Resource Based Conflicts in the Caraga Region

Preliminary Findings of the participatory conflict analysis as

conducted in the region of Caraga from September to October
2009
Draft Report, V1
Eddie Quitoriano on behalf of the GTZ supported project “Conflict Transformation Mindanao – Preparation of
the Caraga Program (CTM-PCP)”
08 November 2009

Note: This is a modular short report that contains three parts:

• Part I (4 pages) contains the Introduction and overview of the methodology

and process;
• Part II (11 pages) contains the summary of findings; and,
• Part III (3 pages) contains three-level recommendations (RG level, T level
and CG level)1

Part I. Introduction

The governments of the Republic of the Philippines and Federal Republic of Germany
have agreed to expand future German Development Cooperation (GDC) primarily in the
Caraga Region through the Conflict Sensitive Resource and Asset Management
Programme (COSERAM). By 2010, GDC activities will be integrated into the
COSERAM beginning with an Interim Project from June 2009 until December 2010.
COSERAM will pursue an integrated approach to poverty reduction and peace building
geared towards managing resource based conflicts.

Conflict Analysis (CA) Frame and Objectives

The CA is designed to be the central basis for the planning activities of the Interim
Project and the COSERAM; specifically for the identification of the key conflicts and root
causes, peace building needs (PBN), design of interventions and formulation of the
results chain. It is specifically designed to initiate a dialogue process, develop
ownership of the Conflict Transformation (CT) process and ensure legitimacy. Its
contribution to the Interim Project would the identification of themes for core working
areas and conflict resolution and confidence building measures.

Caraga Study and Context Analysis

In 2008, GTZ and other GDC partners conducted the Caraga Study which identified
resource based conflicts in three typologies, namely: upland, lowland and coastal. In
2009, a Context Analysis study verified the identified conflicts with an elucidation of the

























































1
The
T
Level
recommendations
are
initial
recommendations
of
the
National
Consultants.

They
have
not
been


processed
with
the
TWG.



1



physical, economic, social and political settings with identification of potential case study
areas for the conduct of the CA and composition of the Reference Groups (RGs).

Conceptual Framework and Approach

The CA uses a systemic, holistic and participatory analytical approach. It focuses on

structures, actors and dynamics. The results are based on stakeholder perceptions and
subjective references to external conditions and the diversity of perceptions establish
strong foundations for a start of the dialogue process. Nevertheless, the TWG collected
secondary data to supplement individual and group perceptions and anecdotal evidence
generated from the Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions
(FGDs).

Methodology and Process

Data Gathering Tools

The CA used two data collection tools, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group
Discussion (FGD). Embedded in these tools are analytic tools such as Conflict Mapping,
Pyramid Analysis and Timeline Analysis. The analytic tools were used mainly during
FGDs as a group exercise.

Implementation Structure

The CA was implemented using the Lederach approach to attaining legitimacy and
ownership. A three-tiered structure was used, namely: at the top, a Consultative Group
(CG) composed of regional leaders in government, police, military, religious
organizations, NGOs and business community; in the middle, a Technical Working
Group (TWG), composed of experts from German Development Organizations (GDOs),
GTZ staff and national consultants; and, at the base, the Reference Groups (RGs)
representing various stakeholder groups in the three typologies.

TWG Preparations

The TWG Preparations began with a Kick Off Workshop on 01-04 September 2009 to
level off on the CA frame, objectives and methodology, roles and mandates of the team
and system of coordination.2 This was followed by preparation of the RG training
modules, peer training modules and CA data gathering tools. The TWG was organized
into three 3-person teams, each composed of 1 GDO expert, 1 GTZ staff and 1 national
consultant. Each team was assigned to a corresponding typology. TWG steering was
centralized at the Project level while the team structure was flat and democratic.


























































2
The
CA
Frame
was
prepared
six
months
earlier
by
the
GTZ‐PRCT
Project
Team.



2



 CG Formation and Participation

A broad-based CG was organized on 17 September 2009. It is composed of regional

leaders from the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), Department of
Environment and Natural Resource – Mines and GeoSciences Bureau (DENR-MGB),
Commission on Human Rights (CHR), National Commission of Indigenous Peoples
(NCIP), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Philippine National Police
(PNP), Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), Armed Forces
of the Philippines (AFP), Caraga Conference for Peace and Development (CCPD),
Mindanao INGO Forum (MINGO) and Butuan Chamber of Commerce and Industry
(BCCI).

