Breathing Space” by Elaine Parlade.
the House of Representatives. HB 5240 has finally been approved on third and final reading at the House of Representative on May 2, 2017. The approved version has been transmitted to Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.
In the Senate, there are four (4) NLUA bills filed by Sen. Risa Hontiveros, Sen. Gringo Honasan, Sen. Loren Legarda, and Sen. Joel Villanueva. The NLUA bills filed are lodged in the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources chaired by Sen. Cynthia Villar. The Committee has yet to schedule a committee hearing or a stakeholder’s forum on the pending NLUA bills. m
16
The Philippine ICCA Bill: A Policy Brief
The Philippine ICCA Bill is a proposed legislation for the appropriate recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Conserved Areas and Territories (ICCA) in the
country. This proposed measure seeks to provide guidelines in the protection and strengthening of ICCAs in the Philippines for their contribution to biodiversity conservation.
In the House of Representatives, it is indexed as House Bill No. 115 filed on 30 June 2016 in the current 17th Congress of the Philippines. The recognized author of the bill is Rep. Teddy B. Baguilat of the Lone District of Ifugao.
In the Senate, the counterpart bill was authored by Sen. Loren Legarda in the 16th Congress of the Philippines, filed on 22 January 2015, and indexed as Senate Bill No. 2580. It is yet to be re-filed in the 17th Congress.
The long title of the bill is “An Act protecting and strengthening the Indigenous Community Conserved Areas, Recognizing their contribution to biodiversity conservation, establishing for the purpose of the National ICCA Registry, appropriating funds therefor and for other purposes.”
The short title is “Indigenous peoples and local communities conserved areas and territories Act of 2016.”
Rationale/Importance or relevance to the Philippines
To understand fully well the relevance of this bill requires a broad understanding of the ICCA concept. Suffice it to say, it is not a new concept.
According to the Global ICCA Consortium, “for thousands of years, indigenous peoples and local communities, both sedentary and mobile, have played a critical role in conserving a variety of natural environments and species. They have done this for a variety of purposes - economic, cultural, spiritual, and aesthetic, among others. At present, there are many thousand ICCAs across the world, including forests, wetlands, and landscapes, village lakes, water catchment, rivers and coastal stretches, and marine areas (2010).”
The Consortium concurs that “the history of conservation and sustainable use in many of
these areas is much older than government-managed protected areas, yet they are often neglected or not recognized in official conservation systems. Many of them face enormous threats.”
Fortunately, the Consortium reports, there is also a growing recognition of ICCAs and acknowledgement of their role in the conservation of biodiversity.
The 5th IUCN World Parks Congress (Durban, 2003) and the 12th Conference of Parties (COP 12, Hyderabad, 2012) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) accepted ICCAs as legitimate conservation sites that deserve support and, as appropriate, inclusion in national and international systems. Some governments have already included them within their official Protected Area Systems.
But what are ICCAs? The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines “ICCAs as natural and/or modified ecosystems containing significant biodiversity values, ecological services and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities, both sedentary and mobile, through customary laws or other effective means. They range from very small to large
17
Philippine Association For Intercultural Development (PAFID)
stretches of land and waterscapes.”The IUCN describes ICCAs as important complement to official protected areas (PAs) that would help conserve critical ecosystems and threatened species, and maintain essential ecosystem functions (e.g. water security). They are, according to the IUCN, the basis of cultural and economic livelihoods for millions of people, securing resources (energy, food, water, fodder) and income.
The Global ICCA Consortium posits that ICCAS offer crucial lessons for participatory governance of official PAs, and they are useful in resolving conflicts between PAs and local people. The Consortium asserts that ICCAs offer lessons in systems of conservation that integrate customary and statutory laws.
The Consortium explains that ICCAs are built on sophisticated collective ecological knowledge and capacities, including sustainable use of wild resources and maintenance of agrobiodiversity, which have stood the test of time. More importantly, the Consortium affirms that ICCAs play a crucial role in securing the rights of IPs and local communities to their land and natural resources through local governance – de jure and/or de facto.
The IUCN estimates that the global coverage of ICCAs is comparable to governments’ protected areas (12% of terrestrial surface). Globally, 400-800 million hectares of forest are owned or
administered by communities. In 18 developing countries with the largest forest cover, over 22% of forests are owned by or reserved for communities. In some of these countries (e.g. Mexico and Papua New Guinea) the community forests cover 80% of the total (Molnar et al., 2003). More land and resources are under community control in other ecosystems. By no means all areas under community control are effectively conserved (i.e. can be considered ICCAs), but a substantial portion is.
In 2010, the CBD reported that “in addition to officially-designated protected areas, there are many thousand Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) across the world, including sacred forests, wetlands, and landscapes, village lakes, catchment forests, river and coastal stretches and marine areas” and “some studies show that levels of protection are actually higher under community or indigenous management than
under government management alone” (Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, pp 40-41).
A World Bank Independent Review in 2009 (Nelson and Chomitz) revealed that a study on the levels of environmental degradation and effectivity of the different modes of forest protection and governance (strict protection, multiple-use, and traditional governance of IPs) showed that “traditional resource management practices of ICCS are more effective in protecting the forest than strict protection of the Government alone.”
In 2011, a Senior Scientist of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) reported that the “levels of forest destruction are higher in areas that have been declared as strict protection parks by the government compared to areas traditionally protected by ICCAs” (Manuel Guarigata, Sr., 2011).
Source: Philippine Association for Intercultural Development, Inc. (PAFID)
18
In the Philippines, ICCAs include sacred sites and natural features, indigenous territories, cultural landscapes and seascapes. They are found in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems in the country. The ICCA sites also represent different biogeographic regions. They can be found from the mountain ridges to the coral reefs. They provide habitats to a high diversity of flora and fauna. Based on the IUCN definition of ICCAs, at the very least, there could
be as many ICCAs as there are indigenous cultural communities in the Philippines. There could even be more because ICCAs are not limited and exclusive to areas conserved by indigenous peoples but include other areas conserved by other local communities. The extent of the area that ICCAs cover in the Philippines is still to be determined. But the number and coverage of approved Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) would be a good indicator.
The approval of CADT depends on the ability of the claimant community to prove that “they traditionally had access to it for their subsistence and traditional activities” practiced in observance of their customary laws (IPRA Sec. 3a).
As of 30 September 2010, the NCIP has approved 156 Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT) having a total area of 4,249,331.544 hectares of land and water. These areas are part of the 6 to 7 million hectares of land and water that the NCIP estimates could still be recovered as ancestral domains. These ancestral domains as a whole, or parts of it, contain ecologically valuable areas that have been sustainably managed since time immemorial by the local indigenous peoples (Novellino, 2008) and therefore would qualify as ICCAs. The ICCAs form some of the most important sections of the ancestral domain and often define their landscape and geography. Such is the case of the sacred lakes and coral reefs of the Calamian-Tagbanua of Coron Island and the Molbog of Balabac Island, both in Palawan.
PAFID (2011) estimates that between 60 and 65 percent (or roughly 4.5 million hectares) of the Philippines’ 6,838,822 hectares (DENR-FMB 2003) of remaining natural forests are within these ancestral domains. The organization believes that this could be attributed directly to the conservation efforts of indigenous peoples.
MAIN FEATURES OF THE ICCA BILL n Provides for a system of recognition, registration, protection and promotion of the
covered lands, providing penalties to any act of desecration of the abovementioned areas. Furthermore, a law specifically for ICCAs would provide the necessary government mandate, especially the annual budget and people needed to manage the lCCAs (Section 5 and Section 14).
n Establishes a national ICCA registry to ensure the availability of official information on ICCAs. The National ICCA Registry shall contain records of all pertinent information voluntarily submitted by the concerned ICC/IP regarding their respective ICCAs. (Sections 10, 11 and 14).
n The ICCAs shall be “declared as no go zone for mining and other destructive forms of natural resource exploration, development and utilization. These activities shall likewise be not allowed outside the ICCAs if it will adversely impact the ICCA” (Section 6).
n Provides incentives in the development of sustainable livelihood opportunities for ICCs/IPs particularly those consistent with traditional practices and resource use that contribute to the sustainable development and proper management of the ICCAs (Sections 19 and 20).
n Inclusion in the Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Forest Land Use Plans. The ICCAs recorded in the National ICCA Registry shall be included and duly reflected in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) of the concerned local government unit (LGU). National government agencies shall likewise ensure that the ICCAs are recognized in land use plans covering lands of the public domain (Section 12).
n Inclusion in the Protected Area Management System. In cases where ICCAs overlaps with Protected Areas, the ICCAs shall be recognized and included in the management systems of protected areas and KBAs. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws of ICCs/IPs duly documented shall be recognized and respected. ICCA plans and conservation practices shall be harmonized into the Protected Area Management Plan of the protected area (Section 13).
n Has penal provisions against those who violate the Law (Sections 21 and 22). In addition, the prosecution for offenses set forth in Section 21 of this proposed law shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997) and other criminal or civil liabilities.
19
As of 2004, there are 99 protected areas in the Philippines covering 3,180,918.39 hectares declared under the NIPAS Act (DENR-PAWB 2004). At least 69 of these protected areas overlap with 86 ancestral domains and ICCAs of indigenous peoples. The aggregate area of overlap is almost a million hectares (PAFID 2011). Among the notable examples are the ancestral domain of the Calamian-Tagbanua in Coron Island and its surrounding waters; the Igmale’ng’en sacred forests of the Talaandig community in Portulin, Pangantucan, Bukidnon; the ancestral domains of the Mangyan Tagabukid in Sibuyan Island, Romblon; and the Manobo ancestral domain in Sote, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur. The ICCAs in the Philippines range from less than a hectare of forest patch used as a burial ground of revered tribal leaders in the island of Mindoro, or to a whole ancestral domain representing the areas that mobile or nomadic communities have traditionally roamed such as the 136,000-hectare Ilonggot ancestral domain. The ICCAS in the Philippines are also of many kinds. There are sacred spaces, ranging from tiny forest groves and wetlands, to entire landscapes and seascapes. These include, among others, the sacred lakes in Coron Island; the sacred forests of the Talaandig and Manobo peoples on Mt. Kalatungan, and the sacred site of the Higaonon community on
Mt. Kimangkil, both in Bukidnon Province.
Some ICCAs are nesting or roosting sites, or other critical habitats of wild animals. Among these are the nesting place of the swift birds in Coron Island, and the critical habitats in Mt. Kalatungan.However, many ICCAs are under attack due to inappropriate development and educational models, religious intrusions, and externally driven change of local value systems. The traditional institutions managing ICCAs have been undermined by colonial or centralized political systems, whereby governments have taken over most of the relevant functions and powers. These ICCAS are often encroached or threatened by commercial users, land/resource traffickers, or even community members under the increasing influence of market forces, for the valuable renewable and non-renewable resources (timber, fauna, minerals, etc.) they contain. The ICCAs remain unrecognized in most countries, and the lack of political and legal support often hampers community efforts at maintaining them through traditional means.
The proposed Philippine ICCA Bill seeks to enhance and strengthen the interface between the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 and the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992. The IPRA mandates the promotion and recognition of the rights of
Indigenous Peoples as provided for in the 1987 Constitution. The NIPAS Act mandates that “ancestral lands and customary rights, and interest arising shall be accorded due recognition (Section 13).” It is also in accordance with the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) which provides that the State shall foster the recognition and promotion of “other effective area-based conservation measures” aside from national parks and protected areas.
How civil society can support the bill?
The challenges confronting conservation in general, and ICCAs in particular, can be effectively faced jointly by communities and formal conservation agencies, with help from NGOs and others. This is beginning to happen in countries where ICCAs are formally recognized.
There are two 2 things civil society can do to support this bill. It can help deepen the understanding of ICCAs with respect to varying historical and regional contexts. It can also help identify and support field-based initiatives where ICCAs can be crucially safeguarded, enabled, strengthened and/or promoted in practice.
The first will popularize the concept and drum up wider support for the enactment of the bill. The second will generate much needed baseline data and strengthen the communities’ de facto governance of ICCAs in the country. m
20
Updating the Philippine Land Sector Development Framework (LSDF) 2030: Insights and Recommendations
In 2010, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) through the Philippine Land Administration and Management Project II (LAMP II) formulated the first
Philippine Land Sector Development Framework (LSDF) 2030 to provide a strategic road map in reform the country’s land sector – land administration, management, land market, valuation and assessment, and as part of the country’s long-term development agenda.
This document incorporates the major conclusions and recommendations of the “CSO Roundtable Discussion on the Land Sector Development Framework Review” jointly organized by ANGOC, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and ILC NES platform in the Philippines last 29 June 2017 at DENR Central Office. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of ILC.
The LSDF 2030 is an attempt to effectively harness efforts and engender a common policy for land administration and management in the Philippines among LAM sector government agencies, the private sector, and education and research institutions. The Government of the Philippines (GoP) has long recognized the need for substantial reforms in the LAM sector acting through various activities including: the Land Administration and Management Projects of Phase 1 and Phase 2, Land Registration Authority (LRA) computerization program, Land Titling Computerization Program
(LTCP), on-going agricultural reforms of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), and PRS 92 conversion program of the National Mapping Resource and Information Authority (NAMRIA).
The LSDF builds on scoping studies prepared in 2005 for an initial Land Administration and Management Program Long Term Development Plan with key preparatory consultations among LAM sector agencies during November 2009 to May 2010. The LSDF 2030 was presented and submitted to the incoming Aquino administration and several
of its key recommendations were included in Aquino’ administration’s “Daang Matuwid” Philippine Development Plan 2010-2016.
Whilst a number of the reforms in the LSDF 2030 were implemented such as the completion of the national cadastral survey, key policy reforms in the LSDF 2030 such as the Land Administration Reform Act, National Land Use Act, national spatial mapping and land information database system remains.
At present, the LSDF is currently being reviewed by the Land Management Bureau of the DENR with the end goal of further enhancing and updating the reform agenda identified in the previous LSDF 2030 to address other key land sector issues such as tenure security, land governance and climate change and disaster risk impacts. The new Duterte administration has also identified “land tenure security” as part of the administration’s ten (10)-point priority agenda.
Elmer Mercado, EnPPublic Land Management Specialist
21
With a technical cooperation project (TCP) with the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) entitled, “Mainstreaming the Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure (VGGT): Philippines”, the LSDF2030 is being updated by the DENR-LMB, in partnership with the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF), and the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC). This paper was prepared as technical input to the LSDF 2030 updating process.
Land resources: its value to the country’s current and future development and role/function of LSDF in the Philippines 2030 vision
Land has always been one of the
reasons for violent social and political conflict in many parts of the Philippines, including Muslim Mindanao, since the time of the Spanish conquest to the American colonial period to the present day national government administration. The issue of land as a very volatile issue not only gains more urgency today for 103 million Filipinos but more so by 2030 when around 124 million Filipinos will be fighting for a share of the country’s 30 million hectares land area.
Undeniably land sector and its reforms are of critical significance being the single most important natural resource and asset of the country and its people. This is exacerbated that majority of the country’s private landholdings since the time of the Spaniards
has been held or owned by a few elites and the rest owned by government based on the ‘regalian doctrine’.
That’s the reason why the issue of land reform or redistribution of land to the landless has always been the cause of many peasant revolts and the anchor of numerous social justice platform of the Philippine government from the Rice Share Tenancy Acts of Commonwealth period to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under the 1987 People Power Constitution. Yet, the issues in the land sector remain and continuous to be unresolved due to systemic, regulatory and institutional challenges.
On the other hand, land sector activities are critical drivers to
22
the country’s economic growth through encouraging formal land market activities, up-to-date land valuations and an expanded land record base for taxation activities. Successful business operational models have emerged through national and local government agency partnerships in building capacity and improving service delivery resulting in increased local government revenue.
In addition, land sector reforms are able to contribute significantly through spatial data management and land management and monitoring activities in response to natural disasters and the affects of climate change. Land administration and management reforms attempt to better inform and equip decision makers towards more efficient, effective and accessible service delivery that is financially sustainable. It is in this context, that the LSDF 2030 becomes an important national reform undertaking especially
in pursuit of sustainable and inclusive economic growth.
However, land is also the most critical resource that cannot be replicated or increased as it is a fixed physical asset and therefore is a limited resource, especially in terms of its access, use and ownership, amidst a growing population and development pressure. Access and ownership of land has been at the ‘center’ of many social and political conflicts throughout the history of the country at both national and regional levels. Land has also been at the center of many individual and communal issues, litigation, sectarian violence, and, index and non-index crimes. These land-related issues and conflicts, including the growing violence and pressure, attached to land in the country will be exacerbated with the increasing population and demand for access and use of such a growing limited resource that is further made unattainable
to many because a large part of available land is not only beyond the reach of majority and ordinary people but also owned and controlled by a few. Insights and Recommendations to the Updating of LSDF 2030
1. Linkage of LSDF 2030 with broader national physical (i.e. National Physical Framework Plan and National Spatial Strategy) and long-term development visions (i.e. Ambisyon Natin 2040).
