Case Study - Philippines Metagora Pilot Project

CHAPTER 8: ANALYSING THE QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA GATHERED (page 1)

8.1 COMBINING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE APPROACHES

The Philippines Metagora project proceeded from formulation of the project and survey objectives, to dialogues and consultations between and among partners on the methods to be developed, to implementation of those methods. The combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches for measuring human rights was adopted. The quantitative approach entailed the formulation of a survey design and its implementation, resulting in quantitative outcomes and findings. The qualitative approach mainly employed focus group discussions and consultations in arriving at qualitative outcomes and findings. In the analysis and interpretation of the findings, the quantitative and qualitative results of data-collection and analysis were further combined so that coherent policy implications relevant to the general Metagora framework could be generated.

The IGE was charged with the responsibility of deciding on how make maximum and effective use of the data collected. Since this pilot study sought to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches in measuring human rights, the IGE agreed to integrate appropriate data generated from the survey, FGDs and local consultations to highlight the study’s impact on human rights, governance and democracy-related policies.

In bringing together the art and science of statistics and human rights, individual work gave way to collaboration, and specialisation ceded to integration. This study involved more than methods and tools; it involved people: IPs, statisticians, and human rights practitioners. Respect of IP rights took into account the free prior and informed consent (FPIC), a significant policy on IP participation enshrined under Republic Act 8371, known as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act or IPRA. Implementing this policy required a long process of consultations that complied with FPIC standards. These consultations were crafted by NCIP to suit the PhilMetagora time frame.

The Metagora logical framework, found in the partnership agreement between the OECD and CHRP as PIO of the project, was the bases for the formulation of the policy framework of this study. That framework aimed to guide the study in addressing key governance issues, in confirming or correcting stakeholders’ perceptions and policy assumptions, and in informing, with evidenced-based analysis, appropriate design of policies and programmes aimed at redressing rights and enhancing accountability.

8.2 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE FINDINGS – A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

For further information on the qualitative or quantitative element behind these different topics and results, please refer to the attached Appendices (Appendix 8.1 and Appendix 8.2).

8.2.1 Findings on the socio-demographic profile of respondents from the three tribes

Comparative analysis between quantitative and qualitative data is not possible for this section, since it focuses on quantitative data-collection methods. For further information relating to respondents' socio-economic profile, consult Appendix 8.1.

8.2.2 Findings on perceptions and awareness of three tribes on the rights to ancestral domains and ancestral lands - Comparative Analysis

While the findings of the survey revealed a high perception and awareness of rights to ancestral domains and ancestral land, the FGD findings qualified this by distinguishing that not all of the rights to ancestral domain as listed under IPRA are well understood by the members of the tribe. Among the rights listed under IPRA as rights to ancestral domains, the focus groups were more articulate in discussing the right of ownership, right to develop lands and natural resources, and the right to stay in the territories. Survey findings using the vignettes showed that right to develop lands and the right of ownership are among the highest-rated rights; however, the right to safe and clean water, cited also as high in the list of specific rights under the survey, was not among those frequently mentioned in the FGD. With regard to other concepts, such as human rights, ancestral lands, and domains, the descriptions of the focus groups showed indigenous interpretations of these concepts. Some of these rights appear as economic, social and cultural rights in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. IPRA was well understood as a law that has something to do with their ancestral lands and domains.

Comparing the three focus groups - tribal leaders, women and youth - the FGD findings also revealed that tribal leaders and women had a better grasp of rights than youths, who seemed to lack adequate information or knowledge about those rights. The survey showed that the three tribes appreciated each specific right categorised under the rights to ancestral domain described in the vignettes. However, when asked directly about specific rights during the FGDs, tribe members could not distinguish very well between rights that are covered by the rights to ancestral domain and rights to ancestral lands.

8.2.3 Findings on progressive realisation of indigenous peoples’ rights to ancestral domains and ancestral lands – Comparative Analysis

The survey findings revealed that legislative guarantee and government action recognising the three tribes’ entitlement to their ancestral domains is just the beginning of the IPs' quest for the full realisation of their rights. They now desire to be full owners, under the law, by acquiring titles to their ancestral lands, which they assert were theirs since time immemorial. They have been cultivating those lands for their livelihood and would like to secure them through titling for their families. A sizable number indicated that their proof of ownership is a tax declaration. Thus, it would benefit members of the tribe if they acquire titles to their lands so that they can have greater opportunities to improve the use of their land through assistance from governmental and non-governmental organisations.

The FGD findings reveal a growing sense of ownership and security about the land among the tribes. They recognize that IPRA had given them considerable opportunity to secure their ancestral lands through the national legal system. The FGD findings also support the prevailing positive attitude of the tribes as a result of government actions guaranteeing their rights to ancestral domains and lands. It appears that the survey and FGD findings support each other.