Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ILC's National Engagement Strategy
NES Promoting people centred land governance
PHILIPPINES
International Land Coalition Secretariat at IFAD Via Paolo di Dono, 44 , 00142 - Rome, Italy
tel. +39 06 5459 2445 fax +39 06 5459 3445 [email protected] | www.landcoalition.org
ILC Mission
A global alliance of civil society and intergovernmental organisations working together to
promote secure and equitable access to and control over land for poor women and men.
ILC Vision
Secure and equitable access to and control over land reduces poverty and contributes to
identity, dignity, and inclusion.
Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC)Mr. Nathaniel Don Marquez, [email protected]
www.angoc.org
The People’s Campaign for Agrarian Reform Network (AR NOW!)Mr. Wilson Requez, [email protected]
Centre for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (CARRD)Mr. Edwin Nerva, [email protected]
Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID)Mr. Dave de Vera, [email protected]
www.pafi d.org.ph
Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA)Mr. Raul Socrates Banzuela,
[email protected] www.pakisama.com
Task Force Mapalad (TFM)Mr. Armando Jarilla, [email protected]
taskforcemapalad.org
Xavier Science Foundation (XSF)Mr. Roel Ravanera, [email protected]
The contents of this work may be freely reproduced, translated, and distributed provided that
attribution is given to the International Land Coalition, and the article’s authors and organisation.
Unless otherwise noted, this work may not be utilised for commercial purposes.
For more information, please contact [email protected]
or go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0
Edited by David Wilson. Design by Federico Pinci.
Printed on recycled/FSC paper.
ILC is a membership-based network, opinions expressed in this document are the result of
a national multi-stakeholder process and therefore its contents can in no way be taken to
refl ect the offi cial views and/or position of ILC, its members or donors. The ILC Secretariat
would appreciate receiving copies of any publication using this study as a source at
ISBN: 978-92-95105-12-6
ILC wishes to thank the following donors, whose support made this research possible:
The National Engagement Strategies
The concept: what is a NES?In recent years, equitable access to land, particularly in rural areas, has been high on the
international policy agenda and is recognised as a crucial element attributing to sustainable
development and poverty reduction. Innovative and progressive land policies and laws,
particularly at the national level, are key to determining equitable access to, use of, and
control over land and other natural resources.
The National Engagement Strategy (NES) is the first step of an approach being promoted by
the International Land Coalition at country level, in order to create conditions for inclusive and people-centred land-related policy change. Jointly formulated and co-owned by
ILC members and other relevant actors at national level, the NES itself is a framework
for identifying key priority areas on which land-concerned actors see opportunities for
catalysing change, either at the level of policy formulation or at the level of implementing
existing progressive policies. The NES process also involves the establishment of a multi-
stakeholder platform that accompanies the implementation of the NES, and makes
necessary adjustments on the basis of lessons learned. A NES process is therefore aimed at
facilitating collaborative and coordinated action amongst different stakeholders involved
with land at the national level to promote people-centred land governance. Through these
NES processes, opportunities are increasingly made available to national civil society actors
to collaborate among themselves and with international actors, both governmental and
non-governmental, and to engage with local and national governments.
Why a NES?Political will is a fundamental prerequisite for addressing inequalities in land access and
fighting poverty. However, the effective development and implementation of policies,
laws and institutional frameworks requires the inclusion of a wide range of actors working
together and sharing different perspectives and expertise.
A NES arises in recognition of this reality; that corrections in land inequalities, in favour
of poor and marginalised groups, are more effectively achieved through the collaborative
and coordinated efforts of multiple actors, rather than adopting overlapping or even
confrontational approaches.
Experience has proven that NES processes have strengthened partnerships and the
mutual recognition of diverse actors, producing a momentum for improved land rights. By
fundamentally changing the quality of interaction between CSOs and Governments, NES
processes have helped increase the political weight of civil society and vulnerable groups,
shifting perspectives of Governments to see CSOs as credible sources of knowledge and
experts on land related matters. National use of international instruments, such as the
VGGTs and F&Gs have also fostered improvements in collaborations, as well as promoting a
stronger focus on women’s land rights and gender justice.
How?A NES is developed in two phases, the first being formulation, and the second being actual
implementation of the strategy.
The formulation phase of the NES is carried out through regional and national multi-
stakeholder consultations and workshops, where participants – identified amongst the key
national players – identify priorities, potential synergies and agree on joint actions to be
undertaken resulting in an action plan that will guide the implementation phase of the NES
for the following years.
Who?While national civil society members of ILC represent the starting point and main promoters
of NES during their initial stages, NES are to be considered open and living processes for
knowledge production and sharing, policy dialogue and coordinated action, and are
therefore open to any civil society, public or private land actor willing to participate and
contribute to working towards a united goal, that is: the realisation of people-centred
land governance.
Contents
Acronyms and abbreviations 6
Executive summary 9
Background 11Context 11
Formulation of the National Engagement Strategy 14
Land and forest governance challenges in the Philippines 16Policy context 16
Agricultural land 17
Forest land 22
Coastal land and marine resources 24
Persistence of poverty in the rural sector 27
Inequitable access to land for women 28
Lack of citizen participation in governance 29
No comprehensive policy on land use 30
Actors involved in land governance in the Philippines 31Government 31
International commitments 32
Donor agencies and international institutions 33
Private sector 34
Civil society and social movements 35
Brief profile of ILC members in the Philippines 37
NES programme for the Philippines 39Overview 39
Achievements of first-year NES implementation to date 39
NES Year 2: October 2014 – October 2015 43
Pursue reforms and protect the gains of past and current asset reform policies... 43
Enhance the capacities of the basic sectors to demand and defend their rights... 46
Develop a comprehensive and coherent land data system 47
Enhance coordination among ILC members in the Philippines 48
Logical framework: implementation Year 2, October 2014 to October 2015 49
Implementation timeline, October 2014 to October 2015 55
References 56
ANNEX: List of participants 57
page
6 | NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Acronyms and abbreviations
A&D Alienable and disposable
ADB Asian Development Bank
ADO Ancestral Domain Office
AFA Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development
AFMA Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act
AFTA ASEAN Free Trade Area
AIPP Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
ANGOC Asian NGO Coalition
AO Administrative Order
APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
APECO Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport
AR Agrarian reform
AR Now! People’s Campaign for Agrarian Reform Network
ARB Agrarian reform beneficiary
ARRD Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
ATM Alyansa Tigil Mina (Alliance Against Mining)
BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
CA Compulsory acquisition
CADC Certificate of Ancestral Claim
CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
CAF Census of Agriculture and Fisheries
CALT Certificate of Ancestral Land Title
CARL Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
CARP/ER Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (with Reforms)
CARRD Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
CCCP Climate Change Commission of the Philippines
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CLOA Certificate of Land Ownership Award
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CLUP Now! Campaign for Land Use Policy Now!
COCAR Congressional Oversight Committee on Agrarian Reform
CPAR Congress for a People’s Agrarian Reform
CSO Civil society organisation
CF Claim folder
DA Department of Agriculture
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government
ECC Environmental Compliance Certificate
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
FLA Fishpond lease agreement
page
7 | NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESFPIC Free prior and informed consent
GDP Gross domestic product
IACRW Inter-Agency Committee on Rural Women
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFMA Integrated Forest Management Agreement
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
ILC International Land Coalition
IP Indigenous people
IPRA Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
IYFF International Year of Family Farming
JBIC Japan Bank for International Cooperation
JMC Joint Memorandum Circular
KASAPI National Coalition of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines
KATARUNGAN Center for Peace, Justice and Human Rights in the Philippines
LAD Lands for acquisition and distribution
LARA Land Administration and Reform Act
LBP Land Bank of the Philippines
LDC Local Development Council
LGC Local Government Code
LGU Local Government Unit
LRA Land Registration Authority
LTI Land Tenure Improvement
LWA Land Watch Asia
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
MARO Municipal Agrarian Reform Office
NAMRIANational Mapping and Resource Information Authority
NAPC National Anti-Poverty Commission
NCCAP National Climate Change Action Plan
NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NES National Engagement Strategy
NFR NGOs for Fisheries Reform
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System
NLUA National Land Use Act
NOC Notice of Coverage
NSCB National Statistical Coordination Board
NSO National Statistics Office
ODA Official development assistance
PAFID Philippine Association for Intercultural Development
PAKISAMA National Confederation of Small Farmers and Fishers Organizations
PAL Private agricultural land
page
8 | NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES PCW Philippine Commission on Women
PD Presidential Decree
PDP Philippine Development Plan
PhilDHRRA Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources
in Rural Areas
PO People’s organisation
QRF Quick Response Fund
RA Republic Act
SRA Social Reform Agenda
TFM Task Force Mapalad
TLA Timber Licence Agreement
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNDRIP UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
UP-NCPAG National College of Public Administration and Governance
VGGT Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land,
Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security
VOS Voluntary Offer to Sell
XSF Xavier Science Foundation
page
9 | NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESExecutive
summary
Roughly half the population of the Philippines live in rural areas, and the country’s rich
resources provide livelihoods for the majority of Filipinos. The forest ecosystem directly
supports approximately 30% of the population, including indigenous peoples, while the
agriculture sector accounts for one-third of total employment. However, over 31 million
poor Filipinos live in rural areas and farm workers are among the poorest of the poor,
accounting for about 70% of all subsistence households. About 80% of municipal fishing
families also live below the poverty line.
The country’s agrarian structure has historically been highly skewed, and before the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of 1988, just 20% of families controlled
80% of all land. After the 1986 Revolution, there was an upsurge of progressive laws on
tenure reform, including the 1987 Constitution, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law,
the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, the Forestry Code, the National Integrated Protected
Areas System Act, and the Fisheries Code. Nevertheless, much still needs to be done to
improve the situation of people living in poverty, if the government’s economic growth
plans are to be realised.