The CG provided inputs on case study area selection, was regularly appraised on
progress of the CA and participated in the Integration Workshop on 26-27 October 2009.
During the workshop, they put forward impressions, comments and recommendations on
the conduct and results of the CA.

Area Selection

With the Caraga Study (2008) and Context Analysis (2009) as point of reference, the
TWG conducted field visits, consultations and meetings with various stakeholder groups
to generate information for the case study area selection. Matching field findings with set
criteria, the following case study areas were selected:

• Typology 1: Esperanza (Agusan del Sur) and Taganito (Surigao del Norte)
• Typology 2: Bayugan (Agusan del Sur) and Cabadbaran (Agusan del Norte)
• Typology 3: Lanuza Bay and Lianga Bay (Surigao del Sur)

RG Formation and Preparation

A process of cross-nominations for RG composition occurred during the field visits on

the 2nd and 3rd week of September 2009. Thirty-eight RG members were finally selected
across the three typologies. They were trained on CA methodology and tools on the 4th
week of September, organized themselves, conducted planning and set out to conduct
KIIs and FGDs from October 1 to 15, 2009. The TWG T Teams provided mentoring and
accompaniment throughout the process. Overall, they conducted 207 KIIs and 33 FGDs
with a total of 237 participants.

Summary of Participation

Excluding the CG and the TWG, a total of 480 persons participated in the CA: (a) 36
RGs selected and trained and conducted the KIIs and FGDs and data analysis; (b) 207
key informants participated in the KIIs; and, (c) 237 persons participated in 33 FGDs.

3



 Typology Region # of RG # of KII # of FGDs # of FGD Total # of
Member Participants Conducted Participants Participants
1- Upland Esperanza 5 28 4 25 58
Claver 7 31 4 32 70
2- Lowland Bayugan 7 35 7 55 97
Cabadbaran 6 30 6 40 76
3- Coastal Lanuza Bay 5 51 6 47 103
Lianga Bay 6 32 6 38 76
Total 36 207 33 237 480

On the average, the participants represented six (6) stakeholder groups in each case
study area. The majority would come from within a radius of one or two municipalities,
most of them are males above the age of 40 and most would have adequate level of
literacy.

Data Analysis

Data was analyzed at three levels: (a) RG level; (b) Typology level; and, (c) regional
integrative level as a joint process between the RG, TWG and CG. The RG level
analysis was simultaneously and jointly conducted by the RGs and TWG during the 3rd
and 4th week of October. Each typology used varying approaches to data analysis.
Overall, KII and FGD documentation was assessed for quality and consistency. The
analysis of substance was conducted using the clustering method (to determine
commonly shared views, differently held views, polarizing views and outlying views),
triangulation of KII, FGDs and available secondary data and comparative analysis (with
reference to regional constructs found in the Caraga Study and Context Analysis).

The Typology level analysis is currently preliminary as the assessment of methodology

and process has not been completed. The regional integrative analysis was completed
on 26-27 October with the participation of the CG. The workshop results are
documented separately and the pertinent CG recommendations are included in this
executive summary. Overall, the results of the data analysis do not yet include complete
analysis of the process and methodology. The summary presented below is focused on
contents of the CA.

4



 Part II. Summary of Findings

Key Problems, Issues and Concerns

There are common and typology-specific problems, issues and concerns around which
the identified key conflicts emerge. What is common to the three typologies are the
following:

• Issues concerning the government in regard to coherence and

enforcement of laws and policies, inadequate and unsustained support
services, lack of consultation and participation of the affected groups and
overlapping roles and mandates.
• Intra-organizational and intra-community problems resulting to
fragmentation and weakening of negotiating positions.
• Natural resource degradation in the uplands and its effects across
ecosystems (e.g. effects on supply of irrigation water and damage to
coastal and marine resources). Specifically cited is the continuing
degradation due to large and small scale timber and mining operations.

The problems and issues specific to Typology 1 pertains to the marginalization of IPs viz
other claimants and users of the uplands such as migrant settlers and private companies
and the complex issue about overlapping claims and tenurial instruments; and, the
significant influence of the CPP-NPA insurgency on the rights claims of the IPs.

Specific to Typology 2 are problems of politics and economics, specifically government

policies and programs on agriculture and land and the classic problem of price gaps
between agricultural products and agricultural inputs.