Given that the LSDF 2030 is a key national sectoral strategy that is meant to translate strategic national development objectives, it is important that the LSDF must be able to clearly link its prioritization and proposed programmes with higher-level strategic plans (i.e. National Physical Framework Plan and National Spatial Strategy) and development vision i.e. Ambisyon Natin 2040). Ambisyon Natin 2040 represents the collective long-term vision and aspirations of the Filipino people for themselves and for the country for the next 25 years. It describes the kind of life that people want to live, as well as how the country will look like by 2040. As such, it will serve as an anchor for development planning across at least four administrations. In this context, the LSDF would not be seen as a stand-alone strategy but a complimentary (integrative) implementation strategy.
23
National Spatial Strategy (2016-2045)
NSS Strategies and specific objectives
VulnerabilityReduction
RegionalAgglomeration
Connectivity
• Protect environmentally-constrained or hazard-prone areas
• Control settlements in hazard-prone areas
• Ensure safety of the population
• Ensure access to areas affected by hazard events
• Optimize benefits from agglomeration
• Increase viability of wider variety & higher levels of services in areas with bigger markets
• Reduce encriachment into agricultural land & other environmentally-sensitive or protected areas
• Improve linkages among settlements and key production areas
• Direct growth in areas with greatest economic potentials through efficient transportation networks
• Increase access to jobs and services by people in smaller settlements
• Connect rural areas to growth centers
Source: www.neda.gov.ph
2. Respond to future demands and projected conditions for land resources and uses of the country.
The prioritization and urgency of proposed programmes and actions, specially those pertaining to tenure, land allocation and use policy, must be contextualized with the expected future demands and projected conditions of the country in the next 20-30 years. The current LSDF and the recommendations being submitted while relevant and attuned to current issues and challenges must go beyond addressing immediate and recurring issues on land administration and management (2015) but also future demands and projections by 2030/2050. In this case key future demands and projected conditions/changes to consider are:l Population by 2030/2050 =
123.5 million/148 million from 102 million (2015) – 38% in
NCR, Region IV and Region III (2015);
l Urban pop. 2030/2050 = 65% urban (2030)/80% (2050) from 45%;
l Informal settlements = 5.45 of urban population (2015), all living in high-risk/vulnerable areas
l Accumulated backlog in housing 2011-2016 = 5.7 million; 12.1 million (2030)
Median age = 24.5 yrs (2015); 70% =below 45 yrs. (2030);
l Average age of farmers = 57 years old (2013, DA study); 0.60 hectares farm lands (average size of land, ARBs);
l Poorest of the poor = upland farmers, IPs and fisher folk
3. Assessment and evaluation of the physical, vulnerability and biological status of land resources/assets (fertility, best use, viability).
Aside from the realisation that at only 30 million hectares the
country’s land resources/area is finite and limited to satisfy all the needs of the country’s current and future population, there is also a need to understand and realize the biophysical, ecological and vulnerability condition of these resources. It is not enough that the cadastral survey or delineation of the country’s lands and political boundaries are completed, it all the more critical to establish the actual conditions of these lands – biophysical, ecological, vulnerability, ownership/tenure in order to establish the functionality of these lands and subsequently determine its strategic and future values. These shall include:l Status of Philippine public
lands --- forestlands, foreshore areas, wetlands, waters, etc.; linked to the National Forestry Assessment/Survey and National Cadastral Survey.
l Status of effectiveness of on-site management regimes.
There is a need to have a clear understanding of the true nature and conditions of the country’s lands -- both public and private, in order to ascertain the urgency and priority level of reforms that the LSDF needs to pursue and prioritise in the next 20 years.
4. Prioritization of strategic land resource allocation and uses.
The LSDF 2030 should be prepared with a clear understanding of the strategic land allocation and resource use priorities of
Ambisyon 2040
Source: www.2040.neda.gov.ph
24
the country in the next 30 years. This should be presented and determined under the National Physical Framework Plan (NPFP) or National Spatial Strategy. These land allocation and resource use priorities would establish in terms of:lStrategic functional objectives
and development strategy of the country’s lands;– Identification of lands for
protection, production, settlements, biodiversity, etc.
– Development/sectoral priorities – e.g. water, settlements, food security, biodiversity/ecological balance, climate resilience/DRR
l Spatial distribution/focus/priority and land uses/utilisation policy, especially in the context of rapid urbanization and increase population concentration;
lApplication of development controls and uses and management arrangements to sustainably managed and maximize a rapidly diminishing resource.
However, this function has to be performed by a mandated national agency that would have strategic responsibility over the determination of these priority land allocation and resources uses. The absence of a national land use authority with powers to determine such priorities as envisioned in the proposed
National Land Use Act (NLUA) and the limitation of the current national land use committee-structure inhibits this vital decision-making process. It also inhibits the sense of urgency to accelerate the basic policy reform agenda being pushed under the LSDF 2030 and therefore the country’s ability not only to address the current disarray in the land sector and the individual, communal and institutional conflicts that it breeds. But more importantly, it prevents the prospective mitigation of future and more extensive land conflicts that will confront the sector with an almost double the population.
5. Quantification of land allocation requirements and priorities and designated as ‘land reserves’.
Once the strategic land allocation and resource use priorities are ascertained, there is the need to quantify the land allocation priorities and suitability of uses as ‘national land reserves’ to guide the LSDF proposed actions and programmes. It is the inherent right of the state to identify and reserve areas of the country’s domain for specific purposes that it deems necessary to support current and future needs and interests. The state’s responsibility to allocate land and water resources for strategic and future uses, including instituting appropriate implementation arrangements to develop and
utilize it, is an exercise of such responsibility and mandate.
The quantification of the country’s needs for land resources/services and designate them as ‘land reserves’ to address future needs/demands:l Water, settlements, product-
ion, food, ecological/envi-ronmental balance, cli-mate resilience/disaster risk reduction, etc.
This ‘land reserves’ should be translated into the amount of land area needed to produce and delivery these land resources needs/services and designated these areas as ‘national land reserves’ for such functions; identify critical areas and locations where such functions and services would be maximized and developed; and, institute the necessary development controls and resources needed for these ‘land reserves.’
Currently the DENR has completed the forestland survey/delineation and finalizing the national cadastral survey. The DA is also updating the National SAFDZ plans and National Land and Crop Suitability Maps. The National Urban Development and Housing Framework (2017-2026) has also been completed. The National Land Use Committee is also reviewing and updating the National Physical Framework Plan and National Spatial Strategy under the new administration. All
25
of these should be integrated into the proposed national mapping and land information system.
6. Resolve and address basic land sector issues to address current, recurrent and future land administration and management problems.
The LSDF 2030 framework addresses key reforms needed based on the key elements of the land sector – land administration, land management, land information management, land valuation, taxation and fees, and enabling environment.
However, the over-all success of the LSDF reform agenda rests on the completion of the land mapping and information management --- e.g. integrated national land information system, completion of the national cadastral survey/system, that serves as the foundation for the effectiveness of the other reform programs in land administration, land management and land valuation and taxation.
Indeed, it is critical that the basic land mapping and information system be established and functioning to address the recurrent issues and challenges identified in the LSDF 2030. Likewise, the LSDF 2030 should be presented based on key results objectives for each sub-sector to clearly establish the desired condition for each sub-sector.
7. Other issues that need to be further expounded in the LSDF 2030.
LSDF 2030 current framework basically looks at the technical and administrative issues related to the land sector (particularly public land management). But the land sector and its impact covers much more than technical and administrative mandates and functions but more so conceptual aspect of land, land value and land ownership and use. These includes:l Effective and appropriate
management regimes (public and private) based on:– Tenure and development
arrangements;– Functionality or develop-
ment uses/purposes;– Administrative effective-
ness and capacity;– Multi-area; inter-regional/
inter-local; multi-sectoral– Small, communal vs indi-
vidual, household– Centralized or decentral-
ized;– Area coverages/scope
l Land tenure arrangement and ownership structure of lands – ‘concept’ of regalian
doctrine and best land stewards/managers
– concept of ‘land ownership’ vs ‘land stewardship’ or ability to put land into more productive use/input more value to the land; ‘ownership’ vs ‘use/utilization’;
– concentration of land ownership (private) to elite and government vs rest of the population lands (based on a ‘fully functioning land market’)
l use and application of technology – satellite/drone technology; mega-data baselines; GIS-mapping technology, scenario/analysis;….
l who is in-charge – land administration and land use/development?
8. Need to link the LSDF with other national sectoral/development and implementation plans.
The effectiveness of the reforms in the land sector cannot be dissociated with parallel, if not simultaneous, efforts to address and implement key national and sector development objectives and plans such as the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017-2022, National Urban Development and Housing Framework (NUDHF), National Climate Change Action Plan, National Infrastructure Plan, among others. These national development and sectoral implementation plans are complementary reform platforms that would make reforms in the land sector under the LSDF more effective and sustainable.
For example, improving tenure security of ‘occupied lands’ by upland farmers with formal
26
titles or tenurial agreements can only sustain and retain their ‘ownership’ if they productively use and develop their ‘titled lands’. Otherwise, they would revert back to untenured status by selling off their land and return to ‘occupying’ new lands in the public domain.
Such a ‘vicious cycle’ has been seen in many ‘tenure security’ improvement and social justice programmes in the country such as the agrarian reform or ‘land to the tillers’ programme, integrated social forestry or community-based forest management, urban resettlement and socialized housing, and even the ancestral domain and lands titling program.
The LSDF 2030 should not be seen as a ‘stand alone’ magic pill for all the long-standing, recurrent and future problems surrounding land issues and conflict in the country. The LSDF 2030 must be linked and inter-phased with recently approved or formulated national development/sectoral implementation plans specially the recently approved Philippine
Development Plan 2016-2022, Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Plan, National Urban Development and Housing Framework Plan (2016-2025), NCCAP and NDRRMP, and National Land Use Plan, among others to ensure its success and the effectiveness of these plans. The LSDF 2030 provides the building blocks needed by the national development and sectoral implementation plans to be successful whilst the LSDF needs these national plans to ensure the implementation and execution of the reforms needed in the land sector.
Implications of LSDF with other land-related laws
1. SB 1056 (Completion of Notice of Coverage – Land Acquistion and Distribution) “CARPer Extension”
In the context of the LSDF 2030, the bill would greatly be benefitted if the reforms being pushed under the land administration and land information management sectors would be completed.
These include completion of the national cadastral surveys, national integrated land information systems, land mapping and information, and land titling improvement system, specially most of the lands being targetted or expected to covered by the proposed bill are undistributed private landholdings. Likewise, the land registration and integration of land information systems from the LMB and Register of Deeds (RoD) could also facilitate the further subdivision of existing mother titles issued during the early years of CARP as well as the determination of existing or ‘true owners’ and those currently occupying them.
On the other hand, opportunities are also available for improving land tenure security for upland farmers/settlers inside public lands or forestlands should the completion of the permanent forest delineation and assessment of forestlands are completed because of the possible release of these cultivate lands or lands not needed for forestlands to become alienable and disposable (A&D) public lands and therefore could be subjected to land disposition either through agriculture free patents (Public Land Act or CA 141) or CARP.
2. NLUA (National Land Use Act)
The NALUA, on the other hand, is a strategic policy environment that
27
Land Information Management and
Enabling Policy Environment
Land Administration
Land Management
Land Valuation and Taxation
a
would facilitate and address some of the recurrent and overlapping tenurial instruments, land uses and allocation arrangements in both private and public lands. The determination of the strategic and priority future land uses as envisioned in the bill as determined by the proposed National Land Use Authority/Administration would be able to minimize, if not eliminate, overlapping tenure instruments and determination of priority uses of the country’s land resources. It would also faciltate a more sustainable use and management of limited lands.
3. HB 115 (Indigenous Community Conserved Areas)
The proposed ICCA could be considered as an additional tool for land management covering protected area or biodiversity conservation areas that have been identified in the country. It is meant to complement the existing management regimes for protected areas as well as complement/integrated into local land use plans. The completion of the land information and land administration reforms issues – land information and mapping system, unified land tenure and titling system, among others will enhance the effectiveness of the ICCA as a ‘on-site management’ tool for protected areas/biodiversity areas. m
28
The Philippines covers a land area of approximately 30 million hectares generally classified into two major categories: alienable and disposable lands (A&D), and
forestlands (non-A&D) which is also commonly referred to as the public domain.
Status of tenure reform in public lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
Michele Robin Esplana and Antonio B. Quizon, ANGOC
Alienable and disposable (A&D) lands refer to those areas which may be issued with permanent title and/or used for varying purposes such as for residential, agricultural, commercial and other uses. These A&D lands cover an estimated 14.2 million hectares.
On the other hand, the remaining 15.8 million hectares is classified as forestland (non-A&D) which are lands deemed as belonging to the state or community, and cannot be alienated unless provided for by law.
It should be noted that as in other Asian countries, the term “forestland” in the Philippine context refers to all property owned (or claimed) by the state based on the official system of land classification. It is a legal and tenurial status, not a botanical
description, as in reality much “forestland” may not contain forests or trees.
The primary government agency managing forestlands is the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). As of 2015, about 53 percent of the country’s total land area are claimed as state-owned forestlands (FMB-DENR, 2015), thus making DENR responsible for the management for over half of the country’s total land area.
In addition to these forestlands, there are certified A&D lands that still remain under the direct management of the DENR, although their exact figures are unavailable.
Roughly 20 to 30 percent of the population live in classified forestlands, including indigenous
peoples, many of whom are without security of tenure.
An estimated 17 to 22 million people who depend on forests for their homes and livelihoods have no legal tenure rights over forestlands (Fortenbacher and Alave, 2014). Although various government initiatives have been developed to secure tenure over forestlands, poverty prevails over communi-ties residing in those areas. Studies conducted on behalf of GIZ show that upland settlers having an average household size of 4.7 people only acquires between PhP23 and PhP52 per person, which is below the World Bank-defined poverty line of 1.25 US$ a day (Fortenbacher and Alave, 2014). In addition to this, FAO and DENR data puts the annual deforestation rate at about 100,000 hectares in 2014, further contributing to the marginalization of the forest dwellers (as cited by Fortenbacher and Alave, 2014).
Tenure over forestlands can mean sustenance for the poor as well as protection of natural
29
resources. It is in this context that this study aims to review the implementation of agrarian and tenure reform involving public lands as provided for under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
This report provides a brief summary of the evolution of tenure reforms in the manage-ment and disposition of public lands, reviews the role of DENR in implementing CARP, describes DENR’s accomplishments on tenure reform, and identifies some issues emerging from DENR’s implementation of tenure reform.
This report is based mainly on secondary data gathered from DENR and other sources, as well
as on discussions with DENR and some civil society organizations working on land issues. Public lands and the evolution of its management: A brief historical narrative of Philippine tenure reform in forestlands1
Prior to the colonization of the Philippines, land was considered a communal property. Rather than ownership, people had the right to access land for cultivation. It was during the Spanish colonization that through various royal decrees, the control andmanagement of the land and
1 Some of this historical narrative is based on: Pulhin, J., Dizon, J., Cruz, R. V., Gevana, D., & Dahal, G. (2008). Tenure Reform on Philippine Forest Lands: Assessment of Socio-economic and Environmental Impacts. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: College of Forestry and Natural Resources.
natural resources were placed on the hands of the state. In 1894, the Maura Act institutionalized this foreign notion of state ownership by making it an imperative for undocumented property rights to be transferred to the state. The US colonial government used the same notion by promoting the Regalian Doctrine. Documented land title being a foreign idea, Filipinos ended up losing their rights to land either to the state or to the elites. Among those most affected were indigenous peoples.
State ownership of all lands in the public domain was further strengthened by the 1935 and 1973 constitutions. Commonwealth Act 141, known as the Public Land Act of 1936,
30
established the systems of classification, administration and distribution of public lands by the state.
