Department of Agrarian Reform Project Development Institute

The Other Inconvenient Truths
Report of the National Conference on Asset Reform and Climate Change
UP-Ayala Techno-Hub, Commonwealth Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 26 May 2010

1 3 5 8 11 Message From DAR Sec. Virgilio de los Reyes FOREWORD INTRODUCTION Summary: Ushering a Climate of Change Keynote Address Dr. James Putzel Panel Presenta�ons 1 Prof. Walden Bello: Climate Change and Global Development Dr. Saturnino “Jun” Borras, Jr.: Climate Change, Global Land Issues and Implica�ons for Land Reform Mr. Francisco “Pancho” Lara: Climate Change and Conflict Panel Presenta�ons 2 Usec. Rosalina Bistoyong: Collec�ve Ac�on in the Peasant Sector: the ARC Experience Director Maria Grace Pascua: Collec�ve Ac�on in the Upland Resource Sector Loida Rivera: Collec�ve Ac�on in the Women’s Sector Panel Presenta�ons 3 Dr. Laura David: Collec�ve Ac�on in the Marine Resource Sector Mr. Jude Esguerra: Collec�ve Ac�on in the Water Resource Sector Usec. Narciso Nieto: Recas�ng the Agrarian Reform Strategy Panel Presenta�ons 4 Dr. Rosa Perez: Result of Luzon Workshop Dr. Buenaventura Dargantes: Result of Visayas Workshop Virginia Verora: Result of Mindanao Workshop Discussions and workshops: themes, ques�ons, answers Concluding Points Miss Aurea Teves: Next Steps Appendices

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 32



FOREWORD National Conference on Asset Reform and Climate Change
“Ushering A Climate of Change” is a call to the new administration to reverse the effects and impact of climate change in the Philippines by recasting government policies that address rural poverty.


limate change threatens food security and might even lead to global food scarcity. The Philippines is among the most vulne-rable countries with 80% of the population at risk. Climate change aggravates the various types of marginalization of the vast majority of the people and increases the vulnerability of the rural poor, particularly women.


The conference aims to address the serious deficit in the role of policies and people empowerment by emphasizing on a shift in power relations – which have increased the economic and political uncertainties and the multiple risks associated with unclear and unresolved property rights in rural areas and heightened the vulnerability of the rural poor to environmental and climate change. Our goal is to understand how asset reform and environmental change strategies impact on the larger issues of economic growth and rural and urban conflict. The main objective is to create a forum for assessing and learning from collective action strategies that marries asset reform with environment protection. The Specific objectives of the conference are as follows: 1. To rediscover how the rural distribution of power shapes and is shaped by collective actions that enable communities to protect their livelihood and deal with risks.

2. To define the role and responsibility of DAR, DENR and the NCIP in the creation of a stronger link between asset reform and people’s vulnerability to environment and climate change. 3. To identify and craft collective actions that lessen the risks of group, community and local conflict as people prepare for environmental crisis and upheaval. Based on the above objectives, we have achieved the following results: 1. New policy proposal and advocacy map that reform, recount and strengthen collective action strategies at the community and local level. 2. Define the role of farmer beneficiaries and the DAR in meeting the new political and economic challenges. 3. Formulation of a Call to Action. 4. Establishment of a broad network that brings AR and environmental activities, and state and nonstate agents together in constant dialogue. This national conference was preceded by three regional conferences that established the significance and connection of asset reform to climate change.

Convenor, National Conference on Asset Reform and Climate Change

Aurea M. Teves




he climate change agenda has been, and remains, strongly biased towards science and technology. Its anticipated effects are often quantified and confounded with quick revelations of how much higher global temperatures will be, of how many plant and animal species are at increased risk of extinction, of what temperature range spikes will spell decreased productivity and increased hunger for citizens. In the same vein, government leaders, when brainstorming about climate change responses, unleash a laundry list of economic measures that are inextricable from the principles of science and technology. Paradoxically, however, these figures and data can make the eventuality of climate change seem less real and tangible, making the climate change discourse seem like a conversation only for the learned and hosing down the interests of the common individual. This brand of discourse has consequently isolated some issues that are, in fact, critical to any measure of success for frameworks on climate change responses. A country’s contextual history and reality ought to be accounted for when building the blueprint for climate change adaptation and mitigation. In the Philippines, the protracted histories of agrarian reform, of indigenous peoples’ struggles and of a robust social movement seem to have been detached from climate change talks. Though the problematic 20year-old Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) has been extended with reforms for another five years, doubts persist over its satisfactory completion by 2014. Perpetuating this doubt and heightening fears is the escalation of the climate change agenda in the government’s menu of priorities On the 23rd of October 2009, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed the

landmark Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009 (otherwise known as Republic Act 9729) which mandates the establishment of a National Framework Strategy and Program on Climate Change and the creation of the the Climate Change Commission under the Office of the President. As much as it is hailed as a big step forward for the government’s response to climate change, R.A. 9729 could possibly cause retracted steps for the unfinished agrarian reform program and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Acts (IPRA). For one, the blatant exclusion of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) from the Advisory Council of the Climate Change Commission is already indicative of a climate change response framework that is unmindful of ongoing asset reform processes and that enables the leverage of land to widen the social, political and economic gaps in the country. While the state declares it a policy to “systematically integrate the concept of climate change in various phases of policy formulation, development plans, poverty reduction strategies and other development tools and techniques by all agencies and instrumentalities of the government”1, it failed to declare that reinvigorated commitments to asset reform and to indigenous peoples rights are also requisite ingredients in this systematic integration. Social movements, communities and concerned citizens are, therefore, obligated to grab the ball of responsibility and call on the government to re-examine its major policy blunder. Through collective action, the government’s vision can be unclouded as to the centrality of most affected peoples and communities in the national climate change framework, action plan and budget allocation.


It is with these assumptions and aspirations that this event, the National Conference on Asset Reform and Climate Change, was conceptualized. The Project Development Institute, together with the Department of Agrarian Reform, hopes to trumpet the need for the inclusion of asset reform and local action in the national climate change framework. In addition, the inclusion of asset holders in the formulation and implementation of climate change action plans is a banner call of the conference. By highlighting the persisting land tenure issues in the country, the conference aims to strengthen the argument that the DAR and the NCIP are necessary placements in the Climate Change Commission. This conference aims to thicken the discourse on climate change by highlighting the phenomenon’s undeniable, yet still overshadowed, links to agrarian reform, indigenous peoples rights and collective action of communities that have direct stakes on land and other natural resources. The panel presentations tackled the correlation of climate change to land reform, to conflict, and to collective actions for water, marine, and upland resources. The nexus between climate change and the women’s and peasants’ sectors were also sought out in the presentations. Recommended actions for all the stakeholders involved in the climate change agenda are proposed.

In a series of regional conferences in Mindanao, Visayas and Luzon, the conference organizers provided platforms for the voices of affected communities, asset holders, rights claimants and other local stakeholders such as local government units, local offices of national government agencies, NGOs, academic institutions and individual advocates, to be heard. These voices were synthesized into regional reports presented in Panel 4 presentations of the conference. With this convergence of both dedicated experts and eager learners about climate change, the organizers hope to sustain the chatter over the centrality of asset reform and collective action in influencing the national discourse on climate change. What are not yet seen in the formative national climate change framework and national climate change action plan are incovenient truths that need to be addressed. The conference does not aim to challenge the role of science and technology in climate change adaptation and mitigation. On the contrary, it seeks to find the relevance of science and technology in the realities of power imbalances, people’s rights and the tortuous asset reform processes. The potency of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies would be enhanced if people and their rights claims are not alienated from the requisite science and technology to manage increasing uncertainties in the natural world.