A number of Philippine CSOs have been working for some time with the International
Land Coalition (ILC) to bring about further policy reforms to enhance poor people’s access
to land, including the Land Watch Philippines campaign. They have jointly formulated a
National Engagement Strategy (NES), based on an initial scoping paper presented at an NES
formulation workshop in June 2012 and subsequently refined.
This document sets out the Philippine context for strategic ILC intervention to address the
gaps and deficiencies in current land and resource rights policies and efforts, and identifies
the key challenges along with key players and stakeholders, including government, donor
agencies, international institutions, the private sector, and civil society. It profiles ILC
member organisations in the Philippines and outlines their responsibilities in delivering on
the objectives of the NES.
The NES programme itself is set out in detail, with an evaluation of achievements during
Year 1 of implementation (June 2013 – 31 May 2014) and a comprehensive set of objectives
and activities for Year 2 (June 2014 – May 2015).
page
10
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Briefly, the first-year implementation of the NES contributed to defending and protecting
the rights to land of disadvantaged sectors of society by:
» Increasing their awareness on developments in policy formulation processes by
participating in a number of dialogues and preparatory meetings;
» Increasing understanding of their own perspectives through inter-sectoral workshops;
» Enhancing capacities of the rural poor and CSOs through evidence-based advocacy;
» Increasing awareness through the documentation of land grabbing cases;
» Continuing to lobby, in partnership with CSOs, for the passage of land rights-related
bills and policies;
» Taking direct action to fast-track land acquisition and distribution.
Year 2 of implementation aims to Intensify advocacy efforts and campaigns and build on
the gains and lessons from Year Members of the NES platform have agreed the following
general objectives:
» Pursue reforms and protect the gains of past and current asset reform policies
and programmes;
» Address inter-sectoral concerns on land and future legal frameworks;
» Enhance the capacities of the basic sectors to demand and defend their rights and
natural resources;
» Develop a comprehensive and coherent land data system;
» Enhance coordination among ILC members in the Philippines.
Activities under Objective 1 will focus on promoting the extension of CARP reforms to June
2016 and pushing for progress on the delineation of municipal coastal waters under the
Fisheries Code. Under Objective 2 members will support campaign efforts for a National
Land Use Act (NLUA) and will work to influence the formulation of the Land Administration
Reform Act (LARA).
Under Objective 3 key activities will aim to empower rural people by training paralegals
and by building skills and competencies in zoning, conflict management and resolution,
and negotiation. Members will also aim to produce advocacy maps and build capacities
on environment-related advocacy through the use of evidence-based tools. In addition,
a Quick Response Fund (QRF) will be established to assist land rights defenders in
emergency situations.
Objective 4 focuses on the creation of a comprehensive national database on land that can
be used by members and partners, within the Philippines and regionally. A comprehensive
Land Watch report for the Philippines will also be produced and linked with policy work
and with the data system. Finally, under Objective 5, a coordinating committee will be
established to enhance knowledge sharing and to maximise synergies amongst members.
page
11
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESBackground
ContextThe Philippines is an archipelago consisting of some 7,100 islands, with a total land area of
about 300,000 square kilometres (or 30 million hectares). Its current population is estimated
at a little over 100 million. Since 2000, it has experienced average annual population growth
of 2%, down from a high of 3% average annual growth rate in the 1960s. Roughly half of the
population live in rural areas, while the other half reside in urban areas. For administrative
purposes, the country is sub-divided into 17 regions, 80 provinces 136 cities, 1,499
municipalities, and close to 42,000 barangays.1 The Philippines is considered one of 17 “mega-
diverse” countries in the world, and is home to over 52,000 terrestrial and marine species.
Of the country’s total land area of 30 million hectares, 15.039 million hectares are classified
as upland/forest ecosystem (areas with a slope of at least 18%), with unclassified forest lands
accounting for 0.753 million hectares. There are 14.208 million hectares classified as alienable
and disposable lands (A&D), which are open for titling. All A&D lands of the public domain
devoted to (or suitable for) agriculture were included in the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for distribution to landless individuals (Polestico et al., 1998).
Of these A&D lands, the Forest Management Bureau (2005) estimates that about two-thirds
have already been titled, leaving an untitled balance of only 1.1 million hectares (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Land classification in 2005, from total land area of 30 million ha
1 “Barangay” is the pre-Hispanic term for a “village” with a chieftain and followers, and extended clan members. Today it is the
smallest administrative unit in the Philippines and refers to a village, district, or ward, in both rural and urban areas.
Civil reservation 0,55%
Established Timberland 33,64%
Mil. & Naval Reserves 0,42%
NP/GRBS/WA 4,48%
Certified A&D 47,36%
Fishponds 0,30%
Unclassified 2,51%
page
12
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES The country’s rich resources are the source of subsistence and livelihood for the majority
of Filipinos. The forest ecosystem directly supports approximately 30% of the population,
including indigenous peoples (MTPDP, 2004–2010). According to Gould (2002), 60% of
Filipinos made their livelihood in some form from forestry or agriculture in that year.
According to the 2002 Labor Force Survey (LFS) of the National Statistics Office (NSO), the
agriculture sector accounts for one-third of the country’s total employment. Over 31 million
poor Filipinos live in rural areas (World Bank, 2004). Within agriculture, farm workers in
sugarcane, small farmers in coconut, rice, and corn, fisherfolk, and forester households are
among the poorest of the poor, accounting for about 70% of all subsistence households in
2000 (NSCB, 2000). On the other hand, fisheries provide employment to 1.37 million Filipinos
(BFAR, 2002). About 80% of municipal fishing families in the country are estimated to live
below the poverty line. These families are entirely dependent on the coastal ecosystem for
their livelihoods (PARRC, 2008).
Since the time of Spanish colonisation in the 16th century, the Philippine agrarian structure
has been highly skewed, causing intense land-related conflicts. Before the CARP of 1988,
the Philippine government estimated that just 20% of families controlled 80% of all land.
Traditional customary lands were all subject to the Regalian doctrine under Spanish rule,
which put all public lands under the State.
Following the Second World War, the ratification of land reform policies was primarily a
response to quell social unrest. The 1963 Agricultural Land Reform Code attempted to
replace feudal tenancy systems, while Presidential Decree 72 of 1972 subjected rice and
corn lands to land distribution.
After the 1986 People Power Revolution, the country saw an upsurge of perhaps the
most progressive laws on resource tenure reform in Asia. Foremost among these was
the 1987 Constitution, which contained a consistent policy linking land ownership and
use to equitable distribution of wealth and a balanced ecology. Complementary to this
main policy were progressive asset reform laws on the alienation of lands and their use,
resource conservation and protection, and recognition of the rights of farmers, indigenous
communities, and other marginalised groups.
These progressive asset reform laws included the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL), the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), the Forestry Code, the National Integrated
Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act, and the Fisheries Code of These reform laws were
passed largely through the hard work and sacrifice of many groups from marginalised
sectors, with the support of civil society organisations (CSOs).
Other laws that impacted positively on the enabling environment for asset reform were the
Local Government Code and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA). In
2009 the CARP was amended and strengthened, becoming the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER). The features and status of the key asset
reform laws are summarised in Table 1.
page
13
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESTable 1: Asset reform laws
Key legislation Year enacted Brief description
RA 6567 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL)
1988 Enacted in 1988, CARL expanded the coverage of the agrarian reform
program to all agricultural lands regardless of crops planted. It mandated
CARP to redistribute around 8.1 million hectares of agricultural land and
Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) areas to 3.9 million landless tenant farmers and
farmworkers over a 10-year period (1988-1998).
RA 9700 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program
Extension with Reforms
(CARPER)
2009 The CARPER calls for the strengthening of the CARP primarily through the
infusion of additional funding of Php150 billion for the next five years and
reform provisions that will accelerate agrarian reform (LAD phasing, provision
for credit and initial capitalization).
RA 8371 or the
Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act
1997 The IPRA seeks to recognize, promote, and protect the rights of IPs, that
include the right to ancestral domain and lands, self-governance, and
cultural integrity.
RA 8550 or the
Fisheries Code
1998 The Code was enacted to promote sustainable development of the
country’s fishery resources and protect the rights of small fisherfolk over
municipal waters. It also gave jurisdiction to the LGUs over their respective
municipal waters.
Asset reform redistributes resource endowments to designated marginalised sectors through
a process that awards tenurial/use documents to target beneficiaries, providing them with
ownership or security of tenure over the subject asset (see Figure 2). This is accompanied
by support services designed to enable the beneficiary to make the most productive use of
the redistributed asset. Further complementing the package are resource management and
resource governance mechanisms to provide the necessary enabling environment.
Figure 2: Asset reform framework
ASSET REFORM LAW
OTHER COMPONENTS
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
RESOURCE GOVERNANCE
ASSET REFORM PROCESS
MAPPING OR APPLICATION
FOR TENURIAL INSTRUMENT
AWARDING/RECOGNITION TENURIAL
SUPPORT SERVICES
THREATS TO TENURE/REVERSALS
page
14
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Unfortunately, even after decades of these laws being implemented, much still needs to
be done to improve the situation of their intended beneficiaries – the tens of millions of
farmers, fisherfolk, indigenous peoples (IPs), the urban poor, forest communities, and rural
women – who continue to live in poverty.
Today, the Philippines is at a critical juncture. Vigorous implementation of macroeconomic
and structural policies has resulted in continuing economic growth. However, intensified
support for poor people is critical to ensuring that the benefits of economic growth are
shared. Focused interventions to assist poor people, particularly in the most disadvantaged
and least favoured areas, will be necessary to achieve broad-based growth, as envisioned in
the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) for 2011–2016.