Meanwhile, local communities, especially upland dwellers in public lands were largely considered squatters in their own homes. They remained unable to access lands and forest resources. Those practicing kaingin or shifting cultivation were further blamed for forest destruction which was estimated at a rate of 200,000 hectares per year by the year 1960s (Makil 1982 as cited by Pulhin, et. al, 2008). The Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines in 1972 carried out by the Bureau of Forest Development (BFD) was among the first mechanisms to rehabilitate forests with the participation of local communities. However, most mechanisms did not provide land tenure security, and forest dwellers were rather seen as cheap labor for reforestation. The Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP) was formed in 1982 granting local communities the right to access and cultivate upland areas, and secure tenure for 25 years. As a program approach, the ISF sought to address ecological stability and enhance socio-economic conditions of forest occupants and communities in open and deforested upland areas, and mangrove areas.
Letter of Instruction (LOI) 1260 of 1982 recognized the “concept of man’s new role of stewardship
over our natural resources” as enshrined under the 1973 Constitution”; the law provided for kaingineros and other forest occupants in identified kaingin settlements to be included under ISFP, through 25-year stewardship contracts.
Although the objectives of social forestry included alleviation from poverty of forest dwellers and forest rehabilitation, its true intentions were questioned because of its limited coverage. The total area under ISFP during 1986 was only 446,156 hectares, while 159 timber licenses covered a total area of 5.85 million hectares (Pulhin, et. al, 2008). Recovering from deforestation cannot be done with this meager effort whilst continuing massive logging activities. Meanwhile, there were some initial efforts at tenure reform in public lands. In 1974, Presidential Decree 410 declared ancestral lands occupied and cultivated by national cultural minorities as alienable and disposable. It provided for the issuance of Land Occupancy Certificates to members of national cultural minorities, to cover family-sized farm lots not exceeding five hectares each.2 PD 410 was the first policy that recognized indigenous peoples’ (IP) rights to public lands and forests; however, it did not provide for collective
2 Presidential Decree No. 410 dated March 11, 1974: “Declaring ancestral lands occupied and cultivated by national cultural minorities as alienable and disposable, and for other purposes”.
rights nor recognize their rights to ancestral domains.
It was during the transition from Marcos regime to the Aquino administration that tenure policies involving public lands became anchored on social justice and equity. After the EDSA people power revolution in 1986, Executive Order (EO) 192 was promulgated mandating the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain. At that time, DENR’s tasks already included the distribution of A&D public lands through patents, and the issuance of leasehold agreements as decreed by the Public Land Act of 1936. However, EO 192 emphasized the principle of “equitable access” in the management of the country’s natural resources – as part of state policy and in accordance with the 1987 Constitution. In 1987, EO 228 was promulgated providing qualified farmer beneficiaries the right to acquire land ownership. Subsequently, EO 229 provided the mechanics to implement the comprehensive agrarian reform program, to include public lands. Section 15 of EO 229 provided for the
31
distribution of public A & D lands under DENR, while Section 18 recognized the rights of settlers and of indigenous communities in public lands.3 These two decrees provided the framework for the passage of RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, or CARP) that mandated the redistribution of both private and public agricultural lands to landless farmers and farmworkers. Section 2 of RA 6657 further provided for “the principle of distribution or stewardship, wherever applicable, in the disposition or utilization of lands of the public domain.” (emphasis supplied). Although CARP included parts of the public lands for distribution, it was not enough to address environmental degradation in the state-held forestlands. To address this insufficiency, the earlier ISF programs and recognition of ancestral domains were integra-ted into the Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) Program that was instituted in 1995 through EO 263 (Fortenbacher and Alave, 2014). The CBFM program mandates DENR through its Community and Provincial Environment and Natural Resource Offices, in coordination 3 Section 15 of EO 229 states: “Distribution and Utilization of Public Lands. — All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain for agriculture and outside proclaimed settlements shall be distributed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to qualified beneficiaries as certified to jointly by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the DENR. Section 18 of EO 229 further states: “In lands of the public domain, the CARP shall respect prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.”
with local government units and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to grant participating communities access to forestland resources under long term tenurial agreements, provided they employ environment-friendly, ecologically-sustainable, and labor-intensive harvesting methods.
Other major tenure reforms involving public lands were legislated following the new Philippine Constitution of 1987, and the institution of CARP in 1988. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA/RA 8371) recognizes four substantive rights of indigenous peoples: (i) the right to ancestral domains and lands, (ii) the right to self-governance, (iii) the right to cultural integrity, and (iv) social justice and human rights.4 Meanwhile, the Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550) covers rights of artisanal fisherfolk to foreshore areas, inland and municipal waters. Role of DENR in CARP implementation
Instituted in 1988, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program seeks to redistribute some 9 million hectares to 6 million landless farmers and
4 Under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, the definition of ancestral domains covers forests, pastures, residential and agricultural lands, hunting grounds, worship and burial areas, and includes lands no longer occupied exclusively by indigenous cultural communities, but to which they had traditional access, particularly the home ranges of indigenous cultural communities who are still nomadic or shifting cultivators.
farmworkers.5 It covers all public and private agricultural lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture. The law states that ancestral lands being inhabited by indigenous cultural communities are protected and reserved for their use, and therefore would not fall under redistribution. Exempted from CARP among others, are all lands with a slope of more than 18%, as well as reserved lands such as national parks, forest reserves, fish sanctuaries and watersheds. Also exempted are lands used in the national or public interest such as for national defense and education and experimental farms, church and mosque sites, cemeteries and the like.6
For CARP implementation, all private and government-owned lands are distributed under the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Meanwhile, lands classified as alienable and disposable (A&D) in the public domain, as well as non-A&D lands in reserved forestlands lie within the jurisdiction of the DENR.
Under CARP, the DENR is mandated to undertake three general tasks: (1) land disposition of public agricultural lands; (2) support for the land acquisition and distribution process by conducting surveys of public A&D lands and the inspection, verification and approval of
5 The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was instituted in 1987 through RA 6657. In 2009, the law was amended through RA 9700. 6 Sec 4 on Scope, and Sec 10 on Exemptions and Exclusions, Republic Act No. 6657.
32
surveys for the Department of Agrarian Reform; and, (3) provision of technical/operational support to the program. These three major tasks are described below:
1. Land distribution
There are two modalities for the distribution of land under DENR.
First, public A&D lands suitable for agriculture are distributed to farmer beneficiaries through the processing and issuance of free patents and homestead patents. According to the website of the Land Management Bureau, a free patent is a mode of acquiring a parcel of public A&D land suitable for agricultural purposes through the “administrative confirmation of imperfect and incomplete title,” while homestead patent is a mode of acquiring public A&D
lands for agricultural purposes “conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence.” The qualifications for applying for free and homestead patents are enumerated in Table 1.
The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO), Regional Executive of the DENR (RED) and the DENR Secretary is authorized to sign and approve free and homestead patents for lands not more than 5 hectares, lands more than 5 hectares up to 10 hectares, and lands more than 10 hectares, respectively.
Other patents issued by DENR to dispose of public lands are Miscellaneous Sales7, for 7 The enactment of Republic Act 10023 or the New Residential Free Patent Act on 09 March 2010 authorizes the issuance of Residential Free Patents in lieu of Miscellaneous Sales on residential lands that are zoned as residential areas, including town sites as defined under the Public Land Act.
disposing public A&D lands for residential purposes and Sales Patents, for disposing public A&D lands at public auction through sealed bidding.
Second, DENR also allocates portions of forestlands suitable for agro-forestry by means of stewardship – through the issuance of Certificates of Stewardship Contract (CSCs) to individual families, and Community-Based Forest Management Agreements (CBFMAs) to organizations and local communities.
CBFM aims to promote sustainable management of forest resources, provide social justice to and improve well-being of local communities, and foster strong partnership among local communities and
Table 1. Qualifications for free and homestead patent applicants
Qualifications Free Patent Homestead patent
Age No age requirement Note: If the applicant is a minor, he should be duly represented by his natural parents or legal guardian and has been occupying and cultivating the area applied for either by himself or his predecessors-in-interest
At least 18 years, or head of familyNote: A married woman can apply (as per DENR Administrative Order 2002-13)
Citizenship Natural-born citizen of the Philippines Citizen of the Philippines
Maximum area of landholding
Under the Public Land Act (CA 141) of 1936: 24 hectaresUnder RA 9176 (Free Patent Law) of 2002: 12 hectares
Under 1973 Constitution: 24 hectaresUnder 1987 Constitution: 12 hectaresNote: Under DENR Memorandum Circular 22 dated Nov. 20, 1989, the titling limit was reduced to 5 hectares in line with the RA 6657, or the 1988 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
Occupation of the land Must have occupied and cultivated the land for at least 30 years
Must have resided for at least 1 year within, or adjacent to the municipality where the land is located
Cultivation of the land Land must be fully cultivated At least 1/5 of the land has been cultivated within 6 months from the date of approval of application
Source: DENR Land Management Bureau (DENR-LMB)
33
the DENR. It provides security of tenure to forest communities in using and developing forestland and resources for 25 years. CBFM areas are lands classified as forest lands including allowable zones within the protected areas not covered by prior vested rights. The principal participants of this program are local communities including indigenous peoples represented by their People’s Organization (PO) and traditional tribal councils whose members are: (1) actually tilling portions of the area to be awarded, or (2) traditionally using the resource for all substantial portion for their livelihood, or (3) residing in or adjacent to the areas to be awarded. DENR in partnership with the local government unit (LGU) is responsible for identifying potential CBFM sites, planning forest land uses with communities, endorsing and issuing CBFMAs, organizing and preparing CBFM communities for their CBFMAs, provide technical assistance and skills training for CBFM communities, and monitor progress and environmental impact of CBFM activities. As for the POs, their roles involving CBFM communities include joining DENR and LGU in making a forest land use plan and prepare a Community Resources Management Framework (CRMF) including the mission and objectives of POs, represent the interest of their forest communities, and protect and maintain forest land entrusted to their stewardship.
2. Support activities to land acquisition and distribution
In addition to distribution of public agricultural lands and allocation of forest lands for CBFMs, DENR also provides support to land acquisition and distribution by conducting surveys of public A&D lands and non-A&D lands. As indicated in the DENR-CARP 20-Year Report (1987-2007), DENR conducted the following activities:l Survey of public A&D lands
– Cadastral surveys– Isolated or public land
surveyl Survey of private agricultural
lands (1987-1993)8
– Rice and corn lands– Voluntary offer to sell
(VOS) lands, idle and abandoned lands
– Lands with total area of 5.01-24.0 hectares, 24.01- 50 hectares and lands in excess of 50 hectares
l Survey of Government-owned lands (1987-1993)9
lSurvey of forest areas under the CBFM program– Perimeter and parcellary
survey)
l Inspection, verification and approval of surveys (IVAS) of
8 DENR conducted and funded this activity under CARP Fund from CY 1987 to 1993. The survey of private agricultural lands was transferred to DAR in 1993 following a Resolution of the Executive Committee of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC).9 DENR conducted and funded this activity under CARP fund from CY 1990 to 1993. Similar to the case of private lands, this task surveying government-owned lands was likewise transferred to DAR following a PARC Executive Committee Resolution.
private lands surveyed by the DAR
lInventory of forest occupantslInventory of A&D landslReconstitution of survey
recordslInformation and Education
Campaign (IEC)
3. Technical and operational support
Lastly, DENR also provides technical and operation support services including staff development, infrastructure support, extension services, community organization, training for upland farmers, program beneficiary development (PBD), and development of CBFM-CARP areas.
Accomplishments of DENR under CARP
LAND DISTRIBUTION
Changes in target scope. At the onset of CARP in 1988, it was estimated that the whole program would cover some 10.3 million hectares of which approximately two-thirds are public A&D lands as well as forested lands under DENR (LBRMO, 2014). However, these initial target figures were based largely on estimates, given the poor state of land records in 1988.The original CARP target was scaled down to 8.2 million hectares after the 1993 “cleansing of data”. Then in 2006, DAR conducted an inventory of CARP scope (ICS) to determine the
34
actual CARP scope balance. This led to another revision of CARP scope to 9 million hectares (see Table 2 below).
On the part of DENR, the original target scope for public A&D lands was reduced from 4.6 million hectares in 1988, to 2.5 million hectares in 1994, following the completed inventory of public lands earlier classified as “A&D” lands. This reduction was due to: the inventory of lands covered by previous Presidential Proclamations for use of the government, proclamations for DAR resettlement areas including KKK areas already transferred to DAR under EO 407, judicially-titled lands from 1987 to 1994 based on records of the Land Registration Authority, and unclassified lands
earlier projected to be released as A&D but released as forestlands, which cover 2 million hectares.
For ISF/CBFM areas, the original target scope of 1.88 million hectares in 1989 was reduced to 1.27 million hectares in 1994, after the verification of data.
Under the revised CARP scope in 2006, there were no changes in the DENR-CARP target scope.
Accomplishments. From July 1987 to December 2015, a total of 2,415,079 land patents covering 2,538,222 hectares of public agricultural A&D lands were issued by DENR, representing an average of 1.05 hectares granted to each beneficiary-family. This also represents a 101%
accomplishment of the revised scope of 2.5 million hectares.
Geographically, Regions I and III (Ilocos and Central Luzon) have the lowest percentage of accomplishment with only 68% and 66% respectively. On the other hand, Regions II, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIII and CAR have exceeded their target scope in distributing public A&D lands.
On average, it was during Estrada administration (1998-2000) that distribution of public agricultural A&D lands was lowest, accomplishing only 36% of its set target. The highest percentage of accomplishment was during the Arroyo administration (2001-2010) with 94%.
Table 2. CARP Scope, Original vs Revised Scope, by Agency and by Land Type
Agency/ Land Type Original Scope
(1988)
Revised Scope (1994) Revised Scope (2006)
DAR
Private Agricultural Lands (ha) 3,267,600 3,093,251 3,353,784
Non-Private Agricultural Lands (ha) 553,000 1,335,106 1,809,967
DAR Sub-Total (Area/ha) 3,820,600 4,428,357 5,163,751
(Beneficiaries) 1,553,610 2,604,916 3,017,254
DENR
Public Alienable and Disposable Lands (ha) 4,595,000 2,502,000 2,502,000
ISF/CBFM Areas (ha) 1,880,000 1,269,411 1,269,411*
DENR Sub-Total (Area in ha) 6,475,000 3,771,411 3,771,411
(Beneficiaries)** 2,347,667 --- ---
TOTAL CARP
Area in ha 10,295,000 8,199,768 9,001,750
Beneficiaries 3,901,277 --- ---Source: Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (2008). CARP at 20: A Performance Report, June 2009. Notes: *In the PARC Secretariat report of 2009, this figure is listed differently as “1,335.999”. However, the PARC report explains that the 2006 DENR target was adjusted simply to account for the additional 66,588 hectares accomplished in excess of its target as of CY 2000. This means that there was no actual change in DENR program targets for in 2006, as reflected in this revised Table 2. (authors)** The number of target beneficiaries in 1995 for ISF/CBFM areas was not indicated.
35
Overall, the high accomplishment rates reflect the nature of the program. The distribution of A&D lands is based on vested rights (i.e., 30 years of continuous residency and cultivation in the case of free patents), there is no landlord resistance or agrarian disputes as in private lands, and land is generally awarded for free (no land valuation). The bottlenecks in implementation, however, usually involved delays in undertaking land surveys, slow reconstitution of land records, and sluggish resolution of land conflicts among competing claimants.10
Under ISF/CBFM agreements, families and communities in forestlands are granted usufruct rights to a maximum of seven (7) hectares per family for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years, in exchange for forest protection and renewable use. Until 1998, the beneficiaries of Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) were granted individual Certificates of Stewardship Contract (CSCs) per family. But with the program shift towards CBFM in 1998, groups and communities were granted CBFM Agreements which granted them collective tenure rights. This group tenure approach greatly facilitated the implementation of the program.
10 Email communications with the DENR-CARP National Coordinating Office, 15 June 2016.
For forestlands, DENR reported that the ISF/CBFM program under CARP was officially completed by December 2000.11 The ISF/CBFM program achieved 105% of the target scope that was established in 1994. As of end-year of 2000, some 338,381 beneficiaries were reportedly issued stewardship contracts (leases or usufruct rights) to 1,335,999 hectares of agro-forestry area for an average of 3.9 hectares per household. However, a closer examination of the data available also shows that, included in the reported DENR-CARP accomplishments are 293,365 hectares that were accomplished even prior to the promulgation of RA 6657, or the CARP Law in 1988, and EO 229 in 1987. These are landholdings covered from 1983-1986 through the issuance of Certificates of Community Forest Stewardship (CCFS) and Certificates of Stewardship Contract (CSC).
Again, it may be noted here that the legal tenure instruments for
11 It should be noted that, even after the official completion of the ISF/CBFM program under CARP in CY 2000, the ISF/CBFM program itself continues to be implemented by the DENR until the time of this writing.