Narciso “Boy” Nieto Undersecretary Department of Agrarian Reform 6




edistributing property rights through agrarian reform is a key policy direction that should be taken by the new administration of president apparent Benigno Aquino III to help the country adapt to climate change, experts on land reform and asset change said at a recent conference. The “National Conference on Asset Reform and Climate Change” organized by the Project Development Institute, an NGO advocating agrarian reform, and the Department of Agrarian Reform, on Wednesday called on the incoming Aquino administration to reverse the effects and impact of climate change by reshaping government policies toward the rural poor, who are the most vulnerable to the vagaries of the environment.

James Putzel of the Crisis States Research Center at the London School of Economics, who has done extensive studies on land reform in the Philippines, said a rise in the sea level threatens the livelihoods and survival of 70 percent of the country’s 1,500 seaside municipalities along the Philippines’ 32,000-kilometer discontinuous coast line – one of the longest in the world. Climate change also will affect access to and management of fresh water and likely aggravate the impact of natural disasters on the country, and cause declines in agricultural production. DAR Undersecretary Narciso Nieto said the agency is “thinking about recasting” its strategy on building agrarian reform communities to meet the effects of


climate change and “how this will shape the over-all nature and priorities of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.” He said climate change will prove costly to investments already made on water impounding systems and communal irrigation, which were not built to withstand the expected increased demand for household consumption during the El Nino months or the expected large volumes of rain during the monsoon season. Climate change also will render upland communities vulnerable to landslides during the rainy season and to bush and forest fires during the dry spells, he said. In addition, entrants or migrants fleeing the deadly effects of climate change in their areas will create tension and pressure on communities they decide settle in. Such conflicts can now be seen in the Bicol region, Mindoro, Negros and Central and Northern Mindanao, Nieto said. The challenges from climate change confronting the country “are highly political, deeply connected to immediate problems of poverty,” Putzel said.

The challenges also “raise immediate issues of national policy in relation to strategies for agricultural and industrial production and redistributive reform – not least agrarian reform,” he said. “Climate change adaptation measures need, first and foremost, to reduce the vulnerability of both communities and production systems to the instabilities of climatic conditions,” he said. This entails the “distribution and redistribution of land rights” to encourage investments and improvements on the land and gain access to credit lines to finance them, he said. “We have long known that small holders deal better with the microclimates that characterize farming everywhere and in conditions of capital scarcity they make better use of labor and land than do large farm operators,” he said. He said the country needs a new kind of agribusiness that will move away from the practices of the old landed elites in the Philippines as exemplified by the Aquino family-run Hacienda Luisita that merely retain their vast landholdings without developing high value agricultural production, seek niche markets for


Philippine products abroad, promote food processing and boost agricultural exports. The country needs an agribusiness industry that “combines the energies of small producers, cooperatives and entrepreneurs willing to deploy new technologies and take risks,” he said. “The President-elect could demonstrate that his government represents generational change by setting an example and convincing his family to finally put the story of Hacienda Luisita behind them – change it from a story of land held in violation of successive legal efforts to redistribute it and from a story of successive protests and even killings to put down social mobilization, to a story of justice and forward looking development,” Putzel said. “The question now is whether the threats posed by climate change will be enough to provoke the formation of a new coalition that rises above family interests, narrow class interests – whether of capital or labor – local community interests, to take the necessary risks and launch the long term programmes required to make the country as a whole more

productive and in ways that are environmentally sustainable,” he said. Ria Teves, executive director of the Project Development Institute, proposed several immediate steps to address climate change through asset reforms. She pushed for the recasting of the government’s agrarian reform policy by incorporating the threat of climate change so that the new agrarian reform strategy would involve the agrarian reform beneficiaries and their organizations and NGOs in land tenure improvement and economic support services to develop livelihoods while considering environmental mitigation and adaptation measures. There should also be bottom-up consultations with the communities concerned that should involve the beneficiaries, DAR and other stake-holders, she said. The new strategy and new models on dealing with climate change should then be presented for adoption by the incoming government and the international community that provides development assistance for agrarian reform.


Dr. James Putzel

Keynote Address

He further opined that the failure of the Philippine elite to fully industrialize the country means that there is no urgent need for the country to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, in fact, evidence shows that the country contributes very minimally to global warming. In addition, he continued, the position of the Philippines as a net carbon sink can be maximized to rally necessary resources for climate change adaptation. The professor additionally outlined the impacts of climate change as they relate to the Philippine context, arguing that the serious and negative impacts of climate change on the agriculture and fisheries sectors will severely affect the poor. He pointed out that one clear threat is that on communities living along coastlines. As it is - he stressed out - these communities are already vulnerable due to problems of access to and management of limited resources, such as fresh water. The vulnerability they suffer is further aggravated by natural disasters. Dr. Putzel identified urgent actions necessary for climate change adaptation. These include measures that reduce the vulnerabilities of communities and production systems and also measures to ensure the redistribution of land rights. He reiterated that people will be unwilling to invest in land improvement if they do not hold the rights over their land, stressing further that small landholders should be rightly incentivized because they control the backbone of the country’s productivity. It is they who invest more on land, with their hard labor, more so than large or small absentee land owners. The respected professor noted that climate change imposes more pressure on agricultural systems. He added that land reform, thus, needs to contribute to improving land productivity through two approaches. The first approach he identified is the rehabilitation and improvement of irrigation. This recommendation, he proposed, would address the fact that less than half of land equipped for irrigation is actually developed for irrigation. The second land reform approach Dr. Putzel recommended is the development of the country’s agribusiness sector which plays an important role in expanding production. The development strategies could include investment in green technology and


r. Putzel is the Director of the Crisis States Research Centre in the Development Studies Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He wrote the book A Captive Land: the Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines in 1992 about the political economy of the agrarian reform policy and its implementation during the time of Ferdinand Marcos and of Cory Aquino. To this day, he remains as the most authoritative figure on Hacienda Luisita. His extensive research and publications portfolio range from analysis of the politics of the financial crisis , the politics of development in Southeast and East Asia, democratic transition and the roles of foreign and NGOs in development. He was a Visiting Senior Lecturer in Political Science and a Visiting Research Associate at the School of Economics at the University of the Philippines in the late 1980s. Dr. James Putzel opened the conference with an emphasis on the fact that the problem of climate change presents deep and fundamental challenges. He expounded that though the problem is primarily perceived relative to the physical environment, climate change challenges are, in fact, highly political in nature and are deeply related to the immediate causes of poverty. Bearing this in mind, national policies for climate change adaptation should, therefore, be designed to similarly respond to social and economic pressures. He emphasized that these policies should also promote strategies for agricultural and industrial production and for redistributive reforms.


in new kinds of agribusiness, and could also include contract managements that combine new technology and stakeholders partnership. Speaking about developmental asset redistribution, the professor argued that neoliberal strategies do not accelerate growth. He added that there is a need to boost the effectiveness of the state’s regulatory powers, and that strong markets do not emerge without this strong regulatory capacity of the state. He described the state as weak because it serves the short-term interests of the elite, a tradition that can be challenged by a social movement that is strong enough to press for palliative change. He stated that the minimal investments put towards new smallholders only create perverse incentives such as engaging in speculation and land selling. Thus, he added, the regulatory powers of the state should incorporate the implementation of a viable land registration system, especially since a system of taxation on land and improvement in agriculture is impossible without clear

ownership rights. Further, he emphasized that agrarian reform needs to be swift and comprehensive, otherwise, it becomes a drain on state resources. Dr. Putzel drew attention to the declining foreign aid to agriculture and manufacturing sectors, and the shift of donor agencies’ focus on good governance. He pointed out that the agencies need to refocus their aid programmes on the development of agricultural production systems. As a closing note, the professor emphasized that turning failure into success is possible through agricultural modernization and industrialization. According to him, tapping new technologies and improving the agriculture and manufacturing sectors in ways that are environmentallyfriendly are keys to success. The establishment of a political organization capable of creating alternatives for productive investments, and which social movements consider legitimate, is of utmost necessity