Accelerating asset reform is one of the priority strategies of the Philippine government.
Agenda 8 of President Aquino’s 16-point agenda identifies the importance of shifting “from
government anti-poverty programs that instil a dole-out mentality to well-considered
programs that build capacity and create opportunity among the poor and the marginalized
in the country”.
Formulation of the National Engagement StrategyFor some time now, the International Land Coalition (ILC) has been a development partner of
Philippine CSOs engaged in promoting asset reform and in pointing out the deficiencies of
policies in current land and resource rights. These CSOs are seeking to bring about all-inclusive
growth and development that is not merely for the few but for the tens of millions of poor
farmers, fishers, indigenous people (IPs), urban poor, forest communities, and rural women.
The ILC Strategic Framework for 2011–2015 encourages the formulation of a country-level
National Engagement Strategy (NES) to synergise the efforts of CSOs and other stakeholders
within government and among donors in building on previous efforts to increase and
strengthen access to and control over land and other natural resources of rural sectors.
ILC members in the Philippines are the country’s key CSO players on land issues: AFA,
ANGOC, AR Now!, CARRD, PAFID, PAKISAMA, TFM, and XFS. ANGOC, AR Now!, CARRD, TFM,
and PAKISAMA are mostly concerned with agrarian reform issues, while PAFID is focused on
supporting IPs, and XSF is attached to an academic institution. Due to the increasing number
of issues arising from overlapping policies governing land and natural resources, ILC members
have established the Land Watch Philippines campaign as a common platform to discuss
and formulate strategies on inter-sectoral issues. These members of ILC are also members of
broader CSO campaigns pushing for policy reforms to enhance poor people’s access to land:
Campaign Members Focus
AR Now! AR Now!, ANGOC, CARRD, PAKISAMA Monitoring implementation of agrarian reform programme
CLUP Now! AR Now!, ANGOC, PAFID, PAKISAMA Advocacy group lobbying for the passage of a national land use bill
Land Watch AR Now!, ANGOC, CARRD, PAFID, XSF Monitoring of reform laws, capacity building
page
15
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESThe NES addresses the ILC mandate to engage countries in a focused, coherent, and
coordinated manner. In the past, ILC provided grants to its members, but their interventions
were often not closely coordinated with intra-country members, which resulted in sub-
optimal impacts and missed opportunities to aggregate country-level efforts. In its Strategic
Framework for 2011–2015, ILC identified a set of countries (including the Philippines) where
it will pursue coordinated engagement with clearly defined short-, medium-, and long-
term objectives.
The Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas
(PhilDHRRA) was identified to develop a scoping paper, which was presented to partners
for discussion at an NES formulation workshop held on 31 May–1 June 2012 in Quezon
City. It was on the second day of the workshop that this NES document was drawn up (see
Annex A for a list of participants). A consultant was further commissioned to refine the NES
document after a meeting of CSO members and the ILC Secretariat in March 2013.
This document sets out the Philippine context for strategic ILC intervention to address the
gaps and deficiencies in current land and resource rights policies and efforts. It highlights
the key challenges and identifies the key players and stakeholders who need to be mobilised
– or engaged with – towards the common aim of effecting the changes needed to ensure
the inclusion of impoverished farmers, fishers, IPs, urban poor, forest communities, and rural
women in the country’s growth and development.
It also spells out the strategic objectives and activities of the NES programme for the
Philippines and identifies the ILC members in the country who will be responsible for specific
components of the programme over a three-year period, from April 2013 to March 2016.
The NES is consistent with the development thrust of the government’s Philippine
Development Plan (PDP) for 2010–It is built on strong country and partner ownership, and
was formulated through a highly participatory process involving stakeholders and experts
from the Philippine government, civil society, and the donor community.
page
16
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Land and forest
governance challenges in the Philippines
Policy contextIn a recent study, Quizon and Pagsanghan (2014) examined 11 major Philippine policies and
items of legislation on the governance of tenure of land, water, and forests2 (see Table 2).
Table 2: Major Philippine policies and legislation on governance of tenure
Overall framework Philippine Constitution of 1987
Sectoral tenure reforms
(rural sector)
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (RA 8371)
Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550)
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of 1998 (RA 6657) as amended by CARPER (RA
9700)
Natural resource management,
protection and use
Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (RA 8435)
National Integrated Protection Areas System Act of 1992 (RA 7586)
Forestry Code of the Philippines (PD 305)
Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942)
Public Land Act of 1936 (CA 141, as amended)
Climate change and risks Climate Change Act of 2009 (RA 9729)
Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 (RA 10121)
This study carried out a content analysis of the provisions of these laws, and how they relate
to the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and
Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT).3 It did not assess the implementation
of these laws; nor did it review specific administrative orders, implementing guidelines, or
staff policies that may be related to the implementation of these laws.
2 Quizon and Paganghan (2014) “Review of Selected Land Laws and Governance of Tenure in the Philippines: Discussion
Paper in the Context of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure (VGGT)”.
3 The VGGT were developed under the World Committee on Food Security as a result of collaboration between different
groups of stakeholders – governments, civil society, private sector, and academia. The VGGT are intended to provide a
framework for responsible tenure governance that supports food security, poverty alleviation, sustainable resource use,
and environmental protection. They set out principles and internationally accepted practices that may guide the review,
preparation, and implementation of policies and laws related to land tenure and resource governance.
page
17
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESThe study made the following observations regarding these major national laws and
policies on the governance of tenure of land, water, and forests:
» The Constitution provides the broad overall framework and principles for the
governance of tenure. It covers most of the VGGT principles under “General Matters”,
“Legal Recognition”, and “Transfers”, but it does not deal with operational matters on
“Land Administration” or address “Climate Change and Risks”.
» The three sector-based tenure reforms – CARP/ER, IPRA, and the Fisheries Code – further
elaborate on the tenure rights of disadvantaged sectors as guaranteed/provided by
the Constitution. Thus, they also deal with “General Matters”, “Legal Recognition”, and
“Transfers”. Each tenure reform law focuses on a specific sector such as tenants, farm
workers, and landless farmers in private and public lands (CARP/ER), indigenous cultural
communities and IPs (IPRA), and small-scale and artisanal fisherfolk (Fisheries Code).
» The four laws on resource management, protection, and use – AFMA, NIPAS, the Forestry
Code, and the Mining Act – focus on management of the country’s natural resources.
They support the general principles of tenure governance under “General Matters”, and
provide some safeguards and legal recognition of tenure rights in public lands, forestry,
and fisheries, including the rights of IPs. However, under “Transfers”, their main focus is
on investments rather than on tenure reforms.
» Finally, the two laws dealing with climate change and disasters – the Climate Change
Act and the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act – do not appear to
address the VGGT guidelines on tenure issues.
Agricultural landThe Philippine agrarian structure consists of small peasant farms and large plantations. In
1986, before the introduction of the CARP, the government estimated that around 20% of
Filipino families controlled 80% of the land. In 1988, fewer than 2% of landholders had farms
exceeding 24 hectares, but they controlled 36% of all farmland (Quizon, 2007).
The total agricultural land area constitutes 32.2% of the country’s total land area, or around
10 million hectares. In 2005, agriculture contributed 20% to the Philippines’ gross domestic
product (GDP), with the sector supplying 37% of jobs (Habito and Briones, 2005).
The 2002 Philippine Census of Agriculture and Fisheries (CAF) reported 4.8 million agricultural
farms with a total of 9.7 million hectares of land. Compared with the 1991 Census, the
number of farms was higher by 4.6%, but the corresponding farm area was 3% smaller, with
an average size of 2 hectares per farm. The CAF assumed that the decrease in total farm area
was due to the conversion of farmlands to residential and commercial purposes, while the
reduction in the average farm size was attributed to the implementation of CARP.
According to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),4 4.3 million hectares have been
distributed since 1972, of which 38% are private agricultural lands, or PALs (see Figure 3).
4 Presentation of Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary, Gil de los Reyes, on the status of CARP, May 2012.
page
18
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Figure 3: Cumulative land acquisition and distribution (1972–2011)
As of January 2012, 62% (or almost 600,000 hectares) of the balance of lands for acquisition
and distribution (LAD) were compulsory acquisition (CA) lands (Figure 4).
Figure 4: LAD balance by acquisition mode
The reasons cited by DAR for these low accomplishment rates are as follows:
» Incomplete and inaccurate LAD database, i.e. the actual status of landholdings could
not be determined, affecting DAR’s targeting and provision of timely interventions;
» Lands already compensable by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), which comprise
85% of the “CARPable” land balance, were not prioritised due to the volume of
documents they require and the processing time involved;
» Previous guidelines did not address problematic situations;
» Problematic lands, which comprise 23% of the “CARPable” land balance, include those
for restitution reconstitution and untitled private agricultural lands (PALs) with no survey
references or with defective technical descriptions, as well as those with pending cases.
LBP COMP 62%
CA 7% 302,672
VOS 14% 623,830
OLT 13% 538,024
GFI 4% 168,481
NON-LBP COMP 38%
VLT 18% 785,248
NON-PAL 44% 1,921,837
TOTAL 100% 4,3385,092
CA 62%
VOS 18%
OLT 3%
GFI 2%
VLT 9%
Sett 1%
KKK/GOL 5%
LE 0%
page
19
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESIn August 2011, DAR issued Memo Circular (MC) No. 09-11 mandating the creation of
the Task Force Problematic Lands to address LAD concerns and related issues on CARP
implementation. The policy defined problematic lands as “landholdings covered by CARP,
the acquisition and/or distribution of which have been temporarily stalled due to legal,
technical/operational, and/or administrative issues which affect program implementation”.
