Case Study - Philippines Metagora Pilot Project

CHAPTER 10: GENERAL LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS

10.1 FACTORS WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE POSITIVE OUTCOMES OF THE SURVEY

During the project implementation, the following factors were considered influential in generating positive outcomes:

10.1.1 The Rule of Law

The respect accorded to the three tribes by following the rule of law under IPRA - specifically, the consultations undertaken pursuant to the policy of “free prior informed consent” - showed that this policy can be implemented if there is respect for the rule of law. The sense of dignity of the tribe as owners of the ancestral domain was strengthened. Goodwill with the three tribes was established.

10.1.2 Participation

The three tribes were encouraged to participate from the ancestral domain consultations until the local users’ forums. Their opinions, comments and suggestions, ideas and preferences were solicited in many aspect of project implementation. Examples include:

• The Bago tribe, when consulted as to language preference in the questionnaire to be translated chose the Ilocano language;

• The Bugkalot tribe’s preference that the tribe members living in the three provinces of Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Aurora be covered by the survey and FGDs was honored; and

• The Kankana-ey tribe’s reactions during the Local Users’ Forum - specifically, that their high ranking of use of and satisfaction with the services provided by DSWD as a government agency should be credited to the Local Government Unit - was noted and explained in the write-up pertaining to this portion of findings under the Kankana’ey tribe survey.

The participation of the three tribes enabled project implementers to understand better their situation. A close camaraderie and sense of unity developed between the tribe and the project staff and partners during several activities in which they worked together. The study proved that the participatory approach in measuring human rights can generate rich results.

10.1.3 Non-Discrimination

The tribe members as well as NCIP partners expressed their appreciation for the non-discrimination they experienced with CHRP project staff and the task force, as well as other local partners. This feeling of not being excluded generated more trust and confidence between the tribe and the project implementers.

10.1.4 Orientation on Human Rights and IPRA

Although the tribe members regard their customary laws as their main source of authority regarding disputes with fellow tribe members and other persons, the orientations on human rights and IPRA during project implementation were appreciated. In fact, they recommended that more tribe members be given those orientations. They also realized that their tribe needs to develop human rights defenders for the continuing protection and promotion of their rights to ancestral domains and lands and other indigenous rights.

10.1.5 The Quality and Standards in Conducting the Study

The tribes were made aware of the quality of data that must be generated and the standards for conducting the study, which included tool development and procedures in field operations. Not being accustomed to or familiar with this kind of activity, the tribe was exposed to the rigours of quantitative and qualitative approaches in gathering evidenced-based data. They were taught to conduct interviews, moderate focus group discussions, record data from the respondents, and report those data. They were also exposed to pretesting of the questionnaires in English and their preferred language. These experiences have led to an appreciation of how to generate data based on a participatory approach in data-collection and reporting.

Given these factors, the following outcomes were noted:

• Stronger coordination among the partners with the tribe;

• Greater trust and confidence among the tribe shown to project implementers;

• A sense of confidence and feeling of security in dealing with non-tribe members;

• Greater cooperation to undertake the activities;

• Strong desire and sense of responsibility among tribe data-collectors to generate the truth from respondents;

• Desire for longer partnership with project implementers;

• Non-interference during data-gathering period;

• Full cooperation from tribe households during the survey and from focus groups during FGDs;

• Desire and motivation to be rights-based in governance of their ancestral domains;

• Better understanding of their rights as human beings and as indigenous peoples, especially in relation to their rights to ancestral domains and ancestral lands.

In addition to the successful undertaking of the different activities as agreed upon in the Terms of Reference, there were positive offshoots of this study. These are described below:

10.2.1 Invitation to share information on IP issues and concerns in relation to their rights

A research study, funded by ILO, was commissioned from the Ateneo Human Rights Center. The lawyer-researcher requested an interview with the PhilMetagora Project Coordinator, Atty. Anita M. Chauhan, regarding the salient findings of the study and the methodology and coverage. That interview was followed by a focus group discussion in which Atty. Chauhan, another CHRP representative, and a NCIP representative participated.

10.2.2 Use of Findings

As a result of the Local Users’ Forum conducted among the Bugkalot Tribe in Aglipay, Quirino, one of the stakeholders, representing the committee crafting the protected areas of the province of Quirino, personally informed the Project Coordinator, Atty. Chauhan, that the findings of the study were useful to the Bugkalots because they represent the first formal study of the tribe. The findings will also be useful for the preparation of the Protected Area Plan of Quirino. According to that participant, the Bugkalot ancestral domain comprises 50% of the land area of Quirino; hence, the study provides important information on the situation of Bugkalots that will be used to prepare the plan.

10.2.3 Enhanced Rights-based ADSDPP of the Kankana-ey Tribe

The Kankana-ey tribe had already prepared its Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan, or ADSDPP, prior to this study. However, after this study was conducted, the tribe requested that they be assisted in enhancing the ADSDPP by adopting the rights-based framework and integrating into the ADSDPP ADSDPP the study’s findings regarding the tribe.