Integrated Social Forestry had been instituted in the Philippines as early as 1982.
SUPPORT TO LAND ACQUISTION AND DISTRIBUTION (LAD)
From 1983-2015, DENR conducted land surveys in support to the LAD component of CARP (refer to Table 4). It has to be noted that the conduct of surveys involving private agricultural lands and government-owned lands was undertaken by DENR until 1993, after which it was transferred to DAR following a PARC Executive Committee resolution. After 2000, cadastral land surveys were conducted by the local government units (LGUs).
As shown in Table 4 (next page), in terms of public land surveys, DENR has completed 608,043 lots covering 1,096,634 hectares as of end-2015. Public land surveys are conducted for securing patents, leases and permits. According to the DENR accomplishment report for 2015, the total land area of public A&D lands distributed through free patents is 2,538,222 hectares. DENR on average has been able to survey 57,717
Activity Revised Target Scope, 2006 (ha)
Accomplishment July 1987 to Dec 2015 (ha)
Accomplishment as % of Target Scope
No. of Beneficiaries
Public A&D lands 2,502,000 2,538,219 101.4 2,415,079*
ISF/CBFM areas 1,269,411 1,335,999 105.2 338,381
TOTAL 3,771,411 3,874,218 102.7 2,753,460
Table 3. Overall DENR-CARP Status of Land Distribution, July 1987 to Dec 2015
Source: DENR, 2015b * This figure actually refers to the number of free patents issued, which is also used here to account for the number of beneficiary-households under the distribution of public A&D lands under CARP.
36
hectares of public land yearly from 1996 to 2015. The conduct of the Public Land Survey in CY 1996 to 2015 that was funded under the Agrarian Reform Fund was mainly to subdivide the large cadastral lot or to subdivide the big landholdings in order to generate patentable areas.
The inspection, verification and approval of land surveys conducted by DAR (IVAS) is a DENR service in support of the land distribution program of DAR. It is a survey of lands subsequently issued with CLOAs.
As of December 2015, DAR has distributed a total of 4.718 million hectares of land to 2.783 million agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) through emancipation patents (EPs) and certificates of land ownership awards (CLOAs). From this, DENR has been able to identify a total of 14,835 lots or 16,356 hectares of land surveys for correction, 1,159 lots or 1,455 hectares of land surveys for rejection and had verified and approved a total of 55,853 lots
or 88,250 hectares. Region IX has the largest scope of land survey for correction with a total of 1,797 lots or 3,003 hectares. Following region IX are regions VI and V with 2,966 and 2,865 hectares of land survey with corrections. Only regions III, IVB, XII and XIII have rejected land surveys with region XII having the largest scope of 1,034 hectares of surveyed land. However region XII also has the third largest scope in terms of verified and approved land survey with 17,437 hectares.
TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL SUPPORT
Studies on CBFM implementation often cite that the lack of support services to the farmer-beneficiaries of public lands as one of its most common problems. In a 2009 case study on selected CBFM areas conducted by DAR, it was found that support services to farmer-beneficiaries in these areas are not provided because the lands given to them become “private property” once it is awarded to them. Even monitoring of the
farmer-beneficiaries in public A&D lands after the award are not conducted. As indicated in DENR CARP 20-Year Report, support services were provided in 110 CBFM sites (average of 7 CBFM-CARP sites/region) all over the country by the Department in 2000-2002. This includes PO strengthening and capacity building activities such as income generating projects (e. g. livestock raising), financial management training, livelihood enterprise development, forest area development and management, infrastructure development, and marketing information system to mention a few. In 2007 and 2008, a budget allotment of PhP30 million per year was allocated under the Agrarian Reform Fund to the DENR to provide support services to an additional 65 CBFM-CARP areas (DAR, 2009). In support of hunger mitigation and upland development, 762 hectares of agroforestry farms were developed in 2007, involving 8,393 beneficiaries within 35 project sites (DAR, 2009). In 2008, 1,585 hectares of agro-forestry farms involving 5,238 beneficiaries were developed in another 30 project sites (DAR, 2009).
Assessment and areas for further study
Public lands are an important resource in reducing rural poverty and in mitigating the impacts of poverty by providing livelihood to the poor. Through CARP, farmers and forest dwellers
Activity No of Lots Area (in ha)
Private agricultural lands (1987-1993) 542,533 722,220
Government owned lands (1990-1993) 138,764 300,221
Cadastral survey (1988-2000) 1,448,142 2,726,452
Public land survey (1996-2015) 608,043 1,096,634
Inspection, verification and approval of land surveys conducted by DAR (1992-2015)
6,192,620 7,486,135
Parcellary survey (under CBFM program) - 1,101,502
Perimeter survey (under CBFM program) - 263,772
Table 4. Summary of DENR support activities to Land Acquisition and Distribution (LAD) under CARP, as of end-2015
Source: (DENR, 2015a)
37
are enabled to acquire tenure security over public lands, either through the issuance of land patents in A&D lands, or through 25-year lease agreements in non-A&D forestlands. This is significant in a country where an estimated 20-30 percent of the population live in public lands, and depend on it for their livelihoods.
And based on DENR’s reported CARP accomplishments, some 2,753,460 families have directly benefitted from the redistribution of public lands (through patents and leaseholds) between July 1987 to December 2015.
The institution of CARP in 1988 provided the impetus for the expansion of tenure reform into public lands. It should be noted that the legal instruments for DENR’s tenure-related programs already existed prior to CARP in 1988. The Public Land Act of 1936 (CA 141) provided for the administrative distribution of A&D lands, while the Integrated Social Forestry Program on forestlands was instituted as early as 1982. However, the inclusion of these programs under CARP made them a national priority, with a stronger focus on equitable distribution, tenure rights and security for the poor. It also involved the allocation of program budgets, setting up pro-active accomplishment targets and monitoring systems, and undertaking inter-agency coordination under the Presidential Agrarian Reform Committee (PARC).
For the issuance of land patents, the Public Land Act of 1936 had to be amended in 2002 through Republic Act 9176, in order to extend the period for administrative filing of patent applications until 31 December 2020.12 Under CARP, agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) were also exempted from the payment of fees in the issuance of titles and patents. Moreover, the distribution of A&D lands became pro-active, with established accomplishment targets, unlike earlier when the role of DENR was merely administrative by processing claims and applications.
However, there is a need to clarify the DENR’s targets and accomplishment in relation to distribution of public agricultural A&D lands. There is a reported accomplishment rate of 101% for A&D lands; however, the land classification data seems to show that there is a much greater scope than the earlier established targets, and that the CARP targets were set too low.l The land classification system
of the country shows that vast tracts of lands remain unclassified. Based on the Philippine Forestry Statistics of 2015, some 755,009 hectares of the public domain remain “unclassified”.
l The DENR accomplishment report on the distribution of
12 Section 45 of Commonwealth Act 141 set 31 December 1976 as the original deadline for the administrative filing of patent applications. This was amended by Republic Act 9176 which extended the deadline to 31 December 2020.
A&D lands shows that, despite a 101% accomplishment rate, there is a remaining “balance” of 36,219 hectares still to be covered. This raises a question about how much classified A&D lands still remains under the management of DENR.
Similarly, there is a need to clarify the DENR’s accomplishment in relation to the allocation of forestlands for ISF/CBFMs, and whether the targets were set too low. For ISF/CBFM lands under CARP, DENR reported its early completion in CY 2000, with an accomplishment of 1,335,999 hectares, or 105% accomplishment rate of its CARP target. Included in the reported DENR-CARP accomplishment report are 293,365 hectares that were completed even prior to the promulgation of EO 229 in 1987 and RA 6657 in 1988. Also, even after CY 2000, DENR continued to expand and implement its CBFM program.
Thus, the Philippine Forestry Statistics of 2015 shows that a total of 1,615,598 hectares of forestland are under CBFM Agreements as of December 2015. This means that around 280,000 hectares under CBFMAs lie outside the scope of CARP, or have not been included in the reporting for CARP. Another indication that these lands no longer fall under the CARP program is the average size of leased lands per family. While CARP sets a ceiling of 5 hectares per family under ISF/CBFM leasehold, the average size
38
of CBFM awards per member (or per family) as computed from data is 8.4 hectares. Is CBFMA therefore seen as a tenure instrument, or is it now considered more as a conservation program? Case studies on the impact of CBFM have found that DENR has benefitted from the program by relying on the CSC/CBFMA holders to improve the forest condition in the Philippines (Carig, 2012; Pulhin et al, 2008). But while CBFM may have improved the state of environmental protection, in what way have the lives, tenure security and livelihoods of forest dwellers been improved? In the three study areas of DAR’s case study in 2009 on CBFMAs, the prominent problem found was the lack of support services for farmer beneficiaries. It also found the lack of monitoring of DENR on the implementation of CBFM-CARP projects.
Also, the fact that CBFMAs are issued within ancestral domains of indigenous peoples seem to indicate that CBFM might now be seen more as a conservation measure than as a tenure instrument. For instance, DENR Administrative Order (AO) No. 96-29 provides for the issuance of CADC-CBFMAs on lands under ancestral domain claim and CALC-CBFMAs on lands under ancestral land claim, provided they opt to participate.13 This raises a question of which is the more appropriate 13 DENR AO 96-29 is entitled “Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of Executive Order 263, Otherwise Known as the Community-Based Forest Management Strategy (CBFMS)”.
as a tenurial instrument – a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim, or a CBFMA? Further, there is need to study and review whether and to what extent individual families under group tenure systems such as CBFM are able to exercise and enjoy their full rights of tenure. Under CBFM, agreements are forged with people’s organizations, communities and even local governments. There is always the danger that privileges and benefits are captured by the leaders or local elite, especially in the absence of regular monitoring. Thus a key question for study is whether the improved tenure actually leads to improvements in family livelihoods.
Finally, there are several areas that need further study:
First is the issue of conflict and overlapping tenure instruments and management schemes, especially on lands of indige-nous peoples. On average, a CBFMA covers 858 hectares and 102 families. As such CBFMAs cover relatively smaller parcels within larger tenure and management regimes, which include ancestral domains, national parks and protected areas, mineral lands, timber and forest concessions, and lands managed through local governments. Moreover, CBFM and CSC are just two among the many tenure instruments that cover forestlands and other public lands. In many instances, overlapping tenure instruments and management schemes
affect indigenous peoples – as when CBFMAs are issued to settlers within areas under ancestral domain claims. On occasion, resource use conflicts contribute to weak compliance, a deadlock of socioeconomic activities, and eruptions of armed violence. There are a number of written cases of this, and this matter needs further study.14
Second is the issue of reforming untitled public agricultural lands (UPAL). UPAL lands are untitled public lands under private use or occupation, which are often leased out by “landowners” to their tenants. But because they involved public lands, they cannot be redistributed by DAR. Neither can the land be legally titled or awarded by DENR, as it is under a prior claim yet the claimant refuses or else ignores the filing for a land patent in the case of A&D lands. The result is that the land in question remains in limbo. Although policies have been instituted by both DAR and DENR on this matter, the issue persists.15 There are no exact figures on the extent of UPAL 14 See De Vera, David and Zingapan, Raquel. Task Force Cumadun: Collaborative Planning for an Ancestral Domain. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF). The paper discusses the issues faced by the Agtulawon-Mintapod Higa-onon Cumadun (AGMIHICU), an association of indigenous Higa-onons, in implementing an Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP) in 10,054.88 hectares of forest lands in Barangay Hagpa, Impasug-ong, Bukidnon. The ancestral domain is located in the planning area of a municipal watershed, a Barangay development plan, the Mt. Kimangkil Natural Park Protected Area, a CBFMA, and the concession area of an abandoned Timber License Agreement.15 This includes the Joint DAR-DENR Administrative Order No 3, Series of 2014 entitled “Guidelines in the disposition of privately-claimed agricultural land”.
39
lands, although at one time it was estimated that some 200 thousand hectares of lands under CARP consisted of UPAL lands. The issues surrounding UPAL lands are often captured only through specific case studies.16
Third is the need for program-wide impact studies of DENR-CARP implementation. Many if not all of the impact studies conducted on CARP have focused solely on the work of DAR and on the impact of agrarian reform on private and government-owned lands. The impact of DENR-CARP work is covered mainly through case studies, rather than on a program-wide scale. And although many studies have been conducted on CBFM they often focus on environmental impact and resource management, rather than on tenure security and people’s livelihoods.
Finally, there is a question of whether the reform of ‘public’ lands will continue under CARP and DENR. Through Republic Act 9700, Congress set the date of 30 June 2014 as the deadline for completion of land acquisition and distribution of private lands by the DAR under CARP. As the redistribution of private lands, and the work of DAR begins to wane, what will happen to the land tenure work of DENR?
16 Among the documented cases involving UPAL lands are on the Maningat Estate in Tuy, Batangas, by the Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (CARRD) and on coconut tenants in Homonhon Island in Guian, Eastern Samar, by KAISAHAN.
For ISF/CBFM holders, there is an approaching need to apply for renewal of their 25-year leases, as CARP was instituted in 1988. Who decides which CBFM areas would continue? What would happen to those whose agreements are ended, what compensation would be given to them?
It should be noted that the policy instruments and programs for tenure reform in public lands continue to exist. These include the distribution of A&D lands, and the granting of usufruct rights under CBFMAs. However, in the absence of a CARP program framework in public lands there is a danger of tenure reforms being ignored by the bureaucracy. m
40
ANGOC wishes to thank Mr. Henry Pacis and his team in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (DENR-CARP) National Coordinating Office for the assistance provided during the data gathering and co-organizing the round table discussion with ANGOC and ILC.
ANGOC also thanks Marianne Naungayan for providing assistance in research and editing this paper.
Selection of communities
The communities were selected based on the recommendations of Datu Johnny Guina and Datu Rio Besto, the Kalatungan Tribal Council president and vice-president, respectively. They have recommended these communities with the bases of strong tribal organization and the urgency of the need for them to have an ADSDPP. Aside from the Kalatungan Tribal Council, there are also consultations with
the Kalatungan-Protected Area Superintendent (PASu) and the Indigenous People’s Apostolate (IPA), an IP organization of the Diocese of Malaybalay. Following the recommendations of these institutions, XSF-ILG has selected Nagkahiusang Manobo nga Manununod sa Yutang Kabilin (NAMAMAYUK), Bayawon, Lungayan Lukday, Pendonay, Tandakol Tribal Association (BLLUPENTTRAS), Mangayahay Talaandig Tribal Association (MANTALA), and the Tumindok Association.
NAMAMAYUK is an Indigenous People’s Organization (IPO) of the Manobo people of Pangantucan. Their Ancestral Domain (AD) includes the highlands of Barangay Bacusanon and Namabaliwa. It also includes contested parts of Barangay Dominorog. In the boundaries of their Ancestral Domain is a large banana plantation. There are also farm companies that took interest on their lands. The community leaders feared that these plantations and farm companies might penetrate their lands. The community already had a bad experience with logging companies during the late 1980s. They would not want to experience that again. The ADSDPP and the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) would greatly help them secure their land and resources.
BLLUPENTTRAS, MANTALA, and Tumindok are IPOs of the
The National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) has prescribed the guidelines of the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP)
in its Administrative Order No. 1 in 2004. The Xavier Science Foundation - Institute of Land Governance (XSF-ILG) consulted NCIP before the start of the ADSDPP formulation. The XSF- ILG has assured the NCIP that the guidelines shall be upheld and XSF-ILG would only help facilitate the formulation of ADSDPP and not formulate the ADSDPP itself. The ADSDPP, as the guidelines have reiterated, shall be made by the Indigenous People (IP) themselves but can seek help from any institution or individuals to help them.
Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP): A Facilitation Process Report
Ralph Christopher Escalera, Institute of Land Governance – Xavier Science Foundation, Inc.
41
This article summarizes the processes undertaken in the formulation of ADSDPPs of the two tribes in Kalatungan, Bukidnon. The complete ADSPPs are uploaded in the NES Philippine website (ilc-nes.ph/).
Talaandig people of Valencia City. They decided to unify their claim to their Ancestral Domain because of their common ancestry. These communities are claiming their Ancestral Domain since the IPRA was made into law but up until now the CADT has not been awarded to them. The BLLUPENTTRAS, MANTALA, and Tumindok are hoping that the ADSDPP would not only hasten the awarding of CADT but also bring development in their community.
Rapid assessment
As soon as the communities were identified the tribal leaders were gathered and conducted a rapid assessment in their
respective communities. The rapid assessment was conducted using the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools. The PRA tools are effective and appropriate methods to be used in getting data from the community because it is simple, creative, and visual. This will help the community examine and analyze their situations.