The MC also provides courses of action for various issues. The passage of the policy led to
the review of claim folders (CFs), the results of which are as follows:
» 87.5% of CFs are still for research and documentation;
» 81% already have certified copies of titles but only 8% have valid certifications;
» 17% of those with copies of titles are current, while 83% are cancelled;
» 3% have liens (legal claim or hold on the property) and encumbrances;
» Of the CFs reviewed that are still at Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) level, 56%
have copies of Notice of Coverage (NOC) on file, and 75% of these have proofs of service;
» Only 1% of the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) CFs reviewed were offered from 2009 to
present; 92% were offered from 1999 to 2008, and 7% in 1998 or earlier;
» 67% of CFs reviewed do not have copies of the landowner survey plan or sketch plan;
» 7% of those with available technical descriptions are defective; and
» 8% of Applications to Purchase and Farmer’s Undertaking (APFUs) on file are defective.
Given the expiration of CARP extension (CARPER) funding by mid-2014, DAR has already
made projections on Land Tenure Improvement (LTI) tasks beyond 2014 for almost 390,000
hectares (assuming a low accomplishment rate) of “CARPable” lands that will remain
undistributed by that time (see Table 3).
Table 3: Post-2014 LTI tasks
TaskBalance as of Dec 2011
Projected balance ending Dec 2013
Projected balance ending June 2014
High Accom. Rate Low Accom. Rate High Accom.
Rate
Low Accom. Rate
Distribution of
remaining LAD balance
961,974 305,678 514,311 179,778 390,100
Subdivision of collective
CLOAs
710,467 306,568 510,467 172,550 414,332
Redocumentation and
payment of DYND/DYNP
lands
160,311 113,429 113,429 62,699 74,725
In fact, DAR has already proposed that all lands issued with NOCs prior to 30 June 2014 will
continue to be acquired and distributed thereafter. Another proposal under discussion by
DAR with the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), and the Land Registration Authority (LRA) pertains to the reconfiguration
of rural development and land management agencies (see Figure 5).
page
20
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Figure 5: Current rural development and land management agencies and proposed configuration
AGENCYCURRENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES PROPOSED CONFIGURATION
Department of
Agrarian Reform
(DAR)
Land Tenure Improvement
Program Beneficiaries Development
Agrarian Justice Delivery
Land Tenure Improvement (CARP)
Agrarian Justice Delivery (CARP)
CARP-DENR
Management of Government Owned Lands
Admin., surveys, management and
disposition of the public domain and other
lands
M&E of land surveys management &
Carry out C.A. No. 141, as amended
Department of
Agriculture (DA)
Promote A&F development and growth
Promote a policy framework that directs public
invetments
Providde the support services necessary
to make A&F, and agri-based enterprises
profitable
Promote A&F development and growth
Promote a policy framework that directs public
invetments
Providde the support services necessary
to make A&F, and agri-based enterprises
profitable
Program Beneficiaries Development (CARP)
Department of
Environment and
Natural Resources
(DENR)
Conservation, management development, &
proper use of the country’s environment and
natural resources
Licensing and regulation of all natural
resources
CARP-DENR
Management of Government Owned Lands
Admin., surveys, management and
disposition of the public domain and other
lands
M&E of land surveys management &
Carry out C.A. No. 141, as amended
Conservation, management development, &
proper use of the country’s environment and
natural resources
Licensing and regulation of all natural
resources
Land Registration
Agency (LRA)
Implement and protect the Torrens System
Act as central repository of all land records
Issues decrees of registration
Issue all TCTs
Keep land title history of records of
transactions
Control disposition of registered lands
Provide legal and technical assistance to courts
Implement and protect the Torrens System
Act as central repository of all land records
Issues decrees of registration
Issue all TCTs
Keep land title history of records of
transactions
Control disposition of registered lands
Provide legal and technical assistance to
courts
Approval of ALL surveys
page
21
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESTaking all this into account, the CSO members of ILC in the Philippines have identified three
immediate issues:
» LTI completion: As set out by DAR in its post-2014 LTI tasks, there will remain 180,000 to
390,000 hectares of land undistributed, and almost 170,000 to 400,000 hectares of land
with collective Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) not sub-divided. The one-
line amendment presented by DAR Secretary Gil de los Reyes – “All lands issued with
NOCs prior to June 30, 2014 shall continue to be acquired and distributed” – provides
hope for potential agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs); the challenge is to continuously
monitor the delivery of this social justice concern.
» Post-CARPER scenario: One aspect that should be looked into in this scenario is
continued support for ARBs (i.e. credit, subsidy, capacity development, farm inputs) to
ensure that awarded lands remain productive. Another issue is to ascertain that legal
assistance is provided for ARBs with pending agrarian justice cases. The impact of the
reconfiguration of rural development and land management agencies – DENR, DAR,
DA, LRA – should also be assessed, including better investigating the current process
for the new Land Administration and Reform Act (LARA) and its potential implications
in terms of land registration and institutional set-up.
» Protecting the gains of agrarian reform: The challenge is how to prevent the reversal
of agrarian reform gains manifested by the following: (1) abandonment, selling, and
mortgaging of awarded lands by ARBs; (2) leaseback arrangements where ARBs hand
over control of the awarded land via lease contracts to agribusiness corporations or
former landowners, as a precondition for the release of the ARBs’ CLOAs; (3) “corporative”
schemes where ARBs are given shares of stock in an agricultural corporation of the
land owner in lieu of actual land transfer; and (4) conversion of agricultural land to
commercial, residential, and industrial uses and other cases of “land grabbing”. There
is no consolidated data on the extent, scope, or history of farmland grabbing in the
Philippines, but there are international organisations and websites that attempt to
document this growing phenomenon internationally, in order to raise consciousness
and support. In the Philippines, land grabbing is estimated to involve 1.75 million
hectares of farmland (see Table 4).
page
22
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Table 4: Compilation of news articles on farmland grabbing in the Philippines
Entity Base SectorLand size (has.) Production
Project investment Status of deal
Hassan Group Bahrain Construction 10,000 Bananas, rice
and other
crops
US$250
million
Done
Brunei
Investment
Authority
Brunei Government 10,000 Rice Proposed
China China Government 1,280,000 Various Suspended
Green Future
Innovation
Japan Agribusiness,
industrial
11,000 Sugar cane US$120
million
Done
Kuwait Kuwait Government 20,000 Maize, rice In process
Zuellig Group Malaysia Agribusiness,
health care
30,000 Maize In process
Oman Oman Government 10,000 Rice In process
Qatar Qatar Government 100,000 Rice In process
Far Eastern
Agricultural
Investment
Company
Saudi Arabia Agribusiness 50,000 Banana,
maize,
pineapple,
rice
Done
Jeonnam
Feeddstock
South Korea Government 94,000 Maize Done
Lotte Group South Korea Agribusiness,
construction,
real estate
10,000 Sugar cane In process
South Korea South Korea Government 100,000 Maize, rice,
sugar
Done
San Carlos
Bio-Energy
UK Agribusiness 5,000 Sugar cane Done
A.Brown
Company
US Agribusiness,
real estate
20,000 Oil palm In process
Forest landForest cover in the country decreased from an estimated 21 million hectares, or 70% of its total
land area, in 1900, to only 5.4 million hectares or 18.3% by 1988 (Philippine Environment Monitor,
2004). Recent official estimates, based on 2002 satellite images of the entire country, show forest
cover increasing to 7.168 million hectares (24% of total land area) in However, the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated forest cover at only 5.789 million hectares.
The disappearance of Philippine forests, especially over the past three decades, has been
attributed to an influx of resource-extractive industries, including mining and massive timber
harvesting activities in the uplands. Meanwhile, demand for land and natural resources has
continued to rise with the unabated migration of lowland families into the mountains. Thus,
there exists a very volatile mix of stakeholders who are in very direct competition for the
limited resources of the uplands (De Vera, 2007).
page
23
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESAccording to data from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), there are
more than 110 ethno-linguistic groups in the Philippines with an estimated total ethnic
population of 12 million, comprising almost 16% of the country’s overall population in
Indigenous people (IP) communities are among the poorest and most disadvantaged social
groups in the country. Illiteracy, unemployment, and poverty levels are much higher among
these communities than in the rest of the population. IP settlements are remote, lack access
to basic services, and are characterised by a high incidence of morbidity, mortality, and
malnutrition.
The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) estimates that IP ancestral domain
lands total 7.7 million hectares. By 2011, the NCIP’s Ancestral Domain Office (ADO) had
reported 286 applications for Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), of which 159
(56%) had already been approved. In terms of area, however, this represents only just over
half (57%) of total ancestral domain areas (see Table 5).
Table 5: Approved CADTs, 2002–2012
Year approved No. of CADTs
Total area (in has.) IP population No. of CALTs
Total area (in has.) IP population
2002 2 41,256 18,283
2003 9 326,091 58,389 44 42 171
2004 18 236,436 73,421 3 218 250
2005 9 237,005 36,743 3 3,572 679
2006 18 269,049 50,847 106 986 1,579
2007 2 94,426 22,585 13 12 23
2008 38 1,288,688 313,024 18 2,611 1,208
2009 45 1,106,175 269,317 51 4,487 2,205
2010 15 660,510 69,786 20 5,379 2,494
2011 3 104,201 13,316 No data - -
2012 0 - - 0 - -
Total 159 4,363,817 935,711 258 17,308 8,609
The NCIP was not able to reach its 2011 target of distributing 12 CADTs, while no CADT
was issued in One factor that has affected CADT processing has been the issuance of Joint
Administrative Order (JAO) 1-2012, which suspended land titling in contentious areas.