Specific to Typology 3 are problems of around the management of common resources in

view of varying goals and strategies of various users and claimants for economic space.

Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3

• IP world view (kinabuhi and • High cost of credit and other • Local governance –
3
panginabuhian) viz state agricultural inputs specifically in relation to
framework of natural • Low farm gate price of enforcement of laws,
resource utilization agricultural commodities patronage and protection of
• Claimed encroachment of • Poor irrigation services illegal activities, inadequate
ancestral domains of the and management of support services and lack of
Manobo, Higaonon and irrigation systems consultation in policy
Banwaon tribes by Visayan • Landlessness formulation and
and Ilocano settlers since • Land rentals implementation.
the 1950s • ARB reselling of AR lands • Behavior of individuals
• Overlapping tenurial • Land conversions and groups specifically,


























































3
The
two
terms
refer
to
life
(kinabuhi)
and
livelihood
or
economic
survival
(panginabuhian).



5



 instruments in forestal
areas
• Insurgency and existence
of other private armed
groups resulting to insecurity
and displacement of IP
communities
• Large scale utilization of
natural resources claimed
ancestral lands by timber
and mining companies
• Overlaps between IP
governance system and
civil-political system
• Non-fulfillment of
agreements between IPs
and mining companies
• Introduction of projects
without FPIC of IPs
• Boundary conflicts
• Lack of infrastructure and
government support
services
• Intra-organizational
problems among POs
• Unfair sharing schemes
between landowners and
tenants
• Environmental
degradation affecting
agricultural areas (e.g.
damage to watersheds
affecting supply of irrigation
water, chemical farming
affecting land productivity)
difficulty in compliance to
rules on the rationale of
poverty and survival.
• Natural resource
degradation, specifically
continuing degradation due
to illegal and destructive
activities and activities from
the uplands
• Diverse and competing
goals and strategies of
various sectors competing
for the same resource base.
• Overlapping functions of
line agencies of
government especially on
environment, forestry,
mining and fisheries.

Key Conflicts, Causes and Effects

The RGs identified six (6) major conflict lines across the three typologies:

1. T1 RG-A: Conflict between IP communities vs. all other users of claimed

ancestral domains over conflicting world views and overlapping tenurial
instruments.

2. T1 RG-B: Conflict between IP communities and the government over

conflicting world views and government framework on the utilization of
natural resources in claimed ancestral domains.

3. T2 RG-A: Tri-party conflict between Farmers, Irrigators’ Association (IA)

and National Irrigation Authority (NIA) over insufficient supply of irrigation
water and illegal connections.

4. T2 RG-B: Conflict between Farmers vs. Intermediate actors over prices,

capital, technology and support services.

5. T3 RG-A: Conflict between Municipal Fishers vs. Mining companies over

damage to marine habitats attributed to mining operations.

6. T3 RG-B: Conflict between Municipal Fishers vs. Illegal Fishers over

incompatible notions and methods of fishing.

6



The identified key conflicts portray the most aggrieved stakeholders: IPs, farmers and
municipal fishers – and the men and women in the families and communities they
represent. There are asymmetrical conflicts (between IPs and government or between
IPs and mining companies; between municipal fishers and commercial fishers; between
farmers and market-based actors; and between municipal fishers and mining
companies) as well as symmetrical conflicts (between groups of municipal fishers or
among farmer-irrigators).

The causes are generally structural in nature and refer to quality of governance in the
management and allocation of access rights to natural resources, enforcement of rules
and economic thinking of the national and local governments.

The effects are of universal significance: degradation of resources, unequal distribution

of benefits and deprivation of affected groups, social fragmentation and erosion of trust
on government.