The PRA tool that was used to collect ecological data is the Historical Transect. This tool aims to collect data on the changes that occurred in the community for the past decades. This also enables the leaders to review the reasons for these changes. The tribal leaders were asked to identify the changes that happened in their forests, river systems, and the
wildlife and they also identified the reasons for these changes.
The Rapid Assessment also aims to generate data on the basic services available in the communities, thus the use of the Service Map was appropriate. In making the Service Map, a large circle was drawn at the center of a manila paper, which represents the community. The tribal leaders were asked what available services there are inside their community. These include educational services (schools), health facilities (hospital, health centers, pharmacy), utility services (water, electricity), transportation, and police facilities. These services were listed down. The services that could be found inside the
42
community were placed inside the circle, and the distance of the service from the center indicates its accessibility.
Another PRA tool that was used in the Rapid Assessment is the Organizational Matrix. The organizational matrix is an important rating tool to evaluate the government agencies with mandates to support the communities. For this assessment, nine (9) government agencies were identified and listed, as they were deemed important in securing good quality of life for the tribes. The roles and responsibilities of each agency were discussed first to them. Then, the tribal leaders rate each agency from five (5) as the highest and zero (0) as the lowest including the reasons for such rating and suggestions for improvements.
Visiting the community
XSF-ILG, together with Datu Johnny Guina, President of Kalatungan Tribal Council and Datu Rio Besto, the Vice-President, visited the communities of the NAMAMAYUK in Sitio San Guinto, Bacusanon, Pangantucan, and the Tumindok in Barangay Lourdes, Valencia City and the BLLUPENTTRAS in Sitio Tandakol, Lilingayon, Valencia City. The team was not able to visit the community of MANTALA in Sitio Migtulod, Barangay Mt. Nebo, Valencia City because of the bad weather condition.
The visit was important because XSF-ILG established rapport with the communities. Through this visit, XSF-ILG was able to see of the situations of the communities. This also allows XSF-ILG to assess and plan how the fieldwork operation shall proceed. Planning for the next activities was also done during these visits.
The ritual
For the Indigenous People of Mindanao, a ritual or “pamuhat” is tremendously important before starting a very important undertaking. To mark the official engagement of XSF- ILG to the communities, a ritual took place. The ritual is done to invoke the blessing of Magbabaya (God) and the Spirits. The ADSDPP formulation workshops
XSF-ILG has conducted the workshops separately for the Manobo group of Pangantucan,
the NAMAMAYUK and the Talaandig Group of Valencia City, Tumindok, MANTALA, and BLLUPENTTRAS. The workshops were done separately because of the different ethnicity, since the workshop started with the ritual. The workshops were participated in by the tribal elders, women, and the youths of the communities. The ADSDPP and the IP rights were explained thoroughly to the participants. The workshops also took the opportunity to gather and organize the data on their Ancestral Domain and Community situation.
During the workshop the PRA tools were also used. Resource Maps were made by the community themselves using manila papers, crayons, and pens. The Resource Map is not meant to be used as an official map of the community. The Resource Map enables the community to visualize their spatial interpretation of their ancestral domain. The Resource
43
Maps include the physical and natural boundaries of their ancestral domain, the land cover, cultural landmarks and the roads and infrastructures within the domain. They also identified potential threats that are adjacent to their boundaries such as the plantations.
A Resource Transect was also conducted in the workshops. The communities were able to put up a matrix wherein they identified the resources, uses, current
issues, and the solutions of the issues on their forests, grasslands, agricultural lands, bodies of water, and communities.
Completed draft of the situationer
The Situationer is the first part of the ADSDPP. This contained the Ancestral Domain Situationer (environmental situation), Community Situationer (social & cultural situation), Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices
(IKSP), and the Development Needs of the community and the AD.
The Situationer was completed using the data gathered from the Rapid Assessment, the ADSDPP formulation workshop and the documents that the tribal leaders gave to XSF-ILG. When the drafts were completed, they were given to the tribal leaders for validation. ADSDPP workshop: Development plans and programThe second part of the ADSDPP is the Development Plans and Program. XSF-ILG decided to have one workshop for the Manobo group in Pangantucan and Talaandig group in Valencia City. The participants of the workshop are still a combination of tribal leaders, women, and the youths. The workshop is still using participatory approach.
The first part of the workshop is the drafting of their Vision and Mission. Each of the participants was given meta-cards and was asked to identify their Vision for their AD and the Mission that they should take to achieve this Vision. The Visions and the Missions they wrote were consolidated and worded into statements.
The second part of the workshop is the formulation of the Development Plans and Programs. The participants asked to identify key areas where development is most needed.
44
PO/Community Area of ancestral
domain (has)
% to total AD claim
CADT/CALT status ADSDPP status
Portulin Talaandig Tribal Association (PTTA)
6,576.00 10.9% CADC application submitted to NCIP
ADSDPP completed
Upakat Meginged te Keretungan he Ebpengembetasan(UMKE)
13,242.00 22.0% Being processed: overlapping areas with PTTA, NAMAMAYUK and MILALITTRA
ADSDPP not yet formulated
Nagkahiusang Manobo nga Manunuod sa Yutang Kabilin (NAMAMAYUK)
3,506.00 5.8% Ongoing process: overlapping area with UMKE
ADSDPP not yet formulated
Miarayon Lapok Lirongan Tinaytayan Tribal Association (MILALITTRA)
12,684.76 CADT Holder (2003) ADSDPP completed (allegedly lost at NCIP-province)
Bukidnon Manobo Farmers Producers Cooperative (BMTFPC)
CADC Application in progress
ADSDPP formulation: unknown
Catal Lumad Development Association (CALUDA)
268.00 0.4% CADT Application and Recognition Book submitted: (their CADT is under the PTTA)
ADSDPP not yet formulated
Bato Liko-liko of Lourdes, Valencia Higaonon Tribal Farmers Association (BALLOVHITFA)
4,000.00 6.7% CALT Application submitted
ADSDPP not yet formulated
Dayaba, Domia, Consolacion, Baitos Ancestral Land Development Association Incorporated (DOCOBALDA)
943.72 1.6% CALT Awardee ADSDPP formulation: unknown
Manggayahay Talaandig Tribal Association (MANTALA)
5,184.00 8.6% CADT Application is on-going
ADSDPP not yet formulated
Bayawon, Lungayan Lukday, Pendonay, Tandakol Tibal Asociation (BLUPENTTRAS)
5,000.00 8.3% CADT Application is on-going
ADSDPP not yet completed
The key areas they identified are on environment, infrastructure, education, culture, peace & order, health, livelihood, land tenure security, and organizational development. The participants were then asked to identify the activity/programs/project that should be implemented to achieve development in the key areas. They were then asked to identify the potential partner for the activity/programs/projects and the timeframe and the estimated budget for these. This was placed into a matrix.
Learnings
The process of facilitating the ADSDPP is a remarkable learning experience to the XSF- ILG as implementers. These lessons would be the guiding light for future engagements. These lessons are the following:
lFollowing the correct process. Following the correct process ensures the credibility of the implementing institution. This would also eliminate further complications. The correct process involves coordinating with the proper authorities. The NCIP is the proper authority to coordinate with in terms of facilitating the ADSDPP formulation. Nevertheless, the IP communities have the highest authority in determining the development in their AD, therefore the IP communities’ decision to accept help from
45
the implementer would weigh with highest importance.
l Community Driven and Participatory Approach. The ADSDPP is owned by the IP community, therefore the community should take leadership in formulating the ADSDPP. All development plans and prioritizations shall be determined by the community. The implementers are simply facilitators.
l Cultural Sensitivity. Project implementers shall uphold the cultural sensitivity in engaging with the IP. The IP communities place their trust and confidence to the people who knows how to respect their culture. This determines a good relationship between the implementers and the community. m
The possibility of the indigenous peoples and/or rural communities to have control and management of ecosystems with the collaborative support of various
stakeholders is not impossible. The case of MILALITTRA in the implementation of PES in Kalatungan has manifested this in some ways. The PES in MILALITTRA in Kalatungan may have many challenges still, but relationships among various stakeholders in this PES are still seen encouraging.
Local and Collaborative Ecosystem Management in Kalatungan: The MILALITTRA - Payment for Ecosystems Services Experience
Xavier Science Foundation, Inc. Institute of Land Governance
One of the major keys for this to happen is that the indigenous peoples and/or rural communities should have the access or ownership of the land and that these rights to land be fully understood and respected by other stakeholders.
While this is so, some of the recommendations are the following:
1. Promote PES to other IP communities as one of the mechanisms for local resource management strategies.
2. Review ES valuation and costing to consider the environmental, socio-economic and cultural
benefits in a much wider and deeper perspective.
3. Further in-depth study of the sociological aspect of land and resource management.
4. Sustain and further improve collaboration among major stakeholders and push further the private sector and corporations to increase support to PES.
Background of the Case Study
Payment for Ecosystem Services or PES is considered as one of the mechanisms that provide opportunity for a society to “pay” for ecosystem services and wherein human dependence on these services
is better understood.1 Under this mechanism, the ecosystem services are not only maintained but the service providers themselves can also benefit in terms of economic, social, and cultural development.
Though PES is already being practiced in a number of countries (e.g Costa Rica, Ecuador, United States called Payment for Watershed Services)2, it has no common definition. The widely acknowledged definition is Wunder’s (2005): PES is “(1) a voluntary transaction in which (2) a well-defined environmental service [or a land use likely to secure that service] (3) is being ‘bought’ by a [minimum of one] buyer (4) from a [minimum of one] provider (5) if and only if the provider continuously secures the provision of the service [conditionality].”3 However, in its implementation in the pilot area in Mindanao, it is simply defined
1 Global Environment Facility. 2012. Payment for Ecosystem Services2 http://www.unep.org/pdf/PaymentsForEcosystemServices_en.pdf3 Wunder, S. http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf
46
as a multi-sector strategy to protect the forest in the uplands so the run-off water will not be devastating when it reaches urban areas.4
There is also confusion as to what the “E” stands for. The terms “environmental,” “ecosystem” and “ecological” are being used in which the first two terms are commonly being used interchangeably. Environmental services encompasses all the benefits from all forms of managed ecosystems; thus, ecosystem services” is part of the “environmental services.” In the entire implementation of the latest PES (as documented in this report), agencies involved used the term “ecosystem” services due to the specificity of the goal of the mechanism. It is defined as “dealing exclusively with the human benefits derived from natural ecosystems.”5 4 Valuing Ecosystem Services Together brochure. 2014. Xavier University-Ateneo de Cagayan 5 Greening livestock: Assessing the potential of
Aside from the human benefits, there are other indicators or “ideal conditions” for PES to thrive. One of these is when the natural resources are evidently diminishing due to the degrading ecosystem services resulting from ecosystem mismanagement or abuse. This condition is very apparent in the Philippines especially in Mindanao triggering the need to adapt PES.
While PES has many variations and modalities as practiced in different parts of the globe and has encountered many issues and concerns, such as, sustainability, institutionalization, this documentation will focus on the experience of the indigenous people’s community, the Miarayon Lapoc Lirongan Tinaytayan Talaandig Tribal Association (MILALITTRA) in managing their ancestral domain –particularly, payment for environmental services in livestock inclusive agricultural production systems in developing countries
the forest resources, under the PES scheme.
Objectives
This case study aims to: 1. Provide an understanding on
the experience of MILALITTRA in PES as a manifestation of a locally-managed ecosystem;
2. Craft possible recommend-ations on how to further strengthen local management of resources of the indigenous peoples;
3. Use this case as one of the resource materials for discussion, instruction and outreach particularly on managing land and resources for other indigenous peoples’ communities and/or rural communities in the Philippines and in other countries with similar situations.
Methodology
This study employed three methods in gathering information: (1) documentation of activities; (2) interviews and field visits; and, (3) review of available related literatures and documents, studies and data.
Scope and Limitation
This study focused only on the experience of the Miarayon Lapoc Lirongan Tinaytayan Tribal Association (MILALITTRA) in the Payment for Ecosystems Services mechanism highlighting their efforts on local management of resources and the collaboration
47
with other stakeholders from the government, civil society and private sectors.
As mentioned earlier, this case study will not dwell on the processes on how to sustain funds or financing, PES institutionalization, and scientific valuation of ecosystems services, among others. It is more on the relationships of indigenous peoples’ community, particularly, MILALITTRA, as ancestral domain holder and forest manager, with other stakeholders. Understanding PES
The PES Scheme
The use of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) as an approach to address the issues of rural or upland poverty and natural resource degradation has increasingly become popular. Its practice in the Philippines, however, is relatively new or even still developing compared to other countries where some PES schemes have been going on already for a number of years.6
Simply, it is a market transaction where there is a seller and a buyer of products and services. Here, the products and services comes from nature, or specifically, comes from ecosystem.
PES are “payments, incentives, or rewards for environmental services” given to the providers of 6 Maria Aurora Laotoco: Understanding the Potentials
these services. PES is also referred to as a market-based approach to environmental management (Landell-Mills & Porras, 2002). In marketing terms, the providers of the environmental services are viewed as the “sellers” while the beneficiaries of environmen-tal services are viewed as the “buyers”. Payments for Environmental Services have also been defined and considered as voluntary arrangements where well-defined environmental services (ES) are bought by at least one ES buyer who compensates at least one ES provider if the provision of the ES is continuously secured by the latter (Thomas, 2009). PES, in many cases, does not only have two sides to it—the “buyers” and the “sellers”. In many examples of PES around the world and even in the Philippines, there are usually “brokers” who make up for the “third” side of the PES equation (van Noordwijk et.al., 2004).7 7 Lozada, Charlotte L, The Institutionalization of
However, PES is not designed to reduce poverty, but, a mechanism that offers economic incentives that contribute to a more efficient and effective use of ecosystems services.
The Ecosystems Services
It is reiterated that there is no standard definition of environmental or ecosystem services. Broadly, they are the benefits from nature to households, communities and economies. Broad categories of ecosystem services include food production (crops, livestock fisheries capture, aquaculture, wild foods), fiber (timber, cotton, hemp, silk), genetic resources (biochemical, natural medicines and pharmaceuticals), fresh water, air quality regulation, climate regulation, water regulation, erosion regulation, water purification and waste treatment, disease regulation, pest PES for MILALITTRA-Mt Kalatungan, Bukidnon
48
SELLER[provider of ecosystems
services]
Fund Manager/Intermediary
BUYER[users of
ecosystems services]
Payments, incentives or rewards
q
p
regulation, pollination, natural hazard regulation, and cultural services (spiritual, religious, aesthetic values, recreation and ecotourism).
The major three ecosystem services the most money and interest worldwide are climate change mitigation, watershed services and biodiversity conservation. Demand for these services is predicted to continue to grow. These ecological services can be classified into local or regional commons or public goods, such as erosion and flood control, seasonal stream flow regulation, and clean drinking water. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation are classified as global commons or global public goods. A traditional image of PES in the Philippines is one of forest in the hills providing clean water downstream for drinking, sanitation and agriculture.8
The concept of PES in this sense, dictates that critical environmental or ecosystem services to the lowlands will have to be negotiated with those living in the uplands. The premise is that payments for environmental services:lare mechanisms for
generating finance and incentives for environmental service providers;
lcan help to provide rewards or payments and cover costs for ecosystem conservation;
8 ibid
lcan be a tool for livelihood enhancement and income generation; and,
limprove markets and prices by valuing ecosystem services according to real worth.
The MILALITTRA-Kalatungan PES
The PES mechanism was introduced in 2014 in Northern Mindanao with MILALITTRA CADT area in Mt Kalatungan as the pilot site. This was in some way a response to rehabilitate the forest after Typhoon Sendong (TS Washi) causing flashflood that hit the region in December 2011 leaving thousands people dead and millions worth of properties damaged. The Kalatungan mountains, where the ancestral domain is located, is the upstream of the Cagayan de Oro river where the said flashflood begun.
Location
The site of the pilot PES in Kalatungan is within the ancestral domain of the Miarayon Lapoc Lirongan Tinaytayan Taalandig Tribal Association (MILALITTRA) that overlaps with the Mt Kalatungan Range Natural Park (MKRNP), part of the Batang watershed and within the Cagayan de Oro river basin. Mt Kalatungan Park was also recognized as an Indigenous Community Conservation Area (ICCA) as it was considered as
sacred ground to the Talaandig indigenous peoples.9
Specifically, adjacent and along these forest and buffer zones, 832 hectares is identified for reforestation and 812 hectares is allocated for agro-forestry10. The reforestation site is to be planted purely with endemic or native forest tree species while agroforestry is for the planting of fruit trees that can provide sources of income, such as coffee, among others. These allocations are stated in MILALITTRA’s Community Development Plan (CDP) which becomes the bases for PES funding support.