Based on the above, the CSO members of ILC in the Philippines have identified two
immediate issues:
» Recognition of ancestral domains: The meagre accomplishment in the issuance of
CADTs/Certificates of Ancestral Claim (CADCs) – i.e. little over half of the estimated total
ancestral domain area – can be attributed to the following factors: (1) limited funding
for CADT/CADC processing; (2) insufficient capacity of the NCIP; (3) limited number of
NCIP personnel with technical capacity in this field; and (4) presence of overlapping
claims in identified ancestral domains. The case has worsened with the issuance of JAO
1-2012, which suspended all titling activities in identified contentious areas.
page
24
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES » Threats to tenurial security: The security of IPs in their ancestral domains continues to
be threatened by: (1) the presence of extractive activities, such as mining and logging;
(2) overlapping claims by other sectors; and (3) fraudulent “free prior and informed
consents” (FPICs).
Coastal land and marine resourcesSurrounding the country’s islands are 220 million hectares of marine waters with coastal
land resources that include some 338,393 hectares of swamplands, 253,854 hectares of
existing fresh and brackish water fishponds, and 250,000 hectares of inland freshwater
bodies such as lakes, rivers, and reservoirs (Department of Agriculture website).
In 2003, FAO ranked the Philippines 11th amongst the top fish-producing countries in
the world, producing 2.63 million tons of fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and aquatic plants
(including seaweed). However, all of the country’s main fish species and marine organisms
show signs of overfishing (FAO Fishery Country Profile, 2003).
Fisheries in the Philippines are classified as marine fisheries, inland fisheries, and aquaculture.
Marine fisheries comprise municipal and commercial fisheries. Municipal fisheries refer to
activities that use fishing vessels of 3 gross tons (GT) or less, and are regulated by the local
government. Commercial fishing uses vessels larger than 3 GT and is regulated by the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) of the Department of Agriculture.
Inland fisheries are found in lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and estuaries, while aquaculture
involves aquatic organisms in fresh, brackish, and marine waters. Municipal waters are the
15-kilometre expanse of coastal waters from the shoreline falling under the jurisdiction
of local municipal or city governments, which may or may not allow commercial fishing.
Municipal fisheries also include aquaculture operations in on-land ponds or former
mangrove areas, and fish pens or cages in near-shore areas.
In Section 16, Article 1 of the Fisheries Code (1998), the municipal or city government
is given jurisdiction over municipal waters. The agencies involved in carrying out the
activities for delineation or delimitation are BFAR (under DA), the National Mapping and
Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) (under DENR), and the Local Government Units
(LGUs). Section 18 of the Code states that delineating the boundaries of a municipality’s or
city’s 15-kilometre waters is essential for the sustainable management of fishery resources,
fishery law enforcement, and granting the preferential rights of local fishers within this
zone (see Figure 6).
As of January 2011, NAMRIA had provided mapping and technical descriptions to the local
governments of 920 coastal municipalities and cities. However, more than two-thirds of
these LGUs (69%) had asked NAMRIA for revisions of their delineated maps, mainly because
of overlapping boundaries with adjacent municipalities/cities and errors in technical
descriptions. Moreover, only one-third of the LGUs had certified the technical descriptions or
maps submitted by NAMRIA and only 6% (55 LGUs) had issued local ordinances delineating
their municipal waters.
page
25
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESFigure 6: Flowchart for delineation of municipal waters
The low compliance rate of LGUs in legally delineating their municipal waters may be due to
the following factors: (1) lack of an oversight agency that monitors compliance of LGUs; (2)
LGUs are not fully informed of the importance of delineating municipal waters in terms of
protecting the rights of small fisherfolk against the intrusion of commercial fishing vessels,
or the importance of fisheries resources management; and (3) delineation of municipal
waters is not a priority for LGUs.
The Fisheries Code provides for the issuance of fishpond lease agreements (FLAs) for public
lands that may be declared available for fishpond development. Preference should be given
to qualified fisherfolk cooperatives/associations, as well as to small and medium-sized
enterprises. The area leased should be developed and be productive on a commercial scale
within three years from the approval of the contract. Reforestation activities should also be
undertaken for riverbanks, bays, streams, and seashore fronting the dyke of the fishpond
(Section 46).
According to data from BFAR, 4,522 FLAs were issued between 1973 and 2010, covering
almost 60,000 hectares (see Table 6). Of these FLAs, however, only one was issued to a
fisherfolk organisation.
LGU submits to NAMRIA-HD the verified
TD with the confirmation of affected LGU/s
NAMRIA-HD conducts table delineation
and sends to LGU the preliminary technical
description and map for validation
NAMRIA-HD certifies the TD and
sends it to the LGU concerned
LGU evaluates preliminary TD and map
with neighboring LGU/s
LGU enacts an ordinance and provide
copies to NAMRIA-HD, BFAR, PNP and
other relevant entities
LGU request NAMRIA-HD to delineate LGU submit geographic coordinates of the
land boundary points at the coast common
to adjacent LGU’s and list of islands belonging
to or under the jurisdiction of the LGU
Pay NAMRIA-HD the MW Delineation Fee of
Php5,000 plus Php50 per km of coastline
If contentions TD/map is observed,
LGU initiate a dialogue with its
neighboring LGU’s and negotiate
NAMRIA-HD revises
the TD as agreed upon
by the concerned LGU’s
page
26
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Table 6: Total number of FLAs Issued (1973–2010)
REGION No. of FLAs TOTAL AREA (has.)
Region I 207 1,271.9
Region II 8 78.7
Region III 76 520.2
Region IV 763 11,545.3
Region V 463 7,283.3
Region VI 4,488 14,258.1
Region VII 452 4,529.5
Region VIII 211 5,207.1
Region IX 422 8,253.6
Region X 69 1,481.6
Region XI 137 1,435.6
Region XII 82 1,213.8
Region XIII 144 2,529.5
TOTAL 4,522 59,609
The Fisheries Code states that areas that are not fully productive or abandoned will automatically
revert back to the public domain for reforestation. The fishpond is not to be sub-leased in whole
or in part, and the lessee should provide facilities that minimise environmental pollution, such
as settling ponds and reservoirs. Failure to comply means the cancellation of the FLA. As of 2010,
202 FLAs covering 6,389 hectares (11% of total FLA scope) had been cancelled (see Table 7).
Table 7: Cancelled FLAs, by region
RegionNo. of Cancelled FLAs
Area Covered (has.)
No. of FLAs reverted to DENR
Area reverted to DENR (has.)
Needs to be reverted to DENR (has.)
Region I 2 8.7 - - 8.7
Region II 4 245.7 2 111.8 133.9
Region III 2 16.2 - - 16.2
Region IV 44 1,852.1 3 364.5 1,487.6
Region V 27 508.4 1 12.4 496.0
Region VI 63 1,330.9 21 477.7 853.2
Region VII 17 519.5 3 36.7 482.8
Region VIII 13 656.2 1 33.5 622.7
Region IX 17 972.6 4 371.3 601.3
Region X 3 34.5 - - 34.5
Region XI 2 35.7 - - 35.7
Region XII - - - - -
Region XIII 8 208.5 1 35.0 173.5
TOTAL 202 6,389.5 36 1,443.3 4,946.2
page
27
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESHowever, only 36 of the cancelled FLAs, representing 23% of those cancelled and with a
total area of 1,443 hectares, had reverted to DENR for reforestation. The majority of the
cancelled fishponds remain unproductive.
The CSO members of ILC in the Philippines have identified three immediate issues:
» Need to compel LGUs to delineate their municipal or city waters: The small number
of LGUs which have delineated their municipal or city waters – just 6% of total coastal
LGUs – indicates that this issue is not a priority for them. The situation is aggravated by
the lack of an oversight agency that could monitor LGUs’ compliance.
» Provision of fisherfolk settlements: Since the passage of the Fisheries Code in 1998, no
guidelines have been issued on implementing the provision for fisherfolk settlements.
At the moment, there is a pending resolution in Congress (HR 1411) directing the
House Committee on Aquaculture and Fisheries and other appropriate committees to
conduct an inquiry into the non-implementation of this particular provision. An inter-
agency technical working group (TWG) was established to look into this matter.
» Need for municipal fisherfolk to maximise use of FLAs: Even if the Fisheries Code grants
preference to municipal fisherfolk in the issuance of FLAs, resort owners and real estate
developers are the ones able to take advantage of FLAs. It appears that managing and
developing FLA areas on a commercial scale is beyond the capacity of subsistence fisherfolks.
In addition to the three major sectoral issues discussed above, there are also a number of
cross-cutting issues related to land that affect all basic sectors. These are discussed below.
Persistence of poverty in the rural sectorAccording to National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) data, poverty incidence in the
Philippines in 2009 was 26%, or 3.86 million families. There is a wide disparity in the incidence
of in urban and rural areas: in 2006, for example, almost 46% of the rural population was
poor, compared with 19% of the urban population. Among basic sectors, fisherfolk have
the highest incidence of at 50% (2006 figures), which is equivalent to almost half a million
fisherfolk living below the poverty line. The incidence of for farmers stands at 44%, which is
equivalent to more than 2 million poor farmers (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Poverty incidence in the Philippines, rural and urban areas, 1985–2008
Note: 2008 data from the APIS, not the FIES
50
40
30
20
10
0
Philippine Poverty Incidence %
Urban Poverty Incidence %
Rural Poverty Incidence %
1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2006 2008
page
28
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Inequitable access to land for women
Fewer than one-third (29%) of the total Emancipation Patents/Certificates of Land Ownership
Award (EPs/CLOAs) distributed in 2009 were awarded to women beneficiaries (see Table 8).