Key Topics Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3

Esperanza Bayugan Lanuza Bay
Key Conflict • Conflict between • Tri-party conflict • Conflict between
IP communities between the Municipal Fishers
and other users of National Irrigation and mining
claimed ancestral Authority (NIA), companies
domains Irrigators’ • Over: damage to
• Over overlapping Association (IA) coastal and marine
4
tenurial instruments and farmers resources allegedly
and worldviews • Over: insufficient due to mining
supply and illegal operations
connections
Causes • Entry of foreign and • Insufficient supply • Greed, selfishness
local investors from NIA to IA and pride of mining
without FPIC • Unequal distribution investors
• State classification among members of • Lack of respect to
of forest and the IA the environment by
mineral lands • Illegal connections, the mining investors
against the IP world spillage and • Poor enforcement of
view on ancestral seepage applicable laws
lands and domains • Inappropriate use of such as the Mining
• Competing funds for irrigation Act of 1995 and the
leadership infrastructure Fisheries Code of
structures created • Improper 1998
by outsiders management by
• Insecure access to NIA and IA
ancestral domains • Logging and
quarrying (in
watersheds)


























































4
Who
are
also
members
of
the
Irrigators’
Association
(IA).


7



 • Poor maintenance
of dams and canals
Effects • Destruction of the • NIA service areas • Degradation of
environment not fully irrigated marine habitats
• Loss of livelihoods • Insufficient water • Depletion of fish
• Killings and supply stocks
salvaging by • Siltation of canals • Polarization among
primate armies and destruction of municipal fishers
• Breakdown of family canal linings • Shift of employment
relationship • Poor harvest from fishing to being
• Children: orphaned, • Farmers unable to workers in mining
unable to go to pay irrigation fees companies
school, dim future • Dissatisfaction,
• Destruction of quarreling and
indigenous violence among
structures and farmers
processes • Loss of respect for
• Domination and the IA
silencing of
indigenous peoples
Taganito Cabadbaran Lianga Bay
Key Conflict • Conflict between • Conflict between • Conflict between
IPs and Farmers and Municipal Fishers
Government Intermediate and Illegal Fishers
• Over: IP world view Actors • Over: incompatibility
and government • Over: prices, of notions and
framework on technology, capital methods of fishing
utilization of natural and support
resources services

Causes • Government • Lack of unity among • Use of illegal and

appointment of farmers destructive gears
chieftains among • Lack of capital and • Encroachment of
the Mamanwa technology fish sanctuaries
• Government’s • Lack of government • Lack of education
creation of new support services • Lack of alternative
structures and • Absence of serious livelihoods
processes legislative agenda • Weak enforcement
• Non-recognition of for farming of laws and
the Mamanwa communities, capital ordinances
customary laws and technology
• Intermediate players
controlling prices for
profit
Effects • Competing • Low income of • Damage to
governance farmers and lack of livelihood sources
structures and capacity to provide • Damage to fish
processes for basic needs stocks (juveniles)

8



 • Conflicts on • Awarded (CARP) • Damage to inter-
decision making lands sold back to family relations
processes on how the rich • Fear of reprisal
ancestral domains • Decrease of people
should be managed working on farms
and developed • Food shortage
• Marginalization of
the Mamanwa in the
signing of
agreements with
mining companies
on royalties

Timelines

The breadth of the timeline analysis varies by conflict line:

• In Esperanza (T1) the conflict events begin in the 1950s with the arrival of migrant
settlers from Luzon and Visayas and takes into account major events such as Martial
Law, insurgency, entry of logging companies and difficulty of securing IP ancestral
domains.
• In Taganito (T1) the conflict events begin with the start of mining operations in the
1980s, succeeding barriers to CADT claims, intensification of mining operation,
government facilitation of mining and IP claims and resulting fragmentation of IP
communities.
• In Bayugan (T2), the conflict events are preceded by a promise of good fortune from
modernization of farming (through irrigation). In just a decade, the system fails and
this failure is exacerbated by the damage to watersheds. The insufficiency of water
creates tensions among farmers and between farmers’ organizations and the
government.
• In Cabadbaran (T2), the conflict events are preceded by a promise of land to the tiller
through land reform and high income for farmers. The current events mirror a
national problem pertaining to the unfulfilled promise of agrarian reform and
perceived failure of government to provide adequate support.
• In Lianga (T3), the conflict events are preceded by a promise of nature’s bounty (in
the 1960s). In just a decade, the bounty was threatened by illegal and destructive
fishing, increased demand from population sectors displaced by the decline of the
timber industry and continuing inability of government to eradicate illegal fishing.
• In Lanuza (T3), the conflict events begin in the 1980s with the entry of timber
operations, through the 1990s with the changeover of timber concession to mining
companies just as fishing communities and other stakeholders set parameters for
sustainable management of resources through MPAs and LGU alliance building.
There is perceived damage to marine habitats by mining operations.