Panel Presentations 1
Prof. Walden Bello
impacts on the components of the real economy, namely, in production, consumption, investment and employment. Further, he elaborated that this crisis on the real economy has bearing on the debates on climate change and sustainable development, especially since the present international economy is heavily characterized by fossil fuel-intensive transportation and accelerated integration of production and market. He argued that the collapse of the export-oriented global economy has led to deglobalization, or a falling back on local markets with de-globalized production structures. This collapse calls for change in the reigning economic development model, which as he pointed out, de-globalization could respond to with its more climate-friendly, ecological ways of organizing economic life. De-globalization opens up to low consumption practices that are based on sustainable and decentralized production processes. The professor shared his strong opinion that the assumptions of techno fixes solving climate change problems and perpetuating consumption trends are illusions. Proposed fixes such as the use of biofuels and of market-based mechanisms, such as carbon sequestration and carbon trading, are part of the illusions. He referred to the resistance of Annex 1 countries against legally-binding emission cuts as the cause of failure of the COP 15 climate change negotiations. The voluntary cuts were set at very low levels and rich countries were reluctant to come up with minimum commitments for aid. He pointed out that the negotiations actually displayed the reliance on international financing institutions to finance adaptation measures. Prof. Bello opined that even the most ambitious agreements for climate change mitigation and adaptation will be a mere band-aid if the fundamental driver of climate change – the export-oriented globalized capitalist economy – will continue to reign. He called for the “dethroning” of the export-led model, and in its place adopt climate-sensitive and people-sensitive models. These models should further integrate elements of deglobalization of production, namely, the reorientation of production to the domestic market, the recreation of sustainable agriculture and industry and the promotion of more egalitarian distribution of assets and income.


Climate Change and Global Development

rof. Bello is an elected Congressman of the Akbayan partylist and a former professor of Sociology at the University of the Philippines. He writes on issues about development, trade and globalization, and is a founder and Board member of several organizations. Prof. Bello began his discussion by establishing the link between climate change and global development, first laying his points for arguments in the second stage of the global economic crisis which was triggered by the near-bankruptcy of Greece, the collapse of the financial market and, possibly, the government. He stressed that this crisis has had major impacts on the components of the real economy, namely, in production, consumption, investment and employment Prof. Bello is an elected Congressman of the Akbayan partylist and a former professor of Sociology at the University of the Philippines. He writes on issues about development, trade and globalization, and is a founder and Board member of several organizations. Prof. Bello began his discussion by establishing the link between climate change and global development, first laying his points for arguments in the second stage of the global economic crisis which was triggered by the near-bankruptcy of Greece, the collapse of the financial market and, possibly, the government. He stressed that this crisis has had major


Dr. Saturnino “Jun” Borras, Jr.
the direction of change. Governments and civil society organizations, he said, should look at how these relate. Current discourse is apparently limited to the examination of export-related changes but fails to consider land use change for local exchange. He cited the example of biofuel for export which is captured in debates, but biofuel for domestic use is not. Current discourses on land grabbing, according to him, also exclude potential reformist perspectives such as “Not all land use changes are bad” or “Land property changes are highly political”.


Climate Change, Global Land Issues and Implications for Land Reform

r. Borras is a holder of the Canada Research Chair in International Development Studies and is a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada. He fervently researches on agrarian reform and rural development issues, has published a number of books and works with various international development institutions. Dr. Borras started off by stating that the debates around climate change have provoked the development discourse on land grabbing in the global context. He related that the global agro complex of energy and food and the convergence of energy, finance, and food crises in recent years have posed serious implications for land debates as companies and governments rush to invest in resource-rich countries. Consequently, he added, the re-evaluation of the importance of land for food-for-export and agro-fuel crops has given rise to the current phenomenon of land grabbing. He argued that the mainstream development framework holds land as an important resource for which resources are poured, and the ideal regulation of which is apparently through codes of conduct. He disagreed and instead stressed that this only facilitates land grabbing. Land reform, he maintained, remains relevant, but has been rendered narrow and shallow. Dr. Borras acknowledged that “global land grab” is a useful and relevant term, but is rather a catch-all phrase. He instead proposed a reframing of the concept’s framework to include such aspects as the analyses of land use charges, land property relations change and

He informed the conference attendees that the direction of land use change can take four forms: a) food to food; b) food to biofuel; c) non-food to food; and d) non-food to biofuel. The occurrence of these forms of land use change especially in rural regions is inadequately captured in the current land grabbing discourse. The prevailing analyses focus on the conversion of land devoted to food for domestic exchange into land for production of export crops and biofuel which both threaten food security. But there are actually positive reformist outcomes of land use change that also need to be considered and he mentioned as examples the conversion of wasteland for food or of biofuel for domestic use. He emphasized that there are characters of land use change that are equally important to understand, but are missed out in current discourses. The directions of land property relations change, meanwhile, include redistribution (zero-sum game), distribution (positive sum game), non-redistribution (maintains the status quo), and reconcentration. Dr. Borras revealed that there is a trend towards maintaining the status quo and reconcentration, but radical discourse on land grabbing is focused on reconcentration while the other types are not addressed. He lay emphasis on the importance of studying where the Philippine Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program fits in these quadrants. Additionally, the professor shared that the land grabbing debate is too focused on foreign land grabs. Focus, he surmised, should be on the character of change that the deals have brought upon agrarian structures. He encouraged that the political economy framework be used in studying land reform, land policy, and land grabbing issues.


Mr. Francisco “Pancho” Lara
Mr. Lara went on to identify other effects of conflict and climate change: a) increased demand for energy and use of energy as bargaining chip and its indirect effects on conflict; b) urban-rural tensions as fresh water becomes scarce; c) tensions among local governments for scarce government resources, depending on exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of local areas. These effects he juxtaposed against the uneven emphasis and structure of the overall national disaster framework. Climate proofing should be accompanied by conflictproofing, he proposed. Green stimulus fund is being recommended but such stimulus programs tend to be geographically exclusionary, where prioritization is based on political importance rather than on the scale and vulnerability of the areas. He further proposed that humanitarian assistance flows be informed by local political structures and constraints. Collective action issues over common pool resources should be addressed, and proactive and immediate institutional responses and actions on property rights issues be taken. He indicated that one important matter being discussed in the Climate Change Commission is the selection of the government agency that can work constructively on the issue of climate change. He offered that the Department of Agrarian Reform can be the responsible agency, stressing the extensive experience of DAR with communities and in dealing with collective action issues, the personnel’s ability to deal with various stakeholders, and finally, its ability to set up Agrarian Reform Communities.