Table 8: EP/CLOA distribution by gender
Title Women % Men % Total
EP 55,609 14% 345,489 86% 401,098
CLOA 545,241 32% 1,140,128 68% 1,685,369
Total 600,850 29% 1,485,617 71% 2,086,467
In 2011, the DAR issued Administrative Order (AO) 01-11, which provided guidelines for
gender equality in the implementation of agrarian reform laws and mainstreaming Gender
and Development (GAD) in the DAR. The salient provisions of the policy are:
» Both spouses or common-law partners in a relationship, who each possess the
qualifications to be an ARB, shall have equal rights in the process of identification,
screening, and selection of ARBs. In no case shall exclusion or subordination be made
in the screening and selection of ARBs on account of gender or relationship status;
» With respect only to acts of administration or matters pertaining to the day-to-day
management of the landholding, the decision of one spouse shall be binding upon the
other in the event that the other spouse is absent;
» In order to recognise the rights of farmer spouses, the names of both shall appear in the
EP/CLOA and shall be preceded by the word “spouses”; in the case of a common-law
relationship, the names of both parties shall likewise appear in the EP/CLOA with the
conjunctive word “and” between their names;
» A joint leasehold contract or a separate leasehold contract for spouses may be executed;
» The award limit for legally married spouses and for common-law partners is 3 hectares;
if both spouses are individually qualified to be ARBs, each shall accordingly be entitled
to a separate award, which in no case shall exceed a maximum of 3 hectares;
» Regardless of whether the EP/CLOA is registered in the names of both spouses/partners
or is awarded to only one of them, where the award is made during the existence
of their marriage or the period of their cohabitation, the consent of both spouses/
partners shall be required for the validity of land transactions.
DAR also issued MC 05-01, which provided guidelines for the establishment and operation
of DAR Women’s Desks in all municipalities. These are responsible for formulating and
implementing programmes and activities that protect and promote women’s rights, and
also serve as channels to address their grievances. A total of 690 women’s desks were
established nationwide in 2010, and these desks have so far served the interests of 16,917
rural women.
In the fishing sector, recognition of women as major stakeholders remains an issue. While
women are involved in fishing operations and in post-harvest activities, they comprise only
30% of the total number of active fisherfolk in the country (NSO, 2011).
page
29
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESThe CSO members of ILC in the Philippines have recognised the challenge of intensifying
the inclusion of women in the registration of municipal fisherfolk, since the common
practice is for husbands to register as head of the household even if their wives contribute
to fishing-related activities, such as shell gathering or processing. One of the proposed
policy measures is to waive registration fees for women fisherfolk whose husbands are
already registered as fishers.
Lack of citizen participation in governanceThe three principles of good governance are transparency, accountability, and participation,
and institutions and stakeholders should adhere to these principles in the course of
implementing asset reforms. In particular, the three principles should be embodied in all
aspects of government processes – from planning and budgeting to implementation, to
monitoring and evaluation (M&E).
In terms of participation, the Republic Act (RA) 8425 of 1998, also known as the Social Reform
and Poverty Alleviation Act, institutionalised the government’s Social Reform Agenda (SRA),
which charges the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) to with strengthening and
invigorating partnerships between national government and 14 basic sectors.5 The Local
Government Code (LGC) also mandates that at least 25% of members of Local Development
Councils (LDCs) should come from civil society.
The CSO members of ILC in the Philippines have identified the following three challenges:
» Maximising existing participatory mechanisms to make the voice of the rural sector heard;
» Vertical harmonisation of the reform agenda of sectoral representatives; and
» Determining “meaningful” participation.
» Vulnerability to climate change and disaster risks
In 2011, the Climate Change Commission of the Philippines (CCCP) crafted the National
Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) and identified seven priorities: (a) food security;
(b) water sufficiency; (c) environmental and ecological stability; (d) human security; (e)
sustainable energy; (f ) climate-smart industries and services; and (g) knowledge and
capacity development. The agriculture and fisheries sector falls under the food security
priority. The plan focuses on enhancing the resiliency of agriculture and fisheries production
and distribution systems and communities in the face of climate change.
IP communities in particular are identified as being vulnerable to climate change and
disaster risk. Natural disasters and other impacts of climate change alter their way of life,
threatening their sources of livelihood, traditional knowledge, and practices, especially
sustainable practices in the management of their land, water, and forest resources.
5 Under the Act, these “basic sectors” are defined as 14 socially disadvantaged groups in Philippine society, namely farmers/
peasants and landless rural workers; artisanal fisherfolk; IPs and cultural communities; women; urban poor; workers in
the formal sector and migrant workers; workers in the informal sector; people with disabilities; senior citizens; youth and
students; children; victims of calamities and disasters; non-governmental organisations (NGOs); and cooperatives.
page
30
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES No comprehensive policy on land use
In the absence of a comprehensive land use policy, there is no framework to address the
main issues concerning access to land and tenurial security, such as overlapping claims,
land use prioritization, and land protection vs. utilisation.
page
31
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESActors involved in
land governance in the Philippines
GovernmentAsset reform laws are implemented by the government’s executive departments (ministries).
While each law has a designated implementing entity, many laws contain provisions giving the
President – who, as head of the executive department, has ultimately responsibility – a direct
role in their implementation. In the Forestry Code, for instance, the President can declare a
certain area as a forest or a reservation. The regulation of land and enforcement of laws related
to land access are the responsibility primarily of the DA, DAR, DENR, and LGUs (see Figure 5).
The tasks of implementing agencies can never be taken in isolation from other agencies,
whether it is between national government offices or between national and local
government units. Many of the laws on access to land provide joint responsibilities or
coordination between offices because of the complex nature of the land or the expertise of
each agency needed in implementing the law.
The mixed responsibilities of agencies have been a source of backlogs and contradictory
implementation, especially when there is no clear accountability of the implementing
agency or adequate funding to perform its assigned task. For instance, DAR cannot distribute
agricultural lands without completion of the DENR survey. LGUs face the same problem
in the delineation of foreshore lands for fisherfolk settlements, which is the responsibility
of DA and DENR. In other instances, the implementing agency designated by law has no
capability to perform the task and has to rely on another agency (as in the case of the NCIP).
Some agencies have been granted blanket authority by law to reclassify lands. Under
Presidential Decree (PD) 705, only DENR has the power to classify public lands as either
agricultural, industrial/commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest, and
grazing lands, or as other classes declared by law. If a public land is not classified, then by
law it is classified as forest land. The President also has the power to declare an area of land
as a forest or mineral reserve. Similarly, in NIPAS, the President can issue a proclamation
designating an area as a protected area until such time that Congress can pass a law
declaring it as such.
page
32
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES On private lands, the determining classification comes from the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP) of the LGU and the zoning ordinance. The LGU also has the duty to designate
zones for fish pens, fish cages, and other structures within its jurisdiction. However, the
President can always reclassify a land with the approval of the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) when public interest requires. The determination of IP
ancestral domains as a special class of private land also depends on a survey conducted by
DENR at the request of the NCIP. Cases of ancestral lands being covered by the CARP are also
increasing, despite Section 9 of the CARL.
The government faces three formidable challenges in the enforcement of access to land
laws and implementation of related programmes. Foremost among these is the lack of
political will to implement the laws, manifested in inadequate budgets and inefficient or
inept bureaucracies.
Second, market forces have also influenced the government’s implementation of laws and
programmes on access to land. This is illustrated by the government’s enthusiastic promotion
of commercial mining, despite its negative impact on other sectors, particularly IPs.
A third challenge comes from existing laws that go against principles of social justice,
yet remain in force. One such law is Presidential Proclamation (PP) 2282, which gives
the President blanket authority to convert forest lands and ancestral domain areas into
agricultural and resettlement lands.
International commitmentsPolicy initiatives on land access and security of tenure can be viewed as enforceable
translations of the international covenants to which the Philippines has committed itself.
At the core of these commitments are the basic human rights embodied in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which upholds that everyone has the right to
economic, social, and cultural rights indispensable for their dignity (Art. 22) and to a standard
of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and of their families (Art. 25).
For there to be a meaningful recognition of these basic human rights for the peasant class, a
solid policy on land access and tenurial security is imperative as the means by which basic social
and economic rights can be upheld. By ensuring that farmers have land to till, a “standard of
living adequate for the health and well-being” of themselves and their families is also ensured.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) contains similar
provisions on the State’s responsibility for the full well-being of the human person. Article
11 recognises the right of all to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food,
clothing, and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The State is
urged to ensure the realisation of this right. The ICESCR emphasises the fundamental right
of everyone to be free from hunger and calls for states to take necessary measures needed
to: (a) improve methods of production, conservation, and distribution of food by making
full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles
of nutrition, and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve
the most efficient development and utilisation of natural resources; and; (b) to ensure an
equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.
page
33
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESMultilateral trade agreements to which the Philippines is currently a party include those of
the World Trade Organization (WTO), such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) and the Agreement on Agriculture. At the regional level, the country is part of the
ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. It
has also forged bilateral agreements with countries such as China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia
for agricultural investments. The Philippine legal system allows treaties and international
agreements to be part of the law of the land, under Section 2 of the Constitution. Thus
international law and its generally accepted principles are important in studying the
Philippine legal framework on access to land.