The 5-year Community Development Plan (CDP) of MILALLITRA was crafted for their ancestral domain which was already provided with Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). The CDP has 10 management components: Environment, Ancestral Domain, Livelihood, Culture and Tradition, Peace and Order, Health, Education, Infrastructure, Youth and Organizational Development. Environment, which includes forest rehabilitation and protection covers almost 50 percent of investment proposal. 9 ICCAs are natural and/or modified ecosystems containing significant biodiversity values, ecological services and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities. They are an important complement to official protected area system as they help conserve critical ecosystems and threatened species, and are part of the resistance to destructive development (IUCN, 2011).10 Building PES Case for Mt Kalatungan, REECS, September 4, 2013
49
ES Costing
There are many methods of pricing or valuing ecosystems services; some are scientific and even complicated. However, for the MILALITTRA-Kalatungan pilot PES, the ES price is based on the Community Development Plan of MILALITTRA. The investment requirements of the CDP total PhP 109.3 M for 5 years. This amount was then simply divided by the target number of hectares allocated for reforestation and agroforestry which is 1,648 hectares. Thus, the amount is then pegged at around PhP 70,000 per hectare for 5 years or PhP 13,257 per hectare per year.
However, after more than a year of implementation, MILALITTRA found out that the yearly investment of PhP 13,257 per
hectare especially during the first year is not enough. The first year of reforestation is when seedlings, fertilizer, land preparation and planting labor cost is needed. While the rest of the years are for maintenance works. MILALITTRA suggested to increase the first year investment to not less than PhP 31,000 and reduces the price for the remaining years which still totals around PhP 70,000 per hectare in 5 years11. This was presented to and was accepted by the DENR- Protected Area Supervising unit (PASu) of Mt Kalatungan.
The preceding investments in PES for Kalatungan are then based on the renewed ES value per hectare per year.
11 PES Sellers Review and Planning Workshop conducted on April 25-26, 2016.
For the PES to work, there are at least 2 major players needed,
the “seller” and the “buyer” of ecosystems services. However, for the MILALITTRA-Kalatungan PES, there are other players involved, the fund manager and support groups.
The ES Seller
MILALITTRA, a tribal association of the Talaandig tribe and CADT-holder of the more than 11,000 hectares ancestral domain covering 4 barangays in the town of Talakag in Mt Kalatungan, is the “seller” of the ecosystems services.
The “seller” is basically the owners of the land/s and they are the ones that protect and provide ecosystem services to the “buyers”. They are in charge of planting the
50
(Maps (on this page and next) show the specific sites for reforestation and agroforestry.
seedlings and guarding the forest. Based on the accounts of the elders of MILALITTRA, their ancestors already settled in the mountains of Kalatungan even before the coming of the Spanish colonizers in the 1500’s. Decades passed, they had made communities who valued peace and harmony. Due to their closer proximity to the Kalatungan Mountains, they call themselves Kalatunganon, hence, they are called Talaandig-Kalatunganon.12 MILALITTRA, the representative organization of the tribe, was then organized in 1997 and was awarded with their CADT in 2003.
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of the Philippines respects the rights of the indigenous peoples’ communities to have control and management over their ancestral domain and natural resources including respect to their culture and practices.
12 Cartwheel Foundation Inc. compilation on Talaandig Ancestral Domain Claim Miarayon Region, Talakag, Bukidnon, 2003
The Buyers of ES
Any individual, group, company, or institution that is willing to invest or provide support, whether in cash or in kind, for the rehabilitation and protection of the ecosystem for it to sustain services. For the PES of MILALITTRA-Kalatungan, this is done through a per-hectare basis based on the MILALITTRA’s CDP.
As of December 2016, around 10 institutions from the government, cooperative and private sector already provided support, in cash and in kind, for the reforestation under PES. There were also individuals who provided support to the PES through the Valuing Ecosystems Services Together (VEST), a one-year social marketing project of Xavier University implemented in 2014.
The interest of PES among local and multinational corporations is observed to be gradually growing that they are asking for
PES orientations to understand its scheme. Aside from water and flood mitigation as the main ES marketed, there are other corporations who are interested in carbon sink establishment for carbon sequestration as another ecosystems service.
The Fund Manager/Intermediary
The fund manager of PES is the Xavier Science Foundation (XSF). The fund manager basically manages the PES fund and acts as the mediator between the buyers and the seller. As an institution, XSF’s main roles as reflected in its mission are (a) as convener, (b) conduit of funds and (3) an innovator of programs. In its 48 years of existence, XSF has established and managed programs and assisted various institutions as fund manager. In 2014, it established the Institute of Land Governance (ILG) that manages and operates all lands and resource-related projects and activities.
51
MILALITTRA CDP INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS Management Focus
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TOTAL
Environment 11,128,025 8,643,088 9,090,775 8,779,025 9,047,275 46,688,188
Ancestral Domain Security 275,500 188,500 87,000 87,000 87,000 725,000
Culture and Tradition 363,950 174,363 174,000 130,500 478,500 1,321,313
Livelihood 6,003,000 6,169,750 6,401,750 5,821,750 5,952,250 30,348,500
Peace and Order 108,750 108,750 87,000 87,000 87,000 478,500
Organizational Development 174,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 754,000
Infrastructure Support 2,117,000 5,626,000 5,582,500 6,307,500 2,900,000 22,533,000
Education 116,000 1,566,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 2,030,000
Youth Development 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 145,000
Health Services 290,000 1,015,000 1,015,000 1,015,000 1,015,000 4,350,000
TOTAL 20,605,225 23,665,451 22,728,025 22,517,775 19,857,025 109,373,5001
Average per year 21,874,700 21,874,700 21,874,700 21,874,700 21,874,700 109,373,500
AVE. COST PER HA. PER YEAR
13,257 13,257 13,257 13,257 13,257 66,287
Support groups
There are various support groups of the PES in Kalatungan.
The Cagayan de Oro River Basin Management Council (CDORBMC). The CDORBMC was established in November 17, 2010 as the governing body for the operation, supervision and management of the Cagayan de Oro River Basin. It is composed of various sectors, from the government, CSO, business, academe and church. The council, co-chaired by both the Director of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources-10 (DENR-10) and the Archbishop of Cagayan de Oro City, acts as the oversight committee of the PES.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The DENR, through its Protected Areas Supervising unit (PASu) for Mt Kalatungan Range Natural Park, provides the technical assistance for the project. The PES project was received well because the National Greening Program (NGP) of the government only reforested publicly owned land and did not include ancestral domains. Therefore, uplands
that had a CADT were not part of the reforestation plan of the government. PES served as a complement to the NGP because it could rehabilitate other areas. DENR – PASu provides technical assistance, such as, conduct of mapping, geo-tagging and monitoring activities13.
Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA). MinDA is an agency mandated to integrate various programs of the government for the development of Mindanao.
13 Lozada, Charlotte L, The Institutionalization of PES for MILALITTRA-Mt Kalatungan, Bukidnon
52
One of the programs is on watershed management. MinDA was instrumental in pushing for the start of PES in Kalatungan by piloting 3 hectares.
Local Government Units (LGUs). The LGUs surrounding Mt Kalatungan and/or within the CDO river basin are also seen important stakeholders in PES. These units provide the enabling policies. As of the moment, the LGU of the town of Libona already enacted an ordinance for the collection of water fees using PES scheme. The LGU of Cagayan de Oro, on the other hand, is now in the process of discussing with technical experts for the crafting of PES ordinance.
The XSF - Institute of Land Governance (ILG). Aside from XSF who manages the fund, the Institute of Land Governance (ILG) of XSF provides operational
support to the project. At the community level, the institute facilitates IP community organizing and organizational development and assists MILALITTRA in their reforestation activity, among others. The institute also documents and facilitates conduct of studies. In some matter, it links with the academe, such as, Xavier University, especially, on its social outreach component.
Agricultural Cooperative Develop-ment International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA). ACDI/VOCA is an international development non-profit organization that supports the tribal communities in farm production and market linkaging. For MILALITTRA, ACDI/VOCA provides technical assistance and community trainings in the establishment and development of coffee seedling nurseries,
particularly (red bourbon variety) quality testing and linkage to possible international market under the Mindanao Productivity in Agricultural Commerce and Trade (MinPACT) project.
The ES Management Strategy Reforestation Management
MILALITTRA, as the CADT holder, has the right to control and manage over the lands and natural resources covered by their CADT as provided for by the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) or Republic Act 8371. The group is also the “seller” of ecosystems services of PES. Cultural norms and local traditional practices play a strong part in MILALITTRA’s reforestation. For instance, as the project started at the ground, a ritual was celebrated by the group’s baylan (tribe’s religious leader) to pray and ask grace from the Magbabaya, the God. The group is also careful in selecting seedlings in order not to plant tree species that they believe will attract bad luck.
Since the PES site is also located within the declared protected area, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Protected Area Management Board (DENR-PAMB) for Mt Kalatungan also has jurisdiction over the sites as mandated by the National Integrated Protected Area Systems (NIPAS) Act. In this, the DENR-PAMB provides support to the PES reforestation, such as, mapping and geo-tagging of
53
specific planting sites, assistance to reforestation technologies, monitoring the growth of planted trees, among others. The DENR has also trained some community members on how to use the Global Positioning System (GPS) tool for geo-tagging and monitoring using geo-camera. DENR-PAMB recognizes the role of MILALITTRA as forest manager as reflected in the Mt Kalatungan Business Plan.
Reforestation Implementation Process
The implementation of reforestation at the community level follow a careful process found important by the indigenous community them-selves. The land tenure, individual land rights as well as the consent of individual community members plays an important role of the PES implementation.
While the whole site belongs to a communal title of MILALITTRA, clans and families have their own
parcels of lots, locally called gaup, where they farm or use for any purposes, and is respected by the whole tribe. Thus, the whole process of reforestation considers this by identifying whose gaup, asking the consent of the gaup owners, recording their profile and mapping their areas to determine size. It is also ensured that they are oriented on the project.
Tribal leaders of MILALITTRA are the ones who negotiate with the individual tribe members on this matter.
Agro-Forestry and Rainforestation Technology
Aside from planting local forest tree species, MILALITTRA strongly promotes planting of red bourbon, a variety of Arabica coffee native to the area, as the only type to be planted in agroforestry for its high commercial value. The tribal association has started propagating and planting red bourbon coffee seedlings with the assistance of ACDI-VOCA.
MILALITTRA also promotes the intercropping of endemic forest trees with coffee trees, a rainforestation farming technology. Rainforestation farming aims to provide both environmental and economic benefits to the communities.14
Findings
Based on the objectives of this study, the following conclusions are drawn.
Locally-managed forest ecosystems
The rehabilitation and protection of the forests under the PES scheme in Kalatungan is a reflection of the locally-managed ecosystems approach. A principle strongly promoted by many civil society organizations local communities and member organizations of International Land Coalition (ILC).
First, it is the tribal community, MILALITTRA, who is at the center of forest management within their ancestral domain. Their community development plan is the basis for allocation of areas for reforestation, the pricing of ecosystems services and support by other stakeholders as ES buyers.
Second, their indigenous culture and tradition is being respected. This is manifested by the conduct
14 PES Annual Report, XSF, March 2016
54
Site Identification/
MappingProfiling Owners
Commitments
Implementation of
Reforestation
Sales Orientation and Planning
Budgeting and Scheduling
Planting
a a a
aa
PES Site Implementation Process
of rituals before implementation of PES at the site and other major activities. In the selection of seedlings for planting, their belief on tree species is employed that those considered tree species attracting “bad luck” is not planted. Also, even that the DENR has jurisdiction over those who are doing illegal cutting of trees using the national environmental laws, the tribal community’s traditional practice in conflict resolution and settlement is considered and to be applied first.
Third, their decisions are strongly considered in major matters related to forest management within their ancestral domain. This can be seen through the application of reforestation and agroforestry technologies, such as, rainforestation farming and the use of local red bourbon arabica coffee variety in agroforestry.
Generally, the tribal community’s ownership of their ancestral
domain gave them the handle in pursuing this management. Collaborative ecosystem management
The local management of the forest ecosystems is strongly manifested by MILALITTRA. This is further strengthened by the collaboration among various stakeholders, which in PES, also plays a significant role.
First, despite the overlaps in land tenure on the location of the PES reforestation site, particularly, that of Mt Kalatungan Range Natural Park (MKRNP) and MILALITTRA’s ancestral domain, collaboration is somehow manifested. On one hand, the DENR-PASu, with mandates coming from the NIPAS Act, recognizes and respects the IP communities, as the local forest managers and their ally in forest protection. On the other hand, the IP community, given the rights to have control and management of their ancestral domain by the
IPRA Law, recognizes the role of the DENR-PASu as having the legal authority in forest protection where the deputation of the IP forest guards as Wildlife Enforcement Officers (WEO) came from.
Aside from that, the support of other stakeholders to MILALITTRA as the PES seller is evident. For instance, the XSF, as fund manager, does not only collect funds from the buyers and disburse this to MILALITTRA, but also mobilizes the Institute of Land Governance (ILG) in providing capacity-building support, community organizing and reforestation facilitation, among others. Other CSOs, like the ACDI/VOCA also helps the community in the establishment of their coffee plantation from nursery to plantation and market linkage. On the buyer side, such as cooperatives and corporations, there are already those who are interested to join in actual planting with the said indigenous community, aside from just giving funds.
Another manifestation of collaboration and support to PES is from government agencies and local government units within the Cagayan de Oro river basin. As an example, the municipality of Libona in Bukidnon enacted an ordinance for the collection of water fees using the PES scheme. In Cagayan de Oro City, a technical working group composed of different sectors and experts to craft a PES ordinance.
55
In whole, the possibility of the indigenous peoples and/or rural communities to have control and management of ecosystems with the collaborative support of various stakeholders is not impossible. The case of MILALITTRA in the implementation of PES in Kalatungan has manifested this in some degree. The PES in MILALITTRA in Kalatungan may have many challenges still, but relationships among various stakeholders in this PES are still seen encouraging. Nevertheless, as also reflected in this study, one of the major keys for this to happen is that the indigenous peoples and/or rural communities should have the access or ownership of the land and that these rights to land be fully understood and respected by other stakeholders. VIII. Recommendations As of this moment, the following recommendations are:
lPromote to other IP communities to consider PES as one of the mechanisms for local resource management strategies. The lessons of MILALITTRA PES which manifests local-management of resources have encouraged other IP communities in Kalatungan and other places to establish PES. Promoting and establishing PES mechanism to other IP communities could contribute to strengthening of the IP’s management of their ancestral domain.
lReview ES valuation and costing to consider the environmental, socio-economic and cultural benefits in a much wider and deeper perspective. The ES valuation used by MILALITTRA in pricing ES per hectare is based on the total cost of their 5-year community development plan divided by the number of hectares allocated for reforestation. While, this is not wrong, it would be good to know the contribution and impact of the ES services (i.e. water, flood control) to the lowland communities and economies in terms of money value.
lFurther in-depth study of the sociological aspect of land and resource management of the indigenous peoples. The IP communities have their traditional practices in resource management that is closely link to their culture and belief. This may be seen by others as “un-scientific.”
This was practiced by MILALITTRA in PES such as rituals and not planting seedlings with “bad luck”. There was also the previous farming practice of so-called “slash and burn” which environmentalists considered as destructive. The understanding of the IP’s history, culture and belief using a sociological view may help everyone connect conflicting views to further
collaborative local resource governance.
lSustain and further improve collaboration among major stakeholders and push further the private sector and corporations to increase
support PES. What PES in MILALITTRA reflects is some sort of collaboration among various stakeholders. This gain can be pushed further to sustain and improve. MILALITTRA, with the support of support CSOs and PASu, may need to actively engage the private sectors and corporations who expressed interest to support PES. Information and advocacy materials on PES and reforestation will also help a lot in expanding the support from the buyers. m
56
Delineation of the Lebak Ancestral DomainPhilippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID)
The Ancestral Domain of the Manobo Teduray indigenous group of the town of Lebak, Sultan Kudarat in Mindanao, Southern Philippines covers a total of 25,000 hectares and
comprises thirteen barangays (villages).
Lebak is located on the western portion of Sultan Kudarat province, and bordered in the north by South Upi, Maguindanao; in the south by Kalamansig; in the west by Celebes Sea; and in the east by Esperanza.