Three meetings were conducted in this respect:

10.2.3.1 First Meeting with Kibungan LGU Officials to Review Kankana-ey Tribe ADSDPP

Applying Rights-Based Approach Planning Framework
Date/Venue: 16 May 16 2005/CHR-I Regional Office, Pagdalagan Norte,
San Fernando City, La Union

The first meeting was an exploratory one, in which key officials of the LGU of Kibungan and tribal leaders brainstormed on how to enhance the ADSDPP. The meeting resulted in the review and inclusion of programmes, projects and activities (PPAs) that were linked to specific human rights. This meeting was financed with Metagora local meetings funds.

10.2.3.2 Second Meeting with Kibungan LGU Officials to Review Kankana-ey Tribe ADSDPP

Applying Rights-Based Approach Planning
Date/Venue: 15 June 2005/CHR-RO1, Pagdalagan Norte, San Fernando City, La Union

This was an orientation on rights-based ADSDPP planning and agreements on how to enhance the ADSDPP. Tribal participants expressed their desire to enhance their tribe’s ADSDPP. The Project Coordinator, Atty. Chauhan, was entrusted revise the plan, incorporating the findings of this study and using the rights-based framework in the development plan. This meeting, as per instruction of NCIP, was funded by NCIP.

10.2.3.3 Kankana-ey Tribe Workshop and Planning for Rights-based ADSDPP

Date/Venue: 27 September 27 2005/Jacks Restaurant, La Trinidad, Benguet

This third meeting was the tribal representatives’ review of the enhancement done by CHRP and their contributions to the enhancement. The tribal representatives agreed to prepare and submit for inclusion the contributions required from them to enhance the ADSDPP. This was conducted with joint funding from the CHRP UNDP fund and the LGU Kibungan fund.

Two other meetings were planned: one in October 2005, in which the contributions agreed upon were presented by the tribe and the second round of editing by CHRP, and a last formal tribal assembly to present and approve the enhanced rights-based ADSDPP.

10.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS

A series of concluding remarks about the IP survey in the Philippines are presented below.

10.3.1 Policy Implications

The following policy implications are addressed to the three governance stakeholders:

• Continuing and sustained IPRA implementation, HR education, policy reviews and delivery of basic services through concerted efforts by government institutions, civil society and the private sector;

• Strong political will to review existing government policies, programme measures and mechanisms to control undue and abusive private-sector exploitation of natural resources within the IPs' ancestral domains and land, and to develop rights-based policies and measures for the welfare and benefit of IPs; and

• Collaboration and convergence between government institutions and civil society to address human rights issues of IPs through varied measures and mechanisms, and strengthening of IP organisations for advocacy of IP rights through capacity building.

10.3.2.1 On Methodology and Tools

• Survey-based diagnoses of human rights provide objective assessment of policy and programme implementation to respect, protect and fulfil human rights of indigenous peoples.

• Bottom-up approaches allow free, active and meaningful participation of IPs and generate useful findings for advocacy of IP rights among governance stakeholders.

• Rights-based governance indicators for guarantee of respect, protection and fulfillment of IP rights can be generated using a combination of quantitative (survey) and qualitative (FGD) approaches in evidenced-based study of IP rights.

• There is evidence of interest in IPRA as an effective legislative measure to strengthen the recognition of indigenous peoples as a distinct sector of Philippine society.

• IPs manifest growing awareness of their rights under IPRA, but need thorough understanding of those rights.

• Government plays an important role in encouraging other governance stakeholders to respect, protect and fulfil IP rights to ancestral domain and land.

• IPs still rely on and respect customary laws and practices in solving their land disputes.

• Gains in rights enjoyment are hampered by existing violations.

• There is potential for further collaboration among governance stakeholders in policy and programme measures for promoting and protecting IP rights.

• The study implies the need to review IPRA to respond to and comply with rights-based norms and standards in IP governance. The study highlights the fact that, in compliance with state obligations, the resources allocated and the programmes designed for fulfilling IP rights should be maximised.

• The study shows a need to review existing laws and policies, programme measures and mechanisms that govern participation of the private sector and civil society to ensure that they conform with international standards and norms of human rights for the protection and realisation of IP rights.

• The rights-based framework that mainstreams human rights norms, standards and principles in development provides an objective and realistic guide for examining the rights of indigenous peoples. It can also guide the formulation of benchmarks and indicators in the realisation of IP rights because it clarifies the accountability of government institutions, the private sector and civil society in facilitating and enabling indigenous peoples to enjoy their basic rights.

• The participatory, bottom-up approach in surveys of ICCs/IPs should be adopted in any effort to diagnose, assess or evaluate IP rights.

• A combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches in diagnosing human rights, governance and democracy can help define indicators for democratic rights-based governance.

• Replicate the study on other IPs in other ethnographic regions within the country to provide evidenced-based data for future censuses of the Philippine population. This would be a government guarantee that IPs/ICCs would be recognised as a distinct sector of Philippine society.

• Provide financial support to projects that build the capacity of IPs to advocate for their rights among governance stakeholders.

• Strengthen collaboration of resources amoung three governance stakeholders in promoting, protecting and fulfilling IP rights.

• Integrate the findings of this study into the preparation of the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP) of the Bago and Bugkalot Tribes. Advocate for funding support in the preparation/finalisation of the ADSDPP of the three tribes and in the undertaking of programmes, projects and activities in the ADSDPP to support the realisation of IPs rights to ancestral domains and lands.

Return to Case Study
top