The Philippines is a signatory to international agreements such as the Convention on
Biodiversity, the Kyoto Protocol, the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food and, most
recently, the VGGT, which were endorsed by the Committee on World Food Security in May
According to FAO, the VGGT provide a framework and a point of reference that stakeholders
(i.e. states, CSOs, and the private sector) can use when developing their own policies and
activities in the land sector, particularly on responsible governance of tenure as a means of
alleviating hunger and poverty, enhancing the environment, supporting national and local
economic development, and reforming public administration. While the Philippines has a
vibrant policy environment on asset reform, the challenge remains in the implementation of
these laws to respect the rights and benefit the interests of small farmers, IPs, and fisherfolk.
Donor agencies and international institutionsThree major donors to the Philippines – Japan, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the
World Bank – have provided significant funding to programmes related to access to land.
Other development assistance has come through the European Union (EU) delegation in
the Philippines, German Development Cooperation (now GIZ), AusAID, the International
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), FAO, the Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and a host of small
funds channelled through international NGOs. Donor support is also provided indirectly
through civil society groups sub-contracted for projects funded by official development
assistance (ODA). However, donor funding has been uneven across the four sectors of lands
subject to CARP (agrarian reform, forestry, fisheries, and IPs), with agrarian reform receiving
the largest share and fisherfolk receiving the least.
There are also gaps in donor support. For example, few donors provide financing for land
acquisition and distribution or community organising. Instead, capacity building, model
building, and innovative approaches to issues are preferred.
ODA contribution for agrarian reform: The total ODA contribution for CARP stands at
PhP 35.3 billion, or 32% of the PhP 110.2 billion (as of 2004) released by the Philippine
government for CARP. ODA funds that have gone to CARP have been spent largely on the
delivery of support services (mostly infrastructure); only a small part of this ODA money has
been earmarked for land acquisition. This reluctance by donors to fund land acquisition has
contributed to the slow progress of CARP. Pending the passage of a CARP extension bill,
donor agencies are holding back from making new commitments to fund agrarian reform.
page
34
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES ODA for forestry: One recent major donor initiative in the forestry sector is the Philippine
Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation (PTFCF), which was established through a debt
swap sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The
foundation is managed by a board of trustees, whose members include representatives
from government, NGOs, and USAID. The foundation provides support to NGOs and people’s
organisations (POs) (in partnership with LGUs) engaged in reforestation. Many donors have
likewise provided support for reforestation activities, among them the World Bank, the EU,
ADB, Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), and IFAD.
ODA for IPs: Due to capacity gaps within NCIP, donors have stepped back from earlier
commitments to support the agency’s operational projects, and instead have chosen to
focus on capacity building of the NCIP, e.g. website development, education, and resource
management planning. Most donor funding for field projects has been channelled through
DAR. However, there has been renewed interest in IP issues following the passage of the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in September 2007, and this opens
up opportunities to lobby the Philippine government for more effective implementation of
IPRA. Funding for the defence of IP rights to their ancestral domains is also frequently tied
up with campaigns against large-scale mining and other extractive industries.
ODA for fisheries: There has been minimal donor support for fisherfolk settlements. In
2003, DENR, the World Bank, and AusAID started implementing a pilot project to introduce
reforms in land administration and public land management in six municipalities of Leyte.
As of July 2007, the project had registered 2,019 patents, with 1,531 already distributed.
Three of the municipalities covered by the project – Palo, Tanauan, and Barugo – are coastal
municipalities. A key contributor to the fisheries sector, particularly in the promotion of
land access by small-scale fisherfolk, is Oxfam (Great Britain and Hong Kong), which has
supported the advocacy work and other activities of NGOs for Fisheries Reform (NFR).
Oxfam was also a major sponsor of the National Conference on Fisherfolk Settlement in
November 2006.
Private sectorIn general, private commercial interests have been a major obstacle in the struggle of the
basic sectors to gain access to land or tenurial security. They include landlords who oppose
land reform; loggers and miners who encroach into and destroy forests, agricultural lands,
and ancestral domains; real estate speculators and developers who displace communities
to build facilities such as golf courses and tourist estates; and business groups planning to
build dirty power plants, industrial estates, ports, and recreation facilities.
Landlords vs. agrarian reform: Landlord resistance constitutes one of the major
bottlenecks in the implementation of agrarian reform. Their resistance takes various
forms, for example: (a) failing to present the necessary land documents; (b) circumventing
CARP by exploiting legal loopholes; (c) using connections to high-ranking government
officials; and (d) harassing ARBs, leading in many cases to violence. Since 1998, as many
as 18,872 farmers and rural organisers have fallen victim to human rights violations
(PARRDS, 2007).
page
35
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESLoggers and miners vs. forests: Logging concessionaires take advantage of their Integrated
Forest Management Agreements (IFMAs) to clear-cut forests. Only 10% of the area covered
by Timber Licence Agreements (TLAs) is being reforested, and mostly with fast-growing
species that will also be cut down. Other replanting efforts involving the private sector
consist of tree-planting activities by company employees along national highways
rather than in denuded forest areas. Mining interests, meanwhile, have targeted some
80,000 hectares for mining exploration, mostly in forest areas. A recent Philippines–China
agreement has earmarked some two million hectares for agribusiness plantations. These
plantations are likely to cut across the country’s few remaining forest areas.
Private investments vs. IPs and small fisherfolk: As a result of the National Minerals Policy,
private investments – in mining, IFMAs, pasture lease agreements, palm oil plantations
and orchards, and similar large-scale commercial enterprises – are being implemented in
the ancestral lands of indigenous communities. At the same time, the establishment of
industrial estates, power plants, ports, beach resorts, recreation facilities, etc. on foreshore
lands and coastal areas has displaced communities of small fisherfolk. Frequently, fisherfolk
are enticed to sell their occupancy rights or are forcibly removed. They usually offer no
resistance because the lands they occupy are often state-owned.
Civil society and social movementsCivil society and social movements continue to be involved in the basic sectors’ struggle to
gain access to land and tenurial security. Civil society engagement is uneven, with agrarian
reform receiving the largest share of support in comparison with other rural issues. A recent
trend towards the downsizing of NGO activity in the Philippines has affected civil society
support for land access and tenure security.
Civil society in agrarian reform: Civil society has traditionally been involved in advocacy
for agrarian reform, starting from the peasant rebellions in the pre-independence period,
continuing throughout the 1950s and 1960s in protest tenancy, and persisting to this day,
with the aim of holding governments to their commitment to redistribute land.
Civil society action reached a high point in the late 1980s with the formation of the Congress
for a People’s Agrarian Reform (CPAR), a broad federation of peasant groups whose lobbying
efforts were instrumental in the passage of the CARL. Large networks of farmers’ groups,
such as PAKISAMA, were part of CPAR. NGO networks such as PhilDHRRA, on the other hand,
have supported the agrarian reform agenda since its beginning.
However, mirroring the general downward trend in the activities of NGOs, civil society support
for agrarian reform is now also declining. Among the reasons for this are specialisation by a
number of NGOs in their chosen fields, and reduction of their involvement in broad political
and economic issues.
Civil society in the factor: A number of civil society groups are working in the forestry
sector. However, most of their efforts are uncoordinated and, as a result, fail to achieve their
intended impact. An underlying reason for this is their failure to focus on inclusive themes
that could serve as a rallying point for collaboration. For example, the more inclusive theme
of “sustainable land use” (as opposed to “forest protection”) would elicit support from a
page
36
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES broader range of stakeholders, including academics and the private sector, which has a
stake in ensuring a continued supply of marketable forest products.
The lack of coordination among NGOs involved in the forestry sector is also due to the
absence of a credible interlocutor who can mobilise the various groups. Perhaps this is a role
for the larger conservation groups, such as the Foundation for the Philippine Environment
(FPE), Haribon, etc. At the local level, the experience of Social Action Center (SAC)–Quezon
(and SACs in other areas) demonstrates the potential of the Catholic Church to catalyse
broad support to address forestry issues.
Civil society with IPs: A promising initiative is the Forging Partnerships Conference,
which has brought NGOs and other resource providers into dialogue with IP leaders and
communities. The Conference has enabled IP groups to define development assistance
within their own contexts, has formulated protocols for NGO support to IP communities,
and has established mechanisms to share information (through IP coalitions) and provide
assistance (by matching IP needs with NGO capabilities). A permanent steering committee
facilitates the sharing of resources.
This development represents a positive shift in NGO attitudes away from paternalism (which
had fostered IP dependency in the past), a softening of formerly inflexible ideological
positions, and a willingness to engage with other stakeholders. The government’s mining
policy has forged a strong link between environmental concerns and IP rights. The Alyansa
Tigil Mina (ATM) or Alliance Against Mining – a multi-sectoral civil society alliance – has
been established for sustained advocacy against mining abuses.
Civil society support for CADC claims has often been limited to the pre-claim period. Few
NGOs are committed to or capable of providing the support needed during the post-claim
period of resource utilisation, which requires governance, livelihood, technical, and financial
assistance to the IP claimant. As a result, many forest dwellers have found life more difficult
during the post-claim period. The remoteness of many CADC areas likewise hampers the
delivery of basic social services.
Civil society in fisheries: Civil society support for the fisherfolk sector is less than for other
sectors. Such support includes awareness raising on fisherfolk rights, legal assistance and
case handling, paralegal training, research on fisherfolk issues, and engagement with local
governments. The small number of volunteer lawyers can hardly meet this sector’s huge
demand for legal assistance. NGOs in the fisherfolk sector are likewise strapped for funding,
and this has forced a number of them to focus on Mindanao, where much donor support
is concentrated.
Apart from NGOs, the Church has been a key ally in providing information and other types of
support towards the resolution of cases involving fisherfolk. Media, both local and national,
have also been supportive of fisherfolk issues.