9



 Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3
Esperanza Bayugan Lanuza Bay
• 1949: arrival of Visayan • 1975/76: start of NIA • 1980-2000: Ventura Timber
settlers; occupation of 148 irrigation project in Bayugan Co. (VTC) and Surigao
hectares of Manobo • 1983: expansion of irrigation Development Corporation
ancestral domain in Brgy. system; farmers reluctant to (SUDECOR) operated in
5
Duangan, Esperanza adopt water-saving Cantilan and Carrascal
• 1950s: Ilocano migrants technologies • 1994: VTC assigns rights to
occupied and secured land • 1985: first occurrence of Marc Venture Mining
6
titles to 24 hectares of water shortage Development Corp (MMDC)
claimed ancestral domain of • 1990: intense logging • 1995: enactment of the
the Manobos in San Toribio operations; armed farmers Mining Act
(Esperanza) guard irrigation system; 50% • 1994-2004: implementation
• 1960s: Tirador Logging of lowland irrigated; disputes of CBRMP with LGU support
Company operated in over water observed • 1997-2001: approval of 12
nd
Esperanza; Higaonons • 1998: construction of 2 Community Based Forest
resisted dam Management (CBFM) sites
• 1970s: Martial Law; • 2000: 70% of lowland • 1998: enactment of the
resettlement of IPs; irrigated; farmers’ disputes Fisheries Code (RA 8550)
government appointed tribal using bolos and integration of coastal
chieftains of the Higaonons; • 2003: more illegal resource management of 6
construction of roads by connections LGUs of Lanuza Bay
logging companies (JCA, • 2004: completion of Wawa • 2004: signing of inter-LGU
GTIZ, RTC,Nonoy Calo); Dam Project covenant and establishment
harassment of IPs by • 2009: irrigation coverage of the Lanuza Bay
militias; Esperanza declared reduced to 65%; Andanan Development Alliance
as “no man’s land” man canal damaged; (LBDA) Project
• 1980s: Manobo became farmers fight using bolos Management Office (PMO)
aware that ancestral lands and guns • 2007-2009: full mining
had been titled to others; operations of Clarence T.
SPV Logging Company Pimentel (CTP) Mining Co
operated in Sinakungan and Vicente T. Pimentel
• 1996: Municipal Tribal (VTP) Mining Co. in
Council applied for CADC Carrascal; and Carrascal
for Higaonon and Banwaon Nickel Co. (CNC) and
without FPIC of rightful MMDC in Cantilan
claimants
• 2000: Visayan and Ilocano
settlers filed cases against
IP who would not leave their
ancestral domains
• 2002: Shannalyne IFMA
approved by the Municipal
Tribal Council without FPIC
of rightful claimants;
traditional leaders asked

























































5
VTC
is
a
logging
company
while
SUDECOR
is
a
producer
of
plywood
and
veneer.

6
MMDC
was
registered
with
the
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
(SEC)
only
on
January
18,
1995.



10



 PLGU to stop Shannalyne;
intrigues and rumors that
resisting IPs are NPAs
• 2002: Agusan Manobo
applied for CADT
• 2002-2009: series of
negotiations and dialogues
to resolve conflict but failed
• 2008: landowners harassed
IPs to force them out of their
ancestral lands
• 2008-2009: genuine
ancestral domain claimants
applied for CADT
Taganito Cabadbaran Lianga Bay
• 1984: mining exploration; • 1970s: implementation of • 1960s: abundance of fishes
destruction of ancestral PD 27 (agrarian reform on • 1970s: proliferation of illegal
domain began rice and corn lands) fishing
• 1986: Taganito Mining Corp. • 1980s: organization of • 1980s: intensification of
(TMC) exploration and Samahang Nayon, illegal fishing
production without FPIC of cooperatives; • 1990s: enactment of RA
the Mamanwa implementation of 8550
• 1987-1988: processing of Masagana 99 Program; • 2000s: decline of illegal
CADC application credit support from Land fishing
• 1991: displacement of the Bank; land becoming less • 2009: continuing illegal
Mamanwa due to mining; fertile fishing and incidents of
government appoint of a • 1990s: implementation of violent apprehensions Xxxx
Datu (chieftain) CARP; low price of farm
• 1997: enactment of IPRA; products; flooding; high
creation of NCIP price of credit and farm
• 2004: Zimuel Bago elected inputs
by community as Datu • 2000s: farmers deep in debt;
based on genealogy high price of basic
• 2005: NCIP appointed Rizal commodities
Buklas as Datu against
opposition of the community
• 2006: CADT approved by
NCIP; TMC contract
renewed; MOA on royalty
signed; 18 Datus formed
the CLAGIBACTUAL for the
signing of the MOA but,
instead the NCIP initiated
signing of the MOA with
another group, the
AMPANTRIMTU
• 2008: NCIP appointed
Renante Buklas as ‘Datu