Town mayor Dionesia Bisana, has expressed support for the planned delineation of the Dulangan Manobo’s domain; and through the efforts of the IP municipal representative Florencio Apang, the local government has committed to provide additional funds for the actual survey and delineation activities.
The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has advised the community to fast-track the completion of its Recognition Book to also facilitate the issuance of a Survey Authority. As such, the Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID), the non-government organization assisting the group, is now working closely with
Head Claimant Datu Mileton Blag in the conduct of research and documentation work and preparatory activities for the initial ground survey.
Activities
In preparation for the conduct of the survey and delineation of the ancestral domain, the PAFID-Mindanao team conducted the following activities:
1. Community Consultations.
Two consultations were held in Sultan Kudarat – in the towns of Lebak (the focus of the project) and Esperanza, which is adjacent to the claim.
The first consultation meeting in Lebak was held on 16 August 2016 at the tribal hall in Sitio Dano, Barangay Keytodac, and was attended by 48 residents composed of 25 females and 23 males.
Discussed in the meeting was the financial support given by the International Land Coalition (ILC) for the conduct of the on-ground survey. The community expressed their gratitude for the assistance and will work with PAFID to achieve their objective of delineating their ancestral territories.
The group showed the perimeters of their domain through their 3-Dimensional map, which was constructed in 2004. They also informed that the NCIP has advised them to fast-track the completion of their Recognition Book as a pre-requisite to the issuance of a survey authority. A survey team was then formed to accompany the PAFID’s technical team in the conduct of the survey.
A plan of action was formulated and prioritized, among others, the following: (a) coordination with the provincial and regional NCIP to discuss both the drafting of the Recognition Book and the conduct of an on-ground survey; (b) conduct of a GPS Instrumentation Training to selected members of the community who will lead the actual delineation of the domain; and (c) coordination with the LGU
57
for the security of the survey team and some logistical support.
The second consultation meeting was held in the afternoon of 16 August 2016 at the Barangay Hall of Legodon in Esperanza town, attended by 38 residents composed of 24 females and 14 males/elders.
Discussed was the proposed survey and delineation of the Lebak Ancestral Domain, which is adjacent to the claims of the Manobo-Tedurays of Esperanza town. The community supported the initiative of their neighbors and clarified that there is no boundary conflicts on both sides. The 3-Dimensional Map of the community was used to locate and identify the natural boundaries of the two claims.
The Esperanza community proposed that a team from their side be allowed to accompany the survey team to help identify the exact locations of their natural boundaries. This, they said, will also help them since a portion of their domain will also be delineated.
The Lebak leaders welcomed the Esperanza proposal and agreed to have a joint survey team.
2. GPS Instrumentation Training/ Orientation
The activity was conducted at the LDCI office in Cotabato City from 13-15 September 2016. Five members of the Lebak survey team joined the 13 from the Maguindanao team in the orientation session on how
ancestral domain (AD) survey is conducted, which included a practicum on the use of Global Positioning System survey instruments. Practice sessions were held in the safer areas of Cotabato City and the results were immediately downloaded to review and assess the groups’ performances.
3. First Perimeter Survey
The first survey was conducted from 7-12 October 2016. The survey team was composed of five leaders from Lebak and eight from Maguindanao to facilitate identification of common corner boundaries. A total of six corners were recorded and concrete markers installed. The dimensions of the markers followed the exact specifications of the NCIP.
58
4. Coordination visit to the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
Datu Meliton Blag, from a conversation last 12 November 2016 mentioned that he made a map of the whole Ancestral Domain claim and submitted it to the NCIP but failed to keep a copy of his own. The documents already submitted to the NCIP are essential for the identification of documents available and those that should be given more attention in the collection of data.
PAFID staff went to the NCIP Provincial office located at Isulan, Sultan Kudarat on 19 January 2017 and met with Engineer Jessie Matias, an NCIP Geodetic Engineer. The PAFID staff were informed that since PAFID and the NCIP Region 12 still do not have a Memorandum of Agreement, the NCIP cannot support them and thus will not be able to provide documents submitted to them by the Manobo community.
5. Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title Processing (first)
The application for Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title requires proof and evidences of the people’s ownership of their claimed domain. As such, research activities, documentation (both photo and written accounts), anthropological data, and genealogy are required.
This is also a pre-requisite before the issuance of a Survey Authority and the conduct of actual ground survey of the domain.
Data-gathering started in Novem-ber 2016. A reconnaissance activity was done from 10-12 November 2016 in line with the conduct of the documentation process.
A. Data Gathering (first) A focus group discussion
was conducted at Sitio Dano, Barangay Keytodac, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat last 11 November 2016. It was attended by twenty-four (24) community members, fifteen (15) of which are male and nine (9) were female. The activity first discussed the documents required by NCIP and activities to be conducted to be able to secure them. The genealogical data of two (2) clans was reviewed and updated.
B. Data Gathering (second) Due to security concerns,
Datu Meliton Blag, the head claimant, was not able to attend the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) in Sitio Dano. The researcher went to Sitio Elem, Barangay Salangsang, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat to personally meet with the head claimant and conduct another FGD
last 12 November 2016. It was attended by six community members (four males and two females).
The session discussed the different indigenous knowledge, systems, and practices, specifically their spiritual belief, spiritual entities, tribal musical instruments, tribal games, and landmarks inside the claim.
C. Data Gathering (third) A literature review
and library research at the Mindanawon Library of Ateneo de Davao University and at the University of the Phi l ippines-M indanao College of Humanities and Social Sciences Library was also conducted. There were several CADT application documents in the Mindanawon Library which were useful in the planning of the activities to be conducted. There were also undergraduate manuscripts and theses that the researcher was able to scan in the library of the College of Social Sciences in UP-Mindanao.
In preparation to the next field visit, the researcher gathered the CADT Application forms from the online website of NCIP
59
Pictures of some musical instruments that were available were taken. Tugo (left) and Fahanday (right). Traditional musical instruments. Sagagong (gong ensemble) that the group usually play during gatherings, celebrations, or during free time as recreational activity.
Region 12.
D. Data Gathering (fourth): Census
A week before, the team tried to reach out to the NCIP Provincial office to set an appointment and clarify the needed requirements and assistance for the application of the CADT of the Dulangan Manobo of Lebak. a. A meeting held on
24 January 2017, attended by 14 people (three female and 11 male), discussed the completion of the census of the entire AD. The plan was to distribute census forms to each leader and ask them to conduct the census in their assigned areas. While
discussing the form, the leaders explained that they would definitely have a hard time filling the form due to its complexity. As a solution, it was agreed during the meeting that they set a schedule for the researcher to visit their area and gather each community member to be asked questions using the form. First in the schedule was sitio Dano.
b. After the meeting, nine forms were a c c o m p l i s h e d . However, to facilitate the immediate completion of the census, the form was simplified and distributed to specific
sitios and barangays. Two “puroks” already have data on the barangay and were willing to lend their copy.
After a week of census, the researcher completed seven puroks with the help of the Barangay Health Workers.
E. Data Gathering (fifth) There are several historical
landmarks and significant places that the researcher was able to visit during the field activity. From 24 January to 02 February 2017, with the help and guidance of community members, various rivers, water sources and mountain peaks were photographed and
60
their historical accounts recorded.
6. Participatory Community Mapping
A. Sketch Mapping Last 18 January 2017,
Village councilors Joel Apang, Marcial Apang Jr. and a few members of the community made a map of barangay Keytodac. The map is composed of sitios and some nearby barangays. The elders are preparing a sketch map of the entire domain.
B. 3D Map Construction The 3D Map Construction
and Land Use Coding session conducted by the PAFID (under its Land Tenure Program) from 25 January to 02
February 2017 enabled the community to identify their AD boundaries through pins encircled through strings. A total of 60 pins, indicating the exact locations where AD monuments will be installed when the actual survey will be conducted, were placed in the 3D map. Of this number, six concrete markers have already been installed during the initial survey conducted in October 2016.
The continuation of the AD survey therefore, to be conducted with the support of the ILC. will require the installation of 54 markers.
7. Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title Processing (second)
A. Genealogy Updating and Processing
After reviewing the existing genealogical data with the community, there were several updates and younger generations were included. The existing data was updated and processed with more names and families. The new genealogy specified the gender of individuals, their mates, and their children. The genealogy of the Dulangan Manobo in Lebak Sultan Kudarat as of February 20, 2017 is composed of two (2) clans: Dakel Ba and Sultan Kanakan. Dakel Ba Clan is composed of 46 families and 238 individuals, while Sultan Kanakan Clan is Composed of 109 families and 473 individuals. After processing, the data was printed and ready for updating and validation.
B. Meeting with the Head Claimant
A meeting with the head claimant and three other community leaders on 1 March 2017 was held, discussing the community’s plan for self-delineation survey, authorization letter to
61
authorize Councilor Joel Apang to get the copy of their documents from the NCIP, updates of the genealogy survey, and the plan for affidavit-filing and giving of testimonies by the elders.
C. Affidavit Filing, Interview, and Giving of Testimonies of Eldersa. On 2 March 2017, while
the PAFID Mindanao staff were in Legodon, Esperanza to repair the 3D Map, filing of affidavits and swearing of testimonies started with the help of Celia Apang. Three elders from Sitio Dano were interviewed and signed affidavits attesting to the information they have shared.
b. On 3 March 2017, the researcher went to Sitio Mayol to interview and gather testimonies and affidavits from another three elders. Unfortunately, the booy (princess) was not around and only two elders were interviewed and signed their affidavits.
c. On 4-5 March, the researcher went to Sitio Elem, Barangay Salangsang, to interview four elders–Datu Meliton Blag, the head claimant;
Datu Dud Nayam, a pig-ulukan datu; Booy Daungen Capitan, a booy or a princess; and Datu Noli Nayam, a tagabulung or healer.
D. Consultation and Community Meeting
On the afternoon of 28 April 2017, a consultation and community meeting was held at the Tribal Hall of the Dulangan Manobo in Sitio Dano. The agenda was about the proposed Self Delineation Survey that will be conducted soon. It was attended by 30 community members: 22 males and eight females, and facilitated by a PAFID staff and the Head Claimant of the Ancestral Domain.
E. Genealogy Update and Validation
The updated genealogy was presented and updated last March 28, 2017 at the Tribal Hall of the Dulangan Manobo in Sitio Dano, attended by 30 community members (22 males and eight females). There was an orientation and progress report on the on-going research about the community. Several family trees were added and validated in the genealogy presented.
In summary, the genealogy is composed
of 2,450 individuals, 661 families, and 10 Geno Maps–with some going back 13 generations.
F. Additional Affidavit Filing An additional 16 affidavits
from community members in support with the Ancestral Domain claim by the community were filed last 28 April 2017 during a series of meetings and discussion with the community.
G. Data Validation On 29 April 2017, a Data
Validation activity was held at the Tribal Hall of the Dulangan, attended by community elders, leaders, and members (composed of 22 males and 4 females). The researcher discussed and presented all data gathered through the course of the research. It was a perfect venue where the community validated, and gave additional data inputs on what they would want to include in their history, way of life, and tradition.
At the end of the presentation, and after giving comments and additional information, the community expressed their appreciation and gratitude with the outcome of the research. They said that this will really be a helpful tool
62
not only in securing their claim, but also in passing knowledge of their culture and traditions to succeeding generations.
H. Self- Delineation Perimeter Survey
The survey was composed of community members from the specific areas where the monuments were installed. A series of orientation activities were conducted to ensure that members were well informed that the survey is an independent survey initiated by their own ethnolinguistic group and supported by PAFID.
The perimeter survey was conducted from 13-20 May 2017 in which a team composed of seven members travelled from Sitio Dano, and the others were residents of the specific area where markers were being installed.
The partial survey covered Sitio Baga-ayan, Sitio Migaga, Sitio Dakel Kayo – boundary of Lebak and Kalamansig, and the head of the Salaman River. All were identified by the Sitio elders and leaders in the area. A total of four corners/markers were installed.
The community was very participative and supportive in this survey because they felt really involved from the very beginning: from identification, GPS reading, and up to the installation of markers. Compared to the other surveys conducted, some in coordination with government agencies, the perimeter survey was the easiest to conduct because of the great willingness of the community in identification and delineation. In addition, coordination with the neighboring community was not a problem because of the good standing relationship between the two groups. m
63
Engaging the media through Investigative news gathering and writing, and media relations: The NES Communication Workshop
A two-day Communications Workshop for NES-Philippines members was held on 8-9 November, 2016 at the PhilDHRRA Partnership Center in Quezon City, Philippines.
Organized by the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC), the workshop aimed to train ILC Members and partner POs on effective news gathering and writing to share with the public and with the NES platform.
In particular, the following learning objectives were covered:
A. Orient participants on investigative news gathering and writing;
B. Highlight the importance of investigative news gathering and sharing;
C. Train POs and Member CSOs in gathering and writing news using the investigative approach;
D. Show the importance of social media in news sharing;
E. Encourage the POs to share stories to the Members;
F. Provide tips on how to reach the media; and
G. A plan for action on news gathering and sharing (for
their organizations and for the NES) was formulated as a follow-up of this training.
The training was attended by 11 participants, 7 male and 4 female.
Malou Mangahas of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), the workshop resource person, gave three presentations. Her first presentation, entitled: “Getting to know the media”, gave an overview on print and broadcast media as well as how to use media for advocacy and how to reach and whom to contact in media.
Mangahas’ second presentation was about “How to write investigative news”. After the two presentations, it was off
to the actual Writeshop of participants. After the writeshop, the participants presented their outputs and Ms. Mangahas gave her inputs.
After which was another presentation and criticquing session of the participants’ fine-tuned articles. Then it was off to the Action Planning, facilitated by ANGOC, for the NES media activities.
Workshop proper and outputs
A. Input: Getting to know the media
Before the actual input, Ms. Mangahas gave an exercise entitled: “What is your media diet?”, wherein she asked the participants to rank where they get their news from. The results show that the participants get most of their news from television, radio and social media (facebook). Very few read newspapers.
The “Getting to know the media session” was in the form of a PCIJ presentation entitled: “Understanding the News
64
Media”. Ms. Mangahas started by describing the “love-hate” relationship between the media, their sources and the public.
She then described the media’s mandate and role: a private business with a public trust (to inform and help form public opinion), watchdog and fiscalizer of governing institutions, and its Constitutional mandate or basis.
She then gave an overview of the journalists’ mindset and how they work, to wit:
l Often critical, analytical, even cynical; articulate, works in packs or independently
lWorks to the beat of deadlines; the good ones follow the story and love scoops, controversy, conflict, consequence, big names in news, oddity (news values), while the bad ones follow the money
l Could distinguish between good and bad sources: The best ones give the best stories (scoops, well-written, consistent, forthright, earnest, expert)
Ms. Mangahas then explained the communication process by Wilbur Schramm: Source à Message à Channel à Receiver à Gov’t/CSO à Story à Media à Public. After which, she then gave an overview of the media industry (See Box 1).
The PCIJ founder then went into the topic of the news process. She said that a typical news day
for media entities goes like this: (1) Reporters hunt for news; (2) Editors/news managers call story conference; (3) Deadlines are set in motion; (4) Newspaper runs, newscast airs; and, (5) Postmortem/planning for next day’s coverage.
According to Mangahas, the newsroom gatekeepers are:
l Print: city editor, news editor, section editors, managing editor, editor-in-chief (day sequence)
l TV/radio, online: news directors, producers,
65
Box 1: Overview of the Philippine Media Industry
PRINT• A dozen broadsheets and a dozen tabloids in NCR, a few regional leaders and
hundreds of small newspapers in the provinces. Official and private data: 580 newspapers, 49 magazines, 16 other news publications.
• Composite print run: About 2 million copies, or less than 20 per cent of all16 million households. Majority of readers largely male and of senior age (above 30).
• The Big Newspapers, in terms of both circulation and ad sales: Inquirer, Star, Bulletin. Apart from the tabloids, the rest of the broadsheets are second-liners.
• The NSO says newspaper readership declined by 3.2 percentage points, or from 33.0 per cent in 1989 to 29.8 per cent in 1994. Magazine readership decreased by 8 percentage points, from 22.4 per cent in 1989 to 14.4 per cent in 1994.
TELEVISION• There are 352 TV stations, and 782 CATV stations in the country, including 12
based in Metro Manila (NTC, 2010).• The largest and most profitable networks -- ABS-CBN (Channel 2, ANC) and
GMA-7 (Channel 7, GMANewsTV) both operate their respective cable TV channels on 50-kw power while TV5 has Aksyon TV. All major TV networks also operate their own news websites.