Climate Change and Conflict

r. Lara is a PhD Candidate and Research Associate at the Crisis States Research Centre at the London School of Economics. He has, in different leadership positions, been a part of such organizations as the Philippine Peasant Institute and VSO, and was formerly a Chief of Staff at DAR. He extensively writes and advocates about agrarian reform. Mr. Lara started off with a disclosure that conflict is seldom discussed in the discourse of climate change, but that climate change brings prospects of conflict from such crises arising from floods, famine, mass migration and massive social disturbance. He expressed that the literature, however, is very speculative and is difficult to substantiate on this topic. In the analyses of conflict and climate change, Mr. Pancho conjectured that the most plausible effect would be migration. He cited cases with demonstrable effects : a) evacuation due to rising flood waters in Mindanao led to serious cases of inter- and intra-clan conflict; b) tensions between head-enders and tail-enders of irrigation systems in Central Luzon; c) rising incidence of crimes and violence as people fight to secure food stocks in response to climate-induced shocks in Bicol and Eastern Visayas. He added that government may pour in money in irrigation, for instance, but conflicts arising from such an investment should be considered.


Panel Presentations 2

Usec. Rosalina Bistoyong
distribution. Communities, she stressed, are interested in reforestation projects but do not have the land to devote to them. The other issues discussed in the consultations, she added, were the anthropogenic causes of environmental degradation such as mining, the need for effective governance, and the impacts on indigenous peoples. As she conveyed, one major recommendation during the DAR consultations was the formulation of an integrated water management program that cuts across political boundaries and appropriates importance on indigenous knowledge and practices. She believed that the DAR and NCIP should take the lead for such programs. The Undersecretary presented the DAR’s latest accomplishment report and discussed the details of its ARC Strategy – its principles, modalities, and accomplishments. She reported that the agency has a remaining target of 1.57 million hectares for distribution. She reiterated that climate change will magnify the poverty situation, adding that the special ARCs like those in IP areas will be the most affected by the change. She presented the specific priority steps to be taken by DAR: 1) intensification of land distribution; 2) integration of modules on climate change in the ARB capacity development program; 3) integration of climate change adaptation, mitigation and disaster risk management in the ARC development plans; 4) clustering of ARCs for resource pooling; 5) collective watershed management, 6) documentation and dissemination of best practices (e.g., pest management, organic farming), 7) development of a climate change communication program; 8) installation of monitoring and evaluation systems; 9) strengthening of partnerships with other agencies; 10) intensification of resource mobilization; and 11) promotion of collective actions for climate change adaptation and mitigation.


Collective Action in the Peasant Sector: the ARC Experience

sec. Bistoyong is the Undersecretary for Support Services at the Department of Agrarian Reform. Prior to joining the DAR in 2007, she was working with the National Commission on Indigenous People. Usec. Bistoyong shared the highlights of some of DAR’s recent activities concerning climate change. The DAR, in collaboration with the Climate Change Congress of the Philippines and the Climate Change Commission, co-organized a series of consultations (3 island-wide and 1 national), attended by 700 participants. The consultations aimed to interface climate change initiatives of civil society with that of government and create awareness on climate change among various sectors. She relayed that the results of the consultations were submitted for inclusion in the formulation of the national framework strategy on climate change. She imparted that one of the issues raised in the consultations is climate change and its effects on rural communities and rural activities (e.g., typhoons and heavy floods damage lives, insufficiency of water supply for irrigation, depleting fish supply). One other issue brought forth was that of land conversion, which reduces the land area available for


Dir. Maria Grace Pascua
ancestral domains through the issuance of Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles and Certificate of Ancestral Land Titles (i.e.,154 CADTs issued covering 4,196,501.1737 benefiting 911,369 rights holders; 241 CALTs issued covering 14,084.7238 hectares benefiting 7,963 rights holders). Additionally, the formulation of their Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development Protection Plan (i.e., 85 ADSDPPs formulated, 45 on-going), and securing the IPs’ Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) through proper processes (261 Certificate of Compliance to FPIC Process issued; 1,368 Certificates w/o Overlap Issued) are expected to provide support to indigenous people. The Director stressed that the IPs are actually already practicing climate change adaptation measures. They implement diversified cropping systems, plant crops in between stone walls, and build greenhouses that minimize harvest failure and ensure food security. In order to advance the situation of the IPs, the Director recommended the formulation of an IP Master Plan that complements government policies and programs, generates resources for IPs, respects Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices and strengthens their organizations. Other proposed actions from the Director were the support to the disaster risk management bill2, the institutionalization of a national disaster risk management framework and the promotion of a sustainable economy.


Collective Action in the Upland Resource Sector

irector Pascua is the Director for the Office of Policy Planning and Research at the National Commission for Indigenous People. Director Pascua raised the concerns of the more than 14 million indigenous peoples (IP) representing 110 ethnolinguistic groups and occupying some 7.7 million hectares in the Philippines. She referred to IPs as the social group upon whom climate change will have severe impacts even as they have the least to contribute to climate change. She pointed out that it is exactly because the IPs are considered the stewards of the forest that sustaining their knowledge, systems and practices for livelihood and environmental management that they should be considered as primary tools for climate change adaptation. Engagement with them is a requisite component in land use planning, disaster preparedness strategies and in sustainable development plans. Director Pascua presented various policy instruments that can support the IPs in dealing with the effects of climate change: Kyoto Protocol, Bali Action Plan, ILO Convention No. 169, UN Declaration on the Rights of IPs, Convention on Biological Diversity, Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, and the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan for Indigenous Peoples (MTPDP-IP). Under the IPRA, IPs are accorded security over their


Ms. Loida Rivera:
the 1996 calls to action by the International Women’s Conference on the APEC: • • • • • Adoption of the eco-feminist framework Women access to economic resources and political decision making For governments to allocate 20 percent of the national budget to social services To regulate TNCs and ensure observance of social and environmental standards To recognize women’s contributions, knowledge and skills in food production and sustainable agriculture To ensure social and environmental standards of development programs To protect local and national biodiversity against TNC exploitation To protect workers’ rights and women’s informal labor


Collective Action in the Women’s Sector

s. Rivera is a woman farmer from Pampanga who has held leadership positions in a number of farmer organizations, such as President of Pagkakaisa ng Samahang Magsasakang Kababaihan ng Central Luzon (PASAMAKA-CL), Secretary-General of Nagkakaisang Magsasaka ng Gitnang Luzon (NGML) and President of Samahang Magsasaka ng Tianabang.

• • •

Ms. Rivera lamented that climate change is unlikely to be genderneutral. This is extremely unfortunate, especially as women are some of the most vulnerable to climate change. In designing any climate change response, policymakers need first to recognize women’s contribution Launching of Muscovado and Sugarcane Processing Center in Sto. Rosario, Magalang, to food production and Pampanga on February 4, 2010, an agribusiness own and operated by a people’s organization agriculture. She reiterates in partnership with Project Development Institute.


Panel Presentations 3

Dr. Laura David
change, she articulated, the impacts are compounded – damage is caused to property, livelihood and food source. She articulated that people’s natural response to the dwindling food supply is to increase fish catch, reactions that are meant to be first-aid but sometimes end up exacerbating the problem. As a specialist in the marine resource sector, she imparted the little known fact that coral reefs provide protection against climate change. Seagrass, coral reefs, and mangroves provide protection to coastal communities as they naturally buffer against highenergy waves, even under scenario of sea-level rise. She said though, that a multi-level information and education campaign (IECs) is required to make all sectors understand the importance of coral reefs. Dr. David identified some specific climate change adaptation strategies: a) practice of non-destructive fishing (e.g., mariculture that is climate proof); b) protection of coastal habitats; c) development of strategies for accelerated and synergetic effects; d) governance (i.e., transparency in access to natural resources); e) crafting of IECs; and f) formalization of consultations with various stakeholders. She further cautioned against privatization of the coastal commons and underscored the need for the national government to build the resilience of communities. It is ideal, she contended, that coastal residents be included in tenurial policies.


