Case Study - Philippines Metagora Pilot Project

CHAPTER 8: ANALYSING THE QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA GATHERED (page 2)

8.2.4 Duties and Obligations of IPs - Comparative Analysis

The survey revealed that the three tribes were performing their duties on their ancestral lands through cultivation and other improvements. The FGD findings also validated those findings. However, FGD findings revealed differentiated duties that members of the tribes fulfilled as individuals and as a community. The tribes had expressed the desire not only to cultivate their lands but also to protect them from intruders or illegal migrants, to conserve and sustain the environment through varied conservation and sustaining activities, to move for titling of their lands for greater security of tenure, and to cooperate with local officials in this regard. The FGD findings enriched the survey findings by revealing other duties not shown in the survey.

8.2.5 Violations of IPs’ Rights - Comparative Analysis

The survey reported that the three tribes experienced violations of their rights to ancestral domains and lands. The survey also revealed that a small number had experienced displacements, due mainly to natural calamities, and, in one tribe, armed conflict. For the Bugkalot tribe, displacement was caused by mining operations. The FGD findings from the three tribes validated the survey findings. The FGD findings provided more detail than the survey about the nature of violations experienced by tribe members.

8.2.6 Mechanisms for Grievance/Redress - Comparative Analysis

The survey revealed that the tribes used mechanisms from their customary laws and practices, as well as those that are legislated under national laws, such as the Barangay justice system. FGD findings support the survey findings. The FGD findings mentioned the Bugkalot tribal leaders’ recognition of both IPRA and its full implementation, as well as the consultative bodies that provide mechanisms that can be used by their tribe. The formulation of the ADSDPP under IPRA was not covered in the survey, but this was brought out during the FGDs.

8.2.7 Customary Laws and Practices - Comparative Analysis

The survey revealed that customary laws were used in settling disputes or resolving problems in the IP communities. The FGD findings supported this. It was observed, however, that in all of the tribes, there was also reliance on the legal system established under national legislation. The IP community seems to use the national laws as supplemental to the customary laws in resolving conflicts, finding remedies, and fulfilling the IPs' rights to ancestral lands.

8.2.8 Measures to Protect IPs’ Rights – Comparative Analysis

The survey covered legal measures available to IPs. The ranking given to government agencies in terms of awareness and use of services and degree of satisfaction with those services were suprising to the government agencies involved. The survey findings were substantially enriched by the detailed focus group discussions on measures undertaken by different stakeholders and duty-holders. Those measures provide a better understanding of what services are appreciated as effective by IPs for the realisation of their rights. The FGD findings point to the important role of government in ensuring the fulfillment of the rights to ancestral domains and lands. The findings also recognize the interventions by other duty-bearers that produce an enabling environment for IPs to realise their rights. Through the FGDs, the study also revealed that the tribes value most the assistance given by the government when they apply for their Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title.

For further information regarding the results of the survey on IPs in the Philippines (based on both quantitative and qualitative data), please consult Appendix 8.1 and Appendix 8.2 of this Case Study.