• The government runs the national television network Channel 4 (National Broadcasting Network) and two TV networks sequestered from the Marcoses and their cronies in 1986 -- Radio Philippines Network (RPN Channel 9) and International Broadcasting Corp. (Channel 13).
• To advertisers and Filipinos living/working overseas, the popularity of television continues to rise from 48.0 per cent in 1989 to 56.7 per cent in 1994.
RADIO• Metro Manila is home to 49 radio stations -- 25 AM band stations and 24 FM
band stations. Across PHL, 392 AM radio stations, 782 FM radio stations (NTC, 2010).
• These include the “Big Four” national radio networks -- DZRH of the Manila Broadcasting Company; DZXL of RMN; DZMM of ABS-CBN; DZBB of GMA Network; and Aksyon Radyo of TV5.
• In 1994, government census data showed that over 8 in 10 or 80.8 per cent of 54 million Filipinos aged 10 and older, were exposed to radio.
ONLINE/SOCIAL MEDIA• 304 registered Internet Service Providers (as of 2010, NTC)• 4.32 million estimate number of landline phone subscribers• 83.25 cellphone subscribers as of 2010• 42 M Internet users (We Are Social, March 2015)• 9.5M Twitter tweeps in PHL; 10th in world (2013)• 38M on Facebook in PHL; or 1/3 of est pop of 105M in 2013
headwriters, hosts (real-time, loop-in process)
l Management execs: owners, advertising or marketing heads
l Other talents: columnists, block-timers
These people are the ones that decide on which stories to publish or air.
She added that the frontliners, who can be approached for story pitches, are: Reporters & correspondents (‘brat pack’, press corps, independents); Photographers, camera crew; and, Columnists, anchors, block-timers.
On to the definition of journalism, Mangahas defined it as: “Making the important interesting, and the interesting relevant”. She added that news, according to the famous poet and journalist Rudyard Kipling, is a combination of the 5 Ws and 1 H (who, what, when, where, why and how). She mentioned that among Kipling’s frustrations is too much of the ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘who’ and ‘what’ and too little of ‘why’, ‘how’, ‘so what’, and ‘why should I care’?.
Mangahas shared that every story has a narrative string, meaning that every story has backward and forward links, necessary connections, and context and consequence.
She then shared the pitfalls of sources and journalists, to wit:
lNot everyone gets it: Journalism is about information, communicating facts and opinion, telling a story.
l Some sources expect absolute, unqualified friendship with journalists, and think they could use/manipulate media. Some journalists expect absolute, unqualified friendship with sources, and for a scoop or other considerations, allow themselves to play along with sources.
l Some push it: Journalism is for scoring positive points, or mounting hype, spin, propaganda.
l Some make generalizations about the behavior of journalists.
lSome refuse to build stories on truth, not hype: they are aware that to “repeat & reinforce” a rumor, might also substitute for “the truth well told.”
l Some sources build stories on hype, spins and feeds, agree to “repeat & reinforce” or are too lazy to offer “the truth well told.”
Mangahas explained why ‘bad news’ hog the headlines. Conflict, drama and tragedy make for compelling stories, and big names make news. She explained that public accountability laws require government officials do good; thus, bad deeds must be exposed. She added that: “Bad news won’t fly unless built on real problems. All that reporters do is present them in their most acute form in the media”.
She ended the session by sharing what makes a good story, in both form and substance (See Box 2).
B. Input: Writing for readers
Taking off from some elements of the first session (What is news?; the 5 Ws and 1H; Kipling’s frustration), Mangahas then gave a presentation on “Writing for readers.”
She began her presentation with a discussion on the sources of news. She defined news sourcing or “sourcery” as the “arcane art of getting people to tell you the truth.” She said that every effort, not just some effort, must be made to get all sides; and that in
Box 2: What Makes a Good StoryGOOD CONTENT GOOD FORM
• Accuracy• Fairness• People Trail• Paper Trail• Online Trail• Legal Trail• WHY SHOULD READERS CARE?
• Structure – words, sentences, paragraphs
• Language: Mechanics, Style• Organization• Visuals, Platforms• Checking for Libel
66
general there could be four types of sources :
1. Affected parties2. Official sources3. Experts4. Community – vox populi/MOS or man on the street Mangahas shared the ground rules for treating information from sources:
l For the record: The journalist may quote verbatim the interviewee by name and title.
lOff the record: The interviewee provides information, which may not be used. It is provided only for a journalist’s understanding of an issue.
lFor Background: The journalist may use verbatim the material but may not identify the interviewee by name and/or title. The reporter and the interviewee come to an agreement regarding attribution. i.e. “A defense department source said…”
l For Deep Background: The journalist may use verbatim the material but may not identify the individual, his/her title, and place of work. There is no attribution. i.e. “Sources said…”
l Not for attribution: Not attributed to anyone or any agency.
She then mentioned the Writer’s Goals, which are:
1. Tell the story using the best quotes & images, describing quotes as “brief, brilliant bursts of life”, and
2. Uphold minimum standards of a good story:a. Check for ACCURACY –
“Get it right” on two levelsi. FACTS
ii. CONTEXT/IMPRESSIONb. Check for FAIRNESS -- “Get
all sides” to the storyi. Pursue the truth
with both vigor and compassion
ii. Report information without favoritism, self-interest, prejudice.
Mangahas then gave an extensive lecture on Investigative Reporting. She said that all reporting should be investigative, which she defines as:
lSystematic inquiry and critiquel In-depth, long-term research
and reportingl Tenacious and determined
digginglDocumentary research,
the use of public records, following the paper trail
lExcessive interviewingl Crime-solving tools and
techniques, like a police detective or public prosecutor
lServing as a court of last resort, offering a voice to those unheard
lDoing stories uncovered by the rest of the news media
l Exposing information others want kept secret
l Groundbreaking, revelatory
reporting that adds significantly to the public record and public debate
l Watchdog power, focusing on the accountability of individuals and institutions that wield power
She added that investigative reporting is method, attitude and discipline. Discipline to her means embracing the right work ethic and building craft on top of talent.
The facilitator then went into detail on the style of Philippine news, to wit:
l A bounty of single-source stories
l Missing context, missing background: How?Why?
lAnonymous sources, mostly for negative stories
l The artificial dichotomy between politics and economics
l Leaked/fed documents, no comfortable distance with sources
l The inordinate focus on government sources
lBeats covered as territorial units, not policy fields
lPack reporting, pack editing, the “daily slide to sameness”
lShort attention spans: write-for-the-day syndrome, the rush to print/broadcast
lFlawed news frames: Scandals sell?
lThe bizarre flies? What bleeds leads?
lStress on loud and acute issues, neglect of silent and benign issues
lJournalists never say sorry?
67
lCelebrity journalists, good and bad icons
lRacist, sexist, offensive language
lUnethical and misleading practices
lWhat’s private, what’s public a gray domain
lWary of the worldwide weblReading a diminishing
discipline
She then went into the investigative news process:
1. First Lead or Tip Ideas for investigative reports
can come from anywhere –la breaking storyla hot leadlIncidents/eventslnews of historical
significance and with grave policy impact
2. Initial Investigationl Is the story worth
pursuing?lCan we prove it – before
the court of public opinion and the court of law?
3. Investigative Hypothesisl Gives shape and direction
to an investigationlWhat is the story about?
She shared that the investigative process involves the following trails:
l The Paper Trail: Documents, public & private
lThe People Trail: Interviews, Observation, Surveys, community immersion
lThe Electronic Trail: Use of computers and Internet databases
lThe Legal Trail: What laws have been breached?
In addition to this, a thorough investigative study also ‘Does the Math’ and ‘Follow the Money’.
An investigative reporter works from the outside-in: starting with secondary sources, then reviewing primary documents, then interviewing primary sources, before finally getting
the side of the subject of the interview.
Mangahas made a presentation on how to background sources and interviewing subjects.
After giving a brief history on how backgrounding and interviewing came about as an effective journalistic tool, Ms. Mangahas shared the steps in doing good interviews, to wit:
1. Ask for help. 2. Be prepared.3. Listen.4. Be honest.5. Talk to everyone.6. See people face to face.7. Go back.8. Be pleasant.9. Remember the obvious
questions.10. Challenge your sources.11. Never trust your sources.12. Don’t socialize with reporters
all the time.13. Protect your sources.14. You set the rules.15. Give your enemy a fair shake.16. Be cruel but polite.17. Always say ‘thank you.’18. Keep trying.19. Keep a good record of your
interviews.20. Always ask: Who else knows
about this story?
She also shared points of attention during interviews:
lOn popping questions: Provoke subject, field open-ended questions
Box 3: Excellent vs. Weak ContentWriting with excellent content Writing with weak content
• has a clear purpose• has correct and relevant
information that supports the purpose; fits the needs of the reader; can be clearly understood.
• is complete; needed evidence has not been omitted or distorted to fit private needs
• is logical• has a consistent point of view and
mood• uses effective, appropriate
definitions, examples, and illustrations
• is properly documented
• has no purpose or central theme; reflects a rambling, “shoot-and-hope” effort
• has incomplete, incorrect, or irrelevant material; material does not support needs of readers
• supports only one view; has distorted or omitted material
• is narrow, biased, and dogmatic • is vague, indirect, unclear, and
hedging• is illogical; is guilty of logical
fallacies • is not documented; contains
plagiarized material
68
lProd subject to get into anecdotes
lChallenge subject to prove assertions: Ask, how do you know that? You have documents to prove that?
lWrite down your most important questions - Do a minimum Interview schedule
lPrepare very well for a good opener and an artful close
lDiscern when you must get tough – be persistent, not pesky or mean
lAs a rule, record the interview (audio or audio-video), but also do back-up notes
lA note on taking notes: adopt a system for highlighting most important quotes, details; jot down personal observation on tone, color, texture of interview
lOff-record requests: Go back to the issue, throttle source into telling you more
lDress appropriately lNever let an interviewee wait
Box 4: Excellent vs. Weak Organization
Writing with excellent organization
Writing with weak organization
• has an effective purpose statement. contains good, well-placed transitions.
• has an effective overall strategy; has a good introduction, body, and closing.
• has ideas combined in an appropriate order.
• makes information accessible to reader; has been properly emphasized or deemphasized.
• has a poor strategy; hides important material or causes negative reactions; presents ideas in a confusing order.
• lacks sequence; is not tied together.
• lacks topic sentences, headings, reader cues, etc.
• fails to subordinate lesser ideas.
• has poorly constructed paragraphs.
• includes sentences with no variety in length, rhythm, etc.
for you. Better to come early and ‘case the joint’.
Mangahas gave some tips on backgrounding persons:lPeople know peoplelFriends, colleagues, relativeslEnemies, rivals, victimslAcquaintanceslRegulators, civil registrarslExpertslEvery person is documentedl5Ws & H apply to all
interviewees
She then shared the difference between writing with excellent content and writing with weak content (See Box 3).
Mangahas ended the presentation by sharing the difference between excellent and weak writing organization (See Box 4).C. Input: Putting the story together
Mangahas’ last presentation was on finalizing the story. She
began by saying that Writing the investigative report demands... more time, more patience, more thought and more care.
She then went into the things that need to be done before even writing the story:
l List the main findings of your fieldwork
l Decide what facts and details go together– Outline– Memo or letter to yourself– Diagrams or flowcharts
l Write your nut graph
The nut graph is the story’s roadmap/focus graph. It tells the readers what the story is all about, what you are out to prove or explain. It can contain the news peg and the story background. It comes in one or two paragraphs and must appear early on in the report (the first page, preferably the first half of the page). In journalistic lingo, the nut graph is the lead in the story that uses the ‘hard’ lead and comes later in the story that uses the delayed lead or ‘soft’ lead.
Mangahas then gave tips on telling the story effectively. She said that it is important to put a human face to the story because people like to read about people; and there is a need to get people into the story, either in the form of case studies or anecdotes and making it descriptive and narrative.
69
Participatory 3-D mapping empowers communities (PAFID)
Mapping one’s own land, even for indigenous peoples, is now possible through the Participatory 3-Dimensional Map.
The Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID), a non-government organization which constructed 3-Dimensional Maps of more than a hundred areas all over the Philippines and some overseas, are assisting communities in mapping their own areas to reach out to tribe claims and their resources.
An area’s extent can be computed and modeled through the 3-Dimensional Map, giving users the estimated distances of roads, rivers, trails, and landmarks, as well as the value of land uses in area in hectares. The Map becomes the best tool for planning, since it can be used to immediately interpret the site’s topography, and easily assess the status of land use, its extents, and its vulnerability.
Involving people in the making of the model is what makes the mapping participatory, and awareness in constructing the Maps is promoted to everybody, making it a gender-sensitive work in the process. Residents in the area being mapped are especially encouraged to participate, since they are the ones who are usually aware of land uses, rivers, trails, landmarks, and roads, which are used as coding involved in the model construction. The coding uses colors, specifically, color-coded paint for land uses, rivers, and trails, color-coded strings for boundaries, and tenurials, and color-coded push pins for landmarks.
A community of the Kalanguya tribe, an Austronesian ethnic group most closely associated with the Cordillera Administrative Region, recently mapped one of the remote villages in the municipality of Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya. This made the community realize that the Mt. Pulag National Park covers almost half of their area, hindering their rice and vegetable farming capacities to their full potential, and affecting the livelihood of most families.
Hopefully, more communities can be tapped to participate in the 3-Dimensional mapping.
Box 5: Sample Output of the Writeshop
She then shared some tips on how to write quickly:l Write the highlights l Code your notes l Make an outlinel Write several leads l Free writel Fix later
l Tell it to a friend or editor
As well as packaging the story:l Think graphics l Think photosl Think of sidebarsl Design attractive layout l Promote the story
Then the most important: fact and libel checks:l Edit line by linelCheck every fact lHave several people look at
the storylGet a lawyer’s opinion
Finally, the story is out; but the writer’s work is not yet done without embarking on the following tasks:l Do follow-upslGet reader feedbacklGet official reactionlTrack the progress of the
problem or issue
D. Writeshop
After the inputs, it was off to the actual writing. As the participants were asked to prepare drafts of their stories or actual published stories, the first part of the workshop was the presentation of their stories (which for purposes of the workshop were called first drafts).
Mangahas then gave inputs on the first drafts and the participants were given time to re-write these. The second round of criticquing showed notable improvements on the stories and the PCIJ founder just gave a few pointers to tweak the stories futher. m
70
NES Philippines Members
Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC)
A regional association of 15 national and regional networks of non-government organizations (NGOs) in Asia actively engaged in food security, agrarian reform, sustainable agriculture, participatory governance and rural development.
Contacts: Nathaniel Don Marquez and Marianne NaungayanEmail: [email protected]
Asian Farmers Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA)A regional alliance
of national federations and organizations of small scale farmers in promoting cooperation and solidarity among Asian farmers.
Contact: Ma. Estrella PenuniaEmail: [email protected]
People’s Campaign for Agrarian Reform Network, Inc. (AR Now!)An advocacy and
campaign center for the promotion of agrarian reform and sustainable development.
Contact: Anthony MarzanEmail: [email protected]
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (CARRD)A non-stock, non-profit organization
working for agrarian reform and rural development.
Contact: Joy DemaluanEmail: [email protected]
Philippine Association for Intercultural Development, Inc. (PAFID)A social development organization which has been assisting Philippine indigenous communities secure or recover traditional lands and waters.
Contact: Dave de VeraEmail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka
(PAKISAMA)A national confederation of small farmers’ and fishers’ organizations empowering Filipino farmers, fisherfolks, indigenous peoples, and women advocating for genuine sustainable agrarian reforms and rural development.
Contacts: Raul Socrates Banzuela and Armand RidaoEmail: [email protected]
Task Force Mapalad (TFM)TFM is national federation of farmers, farm workers and individuals working for agrarian reform and rural development.
Contact: Armando JarillaEmail: [email protected]
Xavier Science Foundation, Inc. (XSF)A legal and financial mechanism generating and
managing resources to support the social and educational endeavors of Xavier University and other non-profit institutions.
Contacts: Roel Ravanera and Renante SalcedoEmail: [email protected]
In 2012, the International Land Coalition ILC started the National Engagement Strategy (NES) as a unified approach to bring CSO members at the country level to work on common agenda. Having a long history of involvement on land issues in the country, ILC members have agreed to pursue the goal and objectives of NES, recognizing and respecting their respective institutional strategies and at the same time engaging the various campaigns pushing for policy reforms to enhance the poor’s access to land.
ILC NES in the Philippines synergizes the efforts of the civil society organisations (CSOs) with other stakeholders such as government and international organisations in building on previous efforts to increase and strengthen access to and control of land and other natural resources in rural sectors.