Collective Action in the Marine Resource Sector

r. David teaches Oceanography at the University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute. She holds a PhD degree from the University of South Carolina and is one of the pioneers of motion remote sensing in the Philippines. Dr. David began by emphasizing the paradoxical reality of Philippine coastal areas being populated despite the high risk and the destructive effects on housing and livelihood from typhoons. People’s natural reaction is to create protection. With climate


Mr. Patrocinio “Jude” Esguerra
especially between upstream and downstream users during periods of scarcity. Mr. Esguerra continued sharing the findings of Hayami and Kikuchi, specifically, that the size of areas that needs irrigation also influences the failure or success of collective action, where compliance is better observed in smaller areas. Collective action is also made more difficult if farmers have more access to off-farm or nonfarm livelihoods than when farming is the dominant economic activity in a community. When the community is older, collective action becomes more successful. As the topics of poverty and inequality were not taken up by the cited study, Mr. Esguerra complemented the findings with his statement that these are also influential in the success or failure of collective action. He explained that when the poor prioritize their survival needs, they tend to place less value on the management of their water resources. Having had an extensive experience with community engagement, Mr. Esguerra emphasized the important role communities play in designing resource management projects. He insisted that institutional arrangements introduced in communities should enhance rural managerial capacities, and consequently, enhance natural resource management in these communities. He criticized the patronage system that dominates the present operations of the National Irrigation Administration where service delivery and responsiveness to community needs are directed by objectives for political coalition building. Offering his proposition to the incoming Aquino administration, he asserted that rural poverty can be addressed through social protection strategies that go beyond public works to provide employment guarantee schemes (much like those in India). He continued to say that farmers are risk averse, but that an employment guarantee scheme can encourage them to invest in the productivity of their farms.


Collective Action in the Water Resource Sector

r. Esguerra is the Executive Director of the Institute for Popular Democracy. He is an established economist and sociologist. Mr. Esguerra started off by recognizing that collective action failed in the irrigation system, and that an analysis of this failure will contribute to understanding collective action problems and to designing government support for the water resources sector. He noted that the problem is manifested in the nonfunctioning one-third portion of the downstream system in national irrigation and communal irrigation systems. The climate change-induced erratic rainfall pattern and dry spells, he continued, only further indicate the necessity for rehabilitating irrigation systems. He referred to a study by Hayami and Kikuchi3 to illustrate reasons for failure of collective action in irrigation systems. Collective action, according to the researchers, fails when water is abundant or severely scarce and succeeds when water is moderately scarce. This is attributed to the fact that an abundance of water supply does not provide incentive to communities to save on consumption or supplement the supply. On the other hand, cooperation among users is difficult to achieve as conflicts arise


Usec. Narciso Nieto
from the entry of migrants into the ARCs. He claimed that these risks put to test the DAR’s ARC approach, yet the experience and expertise of the agency also serve to address these. He advised that a careful evaluation of the ARC development plans is timely, especially as the threats of climate change impact even those communities outside ARCs. The support services available under the ARC strategy, he revealed, were not designed to respond to the effects of climate change. The undersecretary likewise conveyed his doubts over the strategy of land distribution in the public domain. He surmised that this action might have literally reshaped the environment and now contributes to deforestation, landslides or droughts, thus imposing intensifying the possible effects of climate change on agrarian reform beneficiaries. He called for a more careful study and analysis of this area of concern. In closing, Usec. Nieto urged the DAR to be proactive, to recast its agrarian reform policy to promote collective action among various stakeholders. Concretely, he recommended the formulation of an AR Development Program that identifies the geographical areas which are most vulnerable to climate change and that outlines strategies for enhancing community resilience.

Recasting the Agrarian Reform Strategy


e proceeded to identify three main areas of concern within which the costly effects of climate change can be gravely felt. First, he elaborated, climate change will hit investments on water impounding systems because they are not built to withstand consumption needs during droughts or increased rainfall episodes. Second, the vulnerability of ARCs in fragile and coastal areas will be heightened (i.e. risks of landslides during the rainy season and forest fires during dry spells). Finally, he explained that climate change will also increase the risk of conflict resulting


Panel Presentations 4

Dr. Rosa Perez
She then continued by stressing that it is of utmost importance to highlight the human face of the effects of climate change, more than merely highlighting the levels at which temperatures will increase. In fact, she argued, the increased risks of communities to climate change were caused by socio-economic hazards and vulnerabilities, rather than by erratic climate patterns. Resources for climate change mitigation and adaptation should also be perceived as investments and not expenditures.


Result of Luzon Workshop

r. Perez is a member of the Inter-governmental Panel for Climate Change and is a retired hydro-meteorologist at the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). She has published a number of papers on the vulnerability of the Philippine coastal and marine resources to climate change, sea level rises and urban flooding, among others. Dr. Perez, prior to discussing the results of the Luzon workshop, briefly noted that, in addition to the extreme climactic events, land use change also creates uncertainties, pushing farmers to migrate to less productive land and endangering biodiversity.

Dr. Perez shared that the issues broached during the Luzon workshop included increasing temperatures, drying up of rivers, scarcity of resources, soil degradation, and disrupted economic activities. The recommendations crafted by the workshop participants were as follows: • • • • • Completion of redistributive reform, securing land from conflicting laws; Encouragement of active participation of small farmers in projects and programs; Development and inclusion of environmental indicators in government programs Forging of strategic partnerships among rural movements and other stakeholders Adaptation of effective measures, safety nets, and climate change catastrophic risk insurance.


Dr. Buenaventura Dargantes:
urban needs Inclusion of climate change issues in student curricula (to include topics on watershed management, renewable energy) Advocacy of climate change issues in local special bodies Documentation of local actions in vulnerable communities (ex. vulnerabilities caused by geohazards and human-induced such as mining) Documentation of displacement due to development aggression and policies (cases that deny people the use and control of the resource base should be part of the documentation) Forging of partnership between communities and government by integrating community participation in local development planning Mainstreaming of issues in local and national levels through participatory planning Setting-up of incentives to protect the environment Inclusion of gender and development agenda in climate change agenda, emphasizing its differential impact

• •


Result of Visayas Workshop

r. Dargantes is the Coordinator for the Program on Integrated Water Resources Management, Research & Extension. He is also the Director of the Institute for Strategic Research and Development Studies at Leyte State University. Dr. Dargantes conveyed at the conference that the Visayan region is faced with challenges related to its water resources. He shared that the Visayas workshop gave communities the opportunity to share lessons and compile the following recommendations: • • Inclusion of climate change issues in CARPER Calling on accountability of LGUs on nonimplementation of laws – LGUs respond differently from national mandates Repeal of automatic debt servicing and instead use of the budget to finance climate change mitigation and adaptation programs Implementation of renewable energy strategies such as the development of the region’s coconut industry Integration of climate change concerns in Comprehensive Land Use Programs (CLUPs) Customization of education on climate change for basic sectors, taking account of rural vs.