11



• 2009: NCIP facilitated
signing of MOA between IP
and mining company;
Mamanwa witnessed the
signing

Peace Building Initiatives, Mechanisms and Processes

Across the three typologies, stakeholders perceive government and donor-funded

programs as peace building initiatives because of their ability to provide platforms for
cooperation and creation of multi-stakeholder mechanisms, facilitate consultations and
dialogues and show proof of sustainable management of resources.

Key Topics Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3

Esperanza Bayugan Lanuza Bay
Peace Building • NCIP • NIA • CBRMP: World
Initiatives • CHR • IA Bank, National
• CCPD • BLGU Government
• Customary rights • Tree planting and • Livelihood
holders reforestation of Assistance: Accion
watershed areas Contra El Hambre
• Technical Support
to LGUs and POs:
by NGOs like
Haribon, Green
Mindanao
• FISH: USAID

Mechanisms • Rituals: Tampuda • Joint assemblies of • LBDA (alliance)

(Higaonon), Husay NIA, IA and BLGU • MPAs
(Manobo), • Lupon ng
Pasayuda daw Tagapamayapa on
buntula (Higaonon irrigation issues
venue for • NIA and BLGU tie
discussing conflict up for joint
issues), identification of
Dumalongdong processes to
(Higaonon highest resolve irrigation
ritual for discussing conflicts
and resolving
conflict)
Processes • Negotiations and • Assemblies • Dialogues and
dialogues • Meetings consultations
• Building links and • Dialogues • Technical support to
coordination with • Mediation LGUs for project
government development and
agencies management
• Awareness raising

12



 Taganito Cabadbaran Lianga Bay
Peace Building • NCIP (facilitation of • Government: laws, • CBRMP (WB)
Initiatives MOA) policies on agrarian • JBIC
reform and • SRDP, PIPESRA
agriculture; and SUMACORE
introduction of (AECID)
organic farming; • NMCIREMP (DAR-
credit support IFAD)
• Philippine Coconut
Authority (PCA)
distribution of
fertilizers
• National Food
Authority (NFA);
credit support

Mechanisms • MOA between IP • Market-based • Lianga Bay CAUSE

and mining mechanisms for (LGU alliance)
company exchange of • MFARMC and
• CADT claimant commodities IFARMC
organizations • Mandated • POs (fishers,
• IP-NCIP-mining government mangroves CBFMA)
company links agencies (NFA, • Livelihood projects
DAR, Land Bank, • MPAs
DA, PCA)
• PO-LGU-NGA links
• Organizations of
farmers and ARBs

Processes • Consultations with • Technology transfer • Dialogues

tribal elders • Provision of loans • Consultations
• Dialogues and grants • Public hearings
• Submission of • Provision of
resolution to fertilizers
express concerns • Exchange of
• Entering into MOA agricultural
commodities

Peace Vision

The stakeholders across the three typologies possess a universal vision with the
following characteristics:
• Better quality of life;
• Good governance;
• Social harmony;
• Equitable access to natural resources and livelihoods; and,
• Rehabilitation and protection of natural resources

13



 Typology 1
• People will never again
experience war, hunger, fear
and evacuation
• IP worldview on ancestral
domains, history,
governance system and
right to self-determination
recognized and respected
• Sustainable livelihoods for
IPs are realized
• IP children and youth
educated
• Mamanwa to self-manage
1% royalty share and
ADSDPP
• Harmony between IPs and
migrant settlers
• Resources are rehabilitated
Peace Building Needs
Typology 1
Esperanza
• Dialogue and negotiations
• Fast track processing of
CADT application
• Customary laws:
documented, recognized,
respected in the
implementation of state laws
and policies
• Harmonization of laws and
policies
• No investments for
extractive industries allowed
in ancestral domains
• Government to provide legal
and technical support in
cases involved IP land rights
14

Typology 2
• Better quality of life
• Second growth forest
preserved
• Riverbanks and watersheds
reforested and safe
• Farmers: well educated, with
equal opportunities in
access to water and other
natural resources, settled
conflicts among themselves,
enjoying increased
production
• Irrigation systems well
managed; NIA performing
mandate
• Farming as profitable
enterprise
• Caraga as an agro-industrial
region
• More industries, more jobs
• Responsive government
• Farmers adopted
sustainable agriculture and
organic farming technology
Typology 2
Bayugan
• Good governance
• Service oriented leaders
• Adequate and sustained
government support
services
• Well managed irrigation
system
• Education for farmers
• Cooperation and unity
among farmers
• Preservation of
environment; watersheds as
protected areas, reforested
and rehabilitated
• New technologies for
farmers and irrigators
• Moral recovery
Typology 3
• Better quality of life and
sustainable livelihoods
• Rehabilitated and protected
coastal and marine
resources
• Effective, consultative,
transparent and supportive
government
• Laws are enforced
Typology 3
Lanuza Bay
• Implementation of
environmental mitigation
plans of mining companies
• Effective enforcement of
laws
• Restoration, rehabilitation
and protection of
mangroves, coral reefs and
sea grass
• Stakeholder consultations
and dialogues
• Livelihoods and capacity
building for municipal fishers
• Harmonization of laws and
policies
 Taganito
• FPIC of Balawan and
Kamalas-an
• Self-determination of IPs
• Clarity of the rights of the
Mamanwa on management
of royalty share
• Values and orientation on
IPRA and environmental
laws
• Rehabilitation of upland
resources
Cabadbaran
• Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI) to conduct
survey and consultations on
prices of commodities
• NFA to buy farmers’
products at reasonable
prices
• Government initiates
dialogues with farmers and
business community;
properly implements
programs relevant to
farmers
• Farmers access soft loans
and affordable services
• Strengthen farmers’
organizations and
cooperatives
• Farmers to practice
sustainable agriculture and
organic farming
Lianga Bay
• Dialogues and consultations
among stakeholders
• Planning and
implementation related to
rehabilitation and protection
of coastal and marine
resources and provision of
alternative livelihoods
• Adequate funding for
existing initiatives and
mechanisms (rehabilitation
of mangroves and corals,
PNP, Bantay Dagat and
Bantay Baybay patrols)
• Public hearings on
delineation of municipal
waters
• Serious law enforcement
• IEC

Summary of Opportunities for Conflict Transformation

The common perception is that opportunities are embedded within the identified
conflicts. These opportunity factors include:

• Availability of legal instruments (laws and policies);

• The actors directly and indirectly involved are identifiable and could be
provided opportunities for dialogue;
• The world views, goals and strategies are strongly held and could be
provided platforms for dialogue and negotiations towards mutually-beneficial
solutions;
• There are existing initiatives and mechanisms for conflict resolution and
stakeholders have participated in some significant processes.

Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3

• IP mechanisms and
processes for conflict
resolution are available
• Legal instruments are in
place (IPRA, environmental
• Joint mechanisms and
processes available
• Farmer level structures are
in place (POs, IAs)
• Dispute mechanisms at
• Primary actors to the conflict
are identifiable and their
actions are visible, inclusive
of impacts
• World views and methods

15



 laws and policies, forestry
policies)
• Mandated agencies of
government are available for
consultation and dialogue
• IPs have experience
negotiating and signing
MOAs with mining
companies
Part III. Recommendations
Following the three levels of analysis, three sets of recommendations have been put
forward, namely: (a) RG level recommendations; (b) T level recommendations, initially
through the national consultants; and, (c) CG level recommendations put forward during
the integration workshop.
Summary of RG Recommendations
Typology 1
• Government, NGO, INGO to
provide help to IPs in
enabling negotiations and
dialogues, financial and
technical assistance in
CADT application and
documentation of customary
laws and advocacy for
recognition
• Scholarship grants for IPs,
from elementary to college
• Capacity building and
strengthening of IP tribes
• IEC
• Proper organizing and
intervention in IP
communities
• Peace consultations and
dialogues
• Participatory conflict
16

barangay level operational
• Level of violence
symmetrical (between and
among farmers)
Typology 2
• Pro-farmer laws and policies
• Development plan for the
farming sector
• Program to strengthen POs
and provide alternative
livelihoods
• Government monitoring of
prices
• Demonstration centers for
organic products
• Common goals, genuine
understanding among
various stakeholders
• Joint NIA-BLGU
mechanisms for just and
efficient irrigation system
• Efficient management of
irrigation systems
• Regular assemblies
• Preservation of the
could be expressed openly if
given proper platforms
• Actors indirectly involved are
identifiable inclusive of their
roles and mandates
• There are existing road
maps for development
inclusive of existing
initiatives, mechanisms and
processes that are
perceived as having peace
building functions
• Level of conflict is not
accompanied by violence
Typology 3
• Capacity development for
LGUs (planning,
enforcement, provision of
support services)
• Capacity development for
POs (substantive
participation in dialogues
and consultations and
advocacy with government
agencies)
• Support for multi-
stakeholder processes and
mechanisms
• Support for alternative and
supplementary livelihoods
 assessment
Typology Specific CG Recommendations
The following recommendations are focused on the CA conduct and the results:
Typology 1
Esperanza
• Deeply analyze government
structures
• Facilitate CADT processing
as venue for tenurial
harmonization
• Specify policies for
harmonization
• Specify proposals on how IP
issues are resolved (given
the failure of several
traditional conflict resolution
procedures and processes)
• Exert more effort to come up
with comprehensive analysis
• Establish data base that
includes IP issues (e.g. in
the CBMS)
• Identify previous efforts in
conflict resolution
• Link with DepEd for
expansion of alternative
learning system (ALS)
• Consult with civic
organizations and POs on
neutral grounds
Taganito
• Respect customary laws
and IP rights
• Genuine consultations with
the community
• Fast track ADSDPP
formulation
• Present general concerns
rather than opinions
• LGU resolution on
responsibility of mining
companies
17

environment
• Declare watersheds as
protected areas
Typology 2
Bayugan
• Observe national laws
against conversion of
agricultural lands
• Involve all other sectors on
the issue of water
• Avoid use of structural
discrimination
• Thoroughly study policies on
irrigation
• Efficient feedback
mechanism
• Expound concept of good
governance
Cabadbaran
• Go organic farming
• Provide alternative
livelihoods
• Farmers should organize
and be proactive
• Constant advocacy with
LGU and DA
• Values formation and
capacity building of farmers
Typology 3
Lanuza Bay
• Strengthen LBDA
• Conduct delineation
together with NAMRIA and
other local experts
• Gather sufficient data to
support perceived causes of
degradation
• More research on timeline
Lianga Bay
• Strong alliance of LGUs and
resolve delineation
• Intensified IEC
• Strict enforcement of fishery
and marine laws
• Include protection and
preservation of endangered
species
• Identify alternative
livelihoods (e.g. ecotourism)
• Gather regional data from
agencies to provide
comprehensive view of
findings
• Present specific
recommendations
Consultants’ Recommendations
Typology 1
• Support for capacity building
for IPs (i.e., information,
education, and
communication of all laws
and policies affecting IPs,
paralegal training)
• Support for conduct of
participatory analysis of all
the previous efforts in
conflict resolution to gather
lessons and insights which
strategies were effective,
and which strategies do not
work before new conflict
resolution mechanisms are
designed and implemented
• Support for conflict
resolution mechanisms
• Support for conflict sensitive
alternative livelihood
projects for communities
affected my mining
operations (i.e., community-
based and chemical-free
mineral processing using
Artisanal Small Scale Mining
(ASM) technology to
process mine waste)
●●●
18

Typology 2 Typology 3
• Support for sustainable • Support for capacity in
agriculture projects community based mediation
• Technical support for study and negotiations (Lanuza
on policy coherence (how and Lianga)
national policies are • Technical support for the
translated in the local) Secretariat functions of the
• Technical support for the SSPSC (Lianga)
monitoring of government • Support for the Lianga Bay
programs’ alignment with Integrated Coastal Resource
development plans and its Management in cross
implementation learning with LBDA (Lanuza
• Support for local and Lianga)
government officials’ • Conflict sensitive livelihood
knowledge and skills projects (Lanuza and
enhancement on value Lianga)
chain program development
• Support for farmers’ skills
development (e.g.
organizational development,
entrepreneurship, financial
management, making
market systems work for the
poor, etc.
• Support for conflict -
sensitive alternative
livelihood projects