However, fisherfolk have not been as fortunate with LGUs and, in general, cooperation
between them has not been productive. However, there are notable exceptions – for
example, in Quezon, Davao Oriental, and Zambales, where mechanisms for consultation
and dialogue have facilitated the identification of fisherfolk settlement sites for inclusion in
the municipal CLUP.
page
37
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESIn 2006, the NFR network, together with fisherfolk representatives from Luzon, Visayas, and
Mindanao, reviewed the Fisheries Code. The review identified seven themes in fisheries,
one of them being fisherfolk rights and settlements. This was in response to the increasing
number of reports from fishers of court-decreed displacements and evictions.
To address this concern, NFR produced three documents declaring its support for fisherfolk
settlements. The first is a Joint Administrative Order (JAO) outlining the process for the
identification and selection of fisher beneficiaries and disposability of lands through
different modes. The second document is a draft special order for DENR to identify lands
of the public domain near the sea that are suitable for settlements (this has been adopted
by DENR as a Special Order entitled “Identification of Public Lands Suitable For Fisherfolk
Settlements in Coastal Municipalities and Cities”). The third NFR document is a proposed
municipal ordinance ordering coastal cities and municipalities to identify, acquire, and
distribute areas for fisherfolk settlement.
Civil society for a national land use policy: In 2010, the Campaign for a National Land
Use Policy Now! (CLUP Now!) took up the 20-year-old campaign for the passage of a
National Land Use Act. This bill has been re-filed in Congress since 1994, mainly due to the
overlapping policies and “turf” issues of agencies on the implementing structure for the law.
Brief profile of ILC members in the PhilippinesILC’s membership in the Philippines consists of seven organisations with similar and
complementary expertise. The three Asian regional ILC members (AIPP, ANGOC and AFA)
also have affiliates in the Philippines and international organisations such as Oxfam are
active at the national level, mainly as financial sponsors and facilitators. Together these
organisations are active in all regions of the country.
AR Now! (the People’s Campaign for Agrarian Reform Network) is a national umbrella
organisation campaigning for agrarian reform (AR), which includes ILC CSO members
(PAKISAMA, CARRD, and ANGOC).
Task Force Mapalad (TFM) is a federation of farmers and workers mainly active in community
organising and capacity building. Its areas of work include access to land, productivity, and
enterprise development such as the Moscobado sugar in Negros and the cacao network in
Mindanao (trading and supplying processing plants).
The Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (CARRD) is an NGO with a
constituency of ARBs and farmers. Its main area of work is land distribution, farmers’
empowerment, paralegal training, sustainable agriculture, and cooperative enterprises (rice
and sugar).
The Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID) is a non-profit national
organisation with a constituency of IPs, to whom it provides assistance by securing ancestral
domain. It also provides services to government and communities on mapping and
conflict resolution; training on resource inventory, measurement of biomass, and upland
agroforestry; and assistance to the national Alliance against Mining. It has broad experience
on FPIC, conflict resolution, mediation, and negotiation with the private sector.
page
38
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES The National Confederation of Small Farmers and Fishers Organizations (PAKISAMA)
brings together 64 member federations and primary associations and cooperatives of small
farmers (many of whom are ARBs), fishers, IPs, rural women, and youth in 45 provinces. Its
formation was catalysed by PhilDHRRA and rural development NGOs immediately after the
1986 People Power Revolution. Since then, it has been prominent in various campaigns
and advocacy efforts to legislate and implement meaningful asset reform and sustainable
agriculture programmes. It is currently advocating for the speedy completion of CARPER
implementation, the delineation of 864 more municipal waters, the distribution of 8
million hectares of ancestral lands to IPs, and the recovery of the PhP 120 billion Coco Levy
Fund. It has been mobilising victims of eight different land grabbing cases involving more
than 200,000 hectares of land and water and 20,000 farmers and fishers. PAKISAMA, with
support from Agricord members (Agriterra, CSA, AsiaDHRRA), is building the capacity of
its member cooperatives/associations to undertake sustainable agri-based enterprises
through organisational strengthening, production enhancements, market linkages, and
government access. Its programmes incorporate addressing gender justice and supporting
rural women. PAKISAMA is the Philippines affiliate of the Asian Farmers’ Association for
Sustainable Rural Development (AFA).
The Xavier Science Foundation (XSF) encourages, supports, and finances programmes
dedicated to the pursuit of social and educational development in Mindanao. XSF is
becoming a reference in education for people-centred land governance.
The Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC) is a regional association of NGO networks and partners,
primarily focusing on policy advocacy on land and resource rights, as well as smallholder
agriculture and sustainable food systems. ANGOC also convenes the Land Watch Asia
(LWA) campaign, which seeks to ensure that land rights concerns are included in both
national and regional agendas. Through LWA, ANGOC and its partners conduct studies
on land. ANGOC has built expertise in opening up political space for effective dialogue,
engaging institutions including national governments, multilateral banks (the World Bank
and ADB), intergovernmental organisations (the UN system), donor partners, and academic
and research institutions. Its work is not limited to the regional level, but naturally includes
actions at the national level. Its member organisation in the Philippines is the Philippine
Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhillDHRRA).
The Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) has one affiliate in the Philippines, the National
Coalition of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines (KASAPI).
page
39
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESNES programme
for the Philippines
OverviewThe ILC Strategic Framework for 2011–2015 encourages the formulation of a National
Engagement Strategy (NES) to synergise the efforts of CSOs with those of other stakeholders
within government and amongst donors in building on previous efforts to increase and
strengthen access to and control over land and other natural resources in rural sectors.
The NES formulation process in the Philippines started in 2012 and the strategy is now in its
second year of implementation. ILC members, on the basis of the challenges identified in the
first part of this document, have highlighted the following objectives to be jointly achieved.
Achievements of first-year NES implementation to date (Year 1: June 2013 – 31 May 2014)In 2013, the first year of implementation of the NES was from June 2013–May The first year
had three components, managed by AR Now!–for CARPER monitoring, amounting; PAFID–
for IP issues, and ANGOC–for Land Watch campaign, inter-sectoral collaboration, and overall
coordination, amounting . Activities in the first year were clustered around the three major
components of the NES Philippines programme.
Table 9: Major activities and key partners involved in first year of NES implementation
Strategy Major activities Key actors
Pursue reforms and
protect gains of past
and current asset reform
policies and programmes
Case documentation and policy dialogue on land grabs
Documentation and policy dialogue on delineation
of municipal waters
CSO land reform monitoring
Processing of CADCs in Aurora Pacific Economic
Zone and Freeport (APECO)
ANGOC, AR Now!, CARRD, PAFID, PAKISAMA, NGO Fisheries for
Reform (NFR)
PhilDHRRA, PAKISAMA, NFR
ANGOC, PhilDHRRA, AR Now!*, CARRD, PAFID, PAKISAMA, AR
Now!, XSF
PAKISAMA, PAFID
Address inter-sectoral
concerns on land
Lobbying for the passage of National Land Use Act (NLUA)
Information on and dissemination of the VGGT
Scoping paper on indigenous peoples
Scoping paper on women
National spatial mapping
Establishment and operationalisation of Quick
Response Fund (QRF)
ANGOC, CLUP Now!, AR Now!, CARRD, PhilDHRRA, PAFID, PAKISAMA, NFR
ANGOC, PDF-SRD WG**, ILC members
PAFID
PhilDHRRA, ANGOC
PAFID, CARRD, AR Now!, NFR, ANGOC
All ILC Members
QRF Project Review Committee (ANGOC, AR Now!, PAFID, XSF)
Coordination among ILC
members on NES
Preparatory meetings
Review and planning workshop and coordination
with ILC Secretariat
All ILC members
ANGOC, all ILC members
* The Campaign for
Land Use Policy
Now! (CLUP Now!)
is a multi-issue,
multi-sectoral
campaign composed
of 24 people’s
organisations, NGOs,
and civil society
advocates lobbying
for the passage
of a national land
use act. KAISAHAN
and ANGOC are
co-convenors of
CLUP Now!
** The Philippine
Development
Forum – Sustainable
Rural Development
Working Group (PDF-
SRD WG) is a formal
mechanism between
the Philippine
government
and international
development
partners. Co-chaired
by the Department
of Agriculture and
German Technic al
Cooperation (GIZ), the
Working Group has
adopted advocacy
on national land use
and the promotion
of the VGGT among
its major priority
action areas.
page
40
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES The first-year implementation of the NES has contributed to enhancing the capacities of the
basic sectors in defending and protecting their rights to land by:
» Increasing their awareness on the latest developments in policy formulation processes by
participating in a number of dialogues and preparatory meetings organised under the NES;
» Increasing the basic sectors’ appreciation and understanding of their own perspectives
through inter-sectoral workshops;
» Enhancing capacities of the rural poor and CSOs through evidence-based advocacy, as
supported by findings of various studies;
» Increasing awareness of the issues faced by communities through the documentation
of land grabbing cases;
» Continuing to lobby, in partnership with CSOs, for the passage of land rights-related
bills and policies;
» Taking direct actions to fast-track land acquisition and distribution through submission
of petitions for the issuance of NOCs by DAR.
Table 10: Specific outputs and outcomes of Year 1 of NES implementation
Component 1: Monitoring of CARPER implementation
Sub-component Major activities conducted Accomplishments (outputs and/or outcomes)
National
mobilisation
Campaign planning workshops Two campaign plans:
Land and Food Rights
Accelerating and Sustaining AR Gains in the Philippines
Mass actions Two series of national mobilisations and forums:
June 2013, with 178 participants
June 2014, with at least 900 participants
Regular dialogue/coordination with DAR
and Congressional Oversight Committee
on Agrarian Reform (COCAR)
Ten position papers distributed
Six dialogues with DAR
Policy lobbying Three bills drafted
One bill filed/lobbied
Networking and coordination meetings