• • •

• •


Ms. Virginia Verora
and the denudation of the Taguibo watershed due to mining and illegal logging activities She conveyed that the Mindanao workshop focused on four areas in constructing the recommendations – gender, crop technology, planning and policy. The specific yet brief recommendations, as she relayed them, were as follows: • Acceleration of relevant information dissemination to all sectors starting with government Development of low/zero carbon technology Propagation of indigenous species Mainstreaming of resource propagation techniques Policy coverage for indigenous seeds Multi-cropping in watershed areas Values formation for the youth (mobilize students to plant trees) Food protection – sustainable livelihood Allocation of community forests per barangay Community support for poverty alleviation programs in the barangay Determination of the carrying capacities of communities and natural resources

• • •


Result of Mindanao Workshop

s. Verora is the Community Development/ Gender Specialist and Chief of Operations of the IFAD-supported Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives and Resource Management Project. Ms.Verora began by reporting at the conference that the Mindanao workshop successfully tackled the DAR experience in CARAGA, experiences of an NGO in.practical climate change responses, indigenous people’s perspective on climate change,

• • • • • • •


Discussions and Workshops: themes, questions, answers

Salient Points of Keynote Address Discussion


he primary argument hurled against agrarian reform is the efficiency of economies of scale. Doubts exist as to the readiness of small producers in addressing a problem as big as climate change. The long-term objective in the Philippines, therefore, should be to get people out of the land, to create vibrant employment and industries. This can then make large-scale farming possible in time, although large scale farming can be unsustainable. In the Philippines, labor is an important resource, and in small-scale farming, labor can be an investment for improved land productivity. Agribusiness can provide technology but maintenance of land is controlled by smallholders or owners. Defining and harmonizing adaptation measures are a challenge for the country. These actions need to be designed in such a way that yields opportunities for the government to demand resources. For instance, in demanding to keep the country’s forests and re-establish its forests, climate change adaptation measures could include the reduction of farming intensity. Swift asset reform seems difficult in procedural and democratic regimes. In the Philippines,

agrarian reform is written for the elite’s favour and social movements have been unable to change elite behaviour. In fact, social movements have been unable to alter their own behaviour, which exhibits their focus on the language of the international donor. They should instead focus the dialogue on industrialization and boosting agricultural production. Indeed, redistributive reform is difficult in democracy, but there have been exemplary experiences in some countries. Democratic states have the power of imminent domain, whereby they can set compensations at the levels that they want. Moments of crisis in such states actually offer opportunities for reform, such was the case in the Philippines in 1986 though the political debate was lost during the crafting of the AR program. What seems more pressing now is for the country to rehabilitate its agriculture sector. The country is better off engaging in a process of registering lands, and the government should offer incentives for better usage of the land. With the new AR law embodied in the CARPER, the government intends to complete land redistribution, plug loopholes and address the lack of support services. The efficient delivery


of support services is a major condition for the success of agrarian reform, and for this, Php150 billion has been appropriated over the next five years. Landlord resistance and control of the police force remain as major challenges that prevent settling of reform beneficiaries. Resolving these would necessitate strong political will, support of the DAR and skilled people at the grassroots level. Local power is central to the success of the AR program, for without the mobilization of peasant movements, for example the Sumilao farmers’ march, the CARPER law would not have been enacted. Agrarian reform in the Philippines represents the partial successes of people’s struggles. It is important to recognize the need for the creation of an enabling environment that encourages people to invest in agriculture. As stakeholders struggle 26

to maximize the CARPER, they should not lose sight of the strategic needs, specifically, of creating approaches and alliances that promote increased agricultural investments. To complement this, the Congress should reignite the debate about land ownership documentation, and social movements should help by pushing the executive to prioritize the documentation. Agribusiness of good quality is also essential. Malaysia and Rwanda represent interesting examples of this. In Rwanda, the state provides incentives to agribusiness owners to work with smallholders and introduce new technology. Now, Rwanda supplies coffee to European markets, whereas Philippine coffee struggles to attract investments. The country’s social movements should think about developing new products, and entrepreneurs should invest in these.

Salient Points of Panel 1 Discussion


xperience shows that disasters, such as those induced by climate change, can similarly lead to social cohesion. But the disasters can also have negative implications vis-a-vis migration. Social cohesion between inhabitants and the new entrants can become seeds for conflict (e.g., clan relations) as they become rivals over the same set of resource. Refugee movements offer lessons for dealing with the issue of climate change migrants and conflict. Political reorganization and the identification of the terms and discourse of action are vital in preventing conflict induced by climate change impacts. At present, there are diverse trends and experiences in new moves towards agriculture investments. Land grabbing is far from being a fresh topic. However, land grabbing in the name of climate change is a relatively new discourse generated by the fusion of industrial agro-food complex and energy complex. For instance, the unsustainability of fossil-based agriculture has renewed corporate interest in land, thereby

contributing to motives and incidences of land grabbing. In Germany, the increased demand for biodiesel production based on grapeseed oil has resulted in the expansion of oil palm plantations in Indonesia that yield grapeseed oil substitutes to be used for consumer goods manufacturing. For the DAR, the problem really is the enforcement of the contract and not the code of conduct itself. The framework of the code of conduct is already problematic, and with the inevitable expansion of investments, management becomes a hefty obstacle. Since the DAR is outside the purview of the decentralization process, it can – unlike other agencies – deal directly with local governments units in relation to environmental management. The issue of land reform should be a shared agenda of government departments and the challenge of policy and mandate harmonization should be overcome. The drawbacks from lacking and inefficient resource allocation and weak legislative support should also be resolved.


Salient Points of Panel 2 Discussion

Salient Points of Panel 3 Discussion


he ADSDPP is a crucial instrument in aligning the overlapping development plans and approaches of various government agencies. It clarifies the steps and procedures for collaborating with other agencies and civil society organizations in the implementation of development plans. In addition, CADT processing has sufficient provisions that respect existing property rights. The DAR collaborates with PAGASA by mainstreaming major programs based on risk maps provided by PAGASA. The problem of unfair pricing is perceived by some to be an even worse obstacle than the impacts of climate change. As a response, the DAR emphasizes the importance of value addition in consonance wit organization of farmers. The DAR has helped coconut farmers by urging them towards production of virgin coconut oil and coco coir and by assisting them in complying with BFAD requirements on quality standards. In other instances, the DAR has helped farmers diversify into atchara and soap production, from previously selling just their papaya crops in the market.


limate change is expected to exacerbate the effects of illegal fishing. Gaining conviction against illegal fishers is almost impossible due to a lack of awareness of environmental laws on the part of LGUs, lawyers and judges. Some NGOs, such as the Alternative Law Groups (ALG), ELAC and Tanggol Kalikasan, help educate judges and lawyers on pertinent environmental laws. Unfortunately, where there is technical capacity for apprehending the criminals, conviction rates still remain low. Information and education campaigns for climate change and its effects should be mainstreamed in the communities. Information such as PAG-ASA’s climate forecasts and seasonal forecasts should be disseminated in communities to plan better for planting season. Payment for environmental services could also be an approach to environmental management, for example, people residing downstream could pay upland residents to protect watersheds. Unfortunately, some documented cases of such arrangements point to conflict breeding as an unintended outcome. The potential benefits of fees collection from decentralized environmental management, and its propensity for local politician capture, still needs to be sought out and documented. With the prevailing problems surrounding distributed lands – illegal land conversions, conflicts with IP claimants and expansion of agrofuel crop production – the concern that the DAR eases out of social justice issues persists. Even with the enactment of CARPER, there remains 1 million hectares of land awaiting distribution to some 450,000 farmers. The DAR should be careful not to use climate change to justify non-distribution of these lands, if failure in distribution does indeed become the result of the extended agrarian reform law.


Salient Points of Panel 4 Discussion


he discussions showed that the production and dissemination of IEC materials on climate change is a common need. Additionally, the impacts of the change at the community level need to be identified and publicized. A community-based knowledge system would be of great benefit. IEC materials should be designed and targeted relative to specific sectors’ needs and issues. Tapping local special bodies would be strategic in the dissemination of information on climate change.

Stakeholders from the regional workshops also conveyed that they hope to receive capacity-building to deal with the link between poverty and climate change. Raising communities’ awareness in calling for transparency and accountability of programs relevant to food and climate change was also an indicated need. Any information dissemination drive to increase awareness of climate change issues should be integrated in both formal and nonformal education systems. Local government units should be held responsible in allocating budget for this action.


Concluding Points
Ms. Aurea Miclat-Teves
The real challenge in the climate change dialogues, she maintained, is mustering energies towards addressing the links between climate change and power, which was why the discussion of collective action strategies were at the core of the conference. Politics, Ms. Teves stressed, is excised from debates on climate change. In fact the traditional response to climate change issues has been to form national coalitions and inter-agency bodies. As she clearly put it, these are puny solutions that mistake inputs for outcomes. The conference presentations and workshops engendered the following conclusions: • The threat of rapid climate and environmental change requires a democratization of power in favour of those directly affected by the changes. This calls for a review of the state of country’s endowments and entitlements afforded to the rural and urban poor population. Subsequently, this necessity restores asset reform as the central component in crafting climate change responses. That asset reform should be at the center of climate change discourse should be recognized. A bottom-up approach is vital in leveraging the interests of those most vulnerable and in operating on a strategy that aims for outcomes from the national down to the village level. There is a strong demand for synergizing responses from central and local government, private sector, and civil society. The task of the central government, then, is to create and foster the institutional setting to protect vulnerable sectors. The state and its centralized agencies should take the lead in allocating strategic investments for climate change adaptive measures such as those for flood control, irrigation, and resettlement. Local governments, for their part, should craft useful ordinances and should facilitate local budget that enables environmental protection.


s. Miclat-Teves is the Executive Director of Project Development Institute and Conference

Ms. Teves began her summation of the conference by drawing attention to the role that power plays in the climate change discourse. She noted that the new administration (that of Noynoy Aquino) campaigned on a platform of anti-corruption and good governance, which presented hope for addressing poverty and vulnerability. The efficiency of the state to influence, however, should be underlined by a credible commitment to tackle political power in addressing climate change. She went on to say that good governance can hold different meanings for different people, especially as it relates to the climate change response. Some people argue that it would mean transferring the burden of responsibility to the private sector and to international development agencies. Others, meanwhile, suggest that the civil society come up with concrete responses, such as village-level disaster management committees. Still, others argue that nothing can be achieved unless regional and global agreements are put in place. But she asserted that these agreements will only reduce the actions to global and regional meetings that yield very few results and exclude support to potential and existing climate change initiatives, such as asset reform programs.


The budget should, in turn, address the real needs of communities, protect vital ecological resources and attract climate sensitive investments. Non-government organizations should focus on enhancing capabilities and capacities. They should harness their track record in developing collective action solutions. The private sector, meanwhile, can take the reigns in developing alternative technology and other crucial environmental projects of the government (ex. La Mesa Watershed Protection). With regard to the Department of Agrarian Reform, the proposed next steps are to incorporate credible commitments into the budget. Usec. Nieto spoke of a renewed agency policy direction that reinforces the Agrarian Reform Communities (ARC) model as a viable village-level collective action response to climate change. The DAR is best prepared to tackle the issue of power and collective action strategies at the bureaucracy and local levels. It has consistently engaged the civil society and private sector, and is in fact the only remaining ruralfocused national line agency with a nationwide portfolio and structure. The agency has proven that it is central in settling disputes in the case of land and asset reform and in providing support services. Through the years, it has shown that it has a direct role as the vehicle in the transfer of power from the haves to the have-nots.

The previous 1986 framework had already involved the LTI + ESS + social infrastructure building. The reformulated agrarian reform program should be peoplecentered, placing people at the center of all DAR activities. This includes showing credible commitment to its goals. More importantly, a bottom-up process is critical in implementing these activities. The improved policy framework should expend considerable work on the documentation of landholdings. The participation of social movements, people’s organizations and nongovernment organizations should be enlisted in the documentation, and also in the implementation of land tenure improvement initiatives. At present, the direction of agrarian reform activities contrast with some of those recommended in the Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao workshops. For example, the government’s promotion of HYVs and of biofuel is actually perceived as disadvantageous. In recasting a new AR framework, the recommendations of different stakeholders, as represented in the three workshops, should be seriously considered and fully integrated. 2. Strengthening collective action strategies at the community level This should be done through bottom-up consultations and planning processes. The expected output should be a new development plan that clearly defines the roles of the

From the issues and challenges that were raised in the conference, three immediate responses to climate change should be taken: 1. Recasting the agrarian reform strategy This should be accomplished by developing a new policy framework that incorporates the threats of climate change and is guided by the following equation: Agrarian Reform = [Peoples Participation (LTI+ESS+PBD) x CC effects and impacts – Vi}


3. Presenting the development plan to national and international community. Models on the approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation – within and outside of ARCs - should be developed and presented. These models can be showcased for donor assistance,



A. Conference Papers 1. Usec. Narciso Nieto 2. Aurea Teves 3. Dr. James Putzel 4. Mr. Francisco Lara, Jr. 5. Usec. Rosalina Bistoyong 6. Dir. Marie Grace Pascua 7. Ms. Loida Rivera 8. Mr. Jude Esguerra 9. Dr. Laura David 10. Dra. Rosa Perez 11. Dr. Buenaventura Dargantes 12. Ms. Virginia Verora 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Luzon Dra. Rosa Perez Ms. Aleli Marcelino Mr. Danny Carranza FIAN-Philippines Mr. Alejandro Carillo - PDI Mr. Arthur Casiño - PDI

Visayas 1. Dr. Buenaventura Dargantes 2. Mr. Emil Justimbaste 3. Rev. Fr. Herminio Dajao La Viña Mindanao 1. Ms. Virginia Verora 2. Mr. Feliciano Radana 3. Mr. Ernie Ruiz 4. Mr. Alejandro Otacan B. Conference Programme C. List of Participants D. Steering Committee E. Secretariat

1 2

R.A. 9729 Sec. 2 Declaration of Policy The day after the conference, Republic Act 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 was enacted by PGMA. Fujie, M., Y. Hayami and M. Kikuchi. (2005). The conditions of collective action for local commons management: The case of irrigation in the Philippines. AgEcon 33: 179-189.



Appendix A - Conference Programme

Project Development Ins�tute May 26, 2010, UP- Ayala Land Techno Hub Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

Department of Agrarian Reform

8:00 A.M. - 8:30 A.M. 8:30 A.M. - 8:40 A.M. 8:40 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. - 9:30 A.M. REGISTRATION Na�onal Anthem Introduc�on Opening Remarks Sec. NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN DAR Secretary

Keynote Address: Is Asset Reform an Indispensable Component for Responding to Environmental and Climate Change? DR. JAMES PUTZEL Professor, London School of Economics

9:30 A.M. - 10:00 A.M.


Speaker 1. Climate Change and Global Development DR. WALDEN BELLO Congressman, Akbayan Partylist Speaker 2. Climate Change, Global Land Issues and Implica�on for Land Reform DR. JUN BORRAS St. Mary University, Canada Speaker 3. Climate Change and Conflict FRANCISCO LARA, JR. Crisis States Research Center, London School of Economics

10:45 A.M. - 11:15 A.M.

OPEN FORUM Panel Facilitator:

MR.JOHN PHILIP SEVILLA, Princeton University Board Member, PDI


11:15 A.M. - 11:45 A.M.


Speaker 1. Collec�ve Ac�on in the Peasant Sector: The ARC Experience USEC. ROSALINA L. BISTOYONG DAR Undersecretary for Support Services Speaker 2. Collec�ve Ac�on in the Upland Resource Sector Director MARIE GRACE PASCUA, NCIP

Speaker 3. Collec�ve Ac�on in the Women Sector LOIDA RIVERA President, Federa�on of Peasant Women in Luzon (PASAMAKA-L) 11:45 A.M. - 12:15 P.M. OPEN FORUM Panel Facilitator: Dir. HERMINIA SAN JUAN, DAR-SSO

12:15 P.M. -1:30 P.M. 1:30 P.M. - 2:00 P.M.



Speaker 4. Collec�ve Ac�on in the Water Resource Sector JUDE ESGUERRA, Execu�ve Director, IPD Speaker 5. Collec�ve Ac�on in the Marine Resource Sector DR. LAURA T. DAVID Physical Oceanography, UP Marine Science Ins�tute 2:00 P.M. - 2:45 P.M. OPEN FORUM Panel Facilitator: Mr. RAMON MICLAT, UP Marine Science Specialist

2:45 P.M. - 3:00 P.M.

Recas�ng the Agrarian Reform Strategy USEC. NARCISO B. NIETO DAR Undersecretary, Finance and Administra�on/ Project Implementa�on Officer, FAPs

3:00 P.M. -3:15 P.M.



3:15 P.M. – 4:00 P.M.

DRA. ROSA PEREZ Na�onal Climate Expert DR. BUENAVENTURA DARGANTES, Visayas State University MS. VIRGINIA VERORA Coordinator, IFAD

Result of Luzon Workshop Result of Visayas Workshop Result of Mindanao Workshop

4:00 P.M. - 4:30 P.M.

OPEN FORUM Panel Facilitator: MS. CARIDAD ASPIRAS, DAR AUREA M. TEVES Execu�ve Director, PDI President, FIAN-Philippines

4:30 P.M. - 4:45 P.M.

Next Steps

4:45 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.

Closing Remarks: Message from the President of PRRM Mr. ISAGANI SERRANO
Member of PhilDel to the Climate Nego�a�ons (Cope 16, Bonn Intercessional)

5:30 P.M.


Overall Facilitators:

Aurea M. Teves Francisco Lara Jr.



Appendix B - LIist of Par�cipants
NAME Donor Agencies 1. Agus�na Musa 2. Agnes Pantas�co 3. Takehike Sakata 4. Yolando Arban 5. Anna de Guzman 6. Joy delos Reyes 7. Erlinda Dolatre 8. NPC dela Rosa 9. Etsuko Taneda Speakers 10. Buenaventura Dargantes 11. Jun Borras 12. Danny Carranza 13. Virginia Verora 14. James Putzel 15. Sunny Sevilla 16. Rosa Perez 17. Walden Bello 18. Grace Pascua 19. Ramon Miclat 20. 21. 22. 23. Laura David Jude Esguerra Loida Rivera Ria Teves ORGANIZATION 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. Alejandro Otacan Casiano Eclar Jr. Teofilio Q. Inocencio Lev Nikko Macalintal Engr. Jeane�e Manuel Marcy Ballesteros Anania Tagudin Renato Navata Manuel Abad Marissa Presentasyon Joel Pilapil Narciso Nieto Tony Evangelista J. Dominador Gomez A.S. Sallidao Ireneo Ramos Ofelia Mendoza Corazon Checa Homer Toblas Aaron Lozada Dianne delos Reyes Roland Manalysay Romeo Reyes Pearl Armada A�y. Ivy Magabo Ma. Elena Cabanis Romeo Mendizabal Boobie Ceno Herminia San Juan Rosie Villamin Shiela Marie Encabo Atanacia Guevarra Jaime Mata Medel Mercado Alberto Obcena Isabelita Estrada Bong Mendoza Nelia Manahan Rodolfo BM Bueno Nestor Bayoneto Dante de Leon N. Briones DAR - Caraga DAR DAR DA NCIP DAR-PDMS DAR-PDMS DAR DTI-CARP NIA PCA DAR-USEC DAR NEDA/CEDS NCIP-CO DA/BSWM DENR/PDO DENR/PEO DARPO I DAR DAR DARAB IAS DAR IV-B DAR BARBD DENR-CARP LBP DAR Director DPWH NEDA BARC DAR OIC-Chief DAR DAR PARC Sec. UP DAR DAR DAR DAR DAR

ADB GTZ EoJ IFAD German Embassy JICA GTZ Interna�onal Alert JICA


Government Organiza�ons 24. Anselmo Sang Tian 25. Ernie Ruiz 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Elmo Bañanes Alexis Arsenal Julita Raganlang Felix Aguhob Faiser Mambuay

Butuan City Water District Butuan City Water District DAR DAR DAR DAR DAR - Caraga


73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98.

Perla Baltar Chris Morales Wilfredo Cabagua Sally Manuel Jessie Colto Rosalina Bistoyong Liza Nepotedis Cynthia Cander Ma. Susana Perez Datu Yusoph Mama R.T Inson Arnold Arriela Noemi Carpio Catalino Aus Lina Manlucao Romualdo Mu�n Mike Benjamin Celes�na Tam J.S. Nepomuceno A�y. Percival Peralta Ramon Estanislao III MBV Tenetrancia Vergel Algador Virgilio Acuña Corazon Cozy Gerundio Madueño


116. Miriam C. 117. Romeo Royandoyan 118. Raegan Gabriel 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. Anthony Marzan Jennifer Corpuz Voltaire Tupaz Aida Vidal Carmina Flores-Obanil Heidi Fernandez Catherine Briola Raffy Rey Hipolito Aison Garcia Arnold de Vera

UP CSI La Liga Policy Ins�tute Kaisahan Tebtebba TFIP CCODP Focus on the Global South Kaisampalad FIAN Phils. FIAN Phils. Saligan Saligan Focus on the Global South IPD IPD Akbayan AER PDI PDI

129. Mary Ann Manahan 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. Ricky Gonzales Larry Santos Ricardo Reyes Men Sta. Ana Ruel Punongbayan Ramon Ayco Jofre Manankel

Non- Government Organiza�ons 99. Lisa Alano 100. Reyduard Gelera 101. Emil Jus�mbaste 102. Philip Arandia 103. A�y. Lee Bagadiong 104. Elin Mondejar 105. Dra. Leila dela Llana 106. Kaiser Recabo, Jr. 107. Ray Abanil 108. Arnold Tapere 109. Rodel Sango 110. Joanne Dulce 111. Elvis Ayuda 112. Leonora Ayuda 113. Jeremy Balondo 114. Lorie Beyer 115. Isagani Serrano


People’s Organiza�ons 137. Wynona Corilla 138. Danilo Salonga 139. Fernando Luis 140. Carling Domulot, Sr. 141. Jessie Rey Davocol 142. Acod Ampuan 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. Arthur Casiño Amado Higante Baby Mangilit Eva Manglicmot Azineth Cagaoan Helen Abarra Al Carillo Adora Ferrer Lita Domacena Salome Hugante Lourdes Macabasag Violeta de Guzman




Appendix C - Steering Commi�ee
1. Usec. Narciso “ Boy” Nieto 2. Ria Miclat-Teves 3. Francisco “Pancho” Lara 4. Eddie Quitoriano

Appendix D - Secretariat
DAR 1. Caridad Aspiras 2. Gemma Falgus PDI 3. Myrna Arandia 4. Gina de Fiesta 5. Analyn Osias 6. Dianna Ydia

Ramon T. Ayco, Sr. - photos, grahic arts and lay-out


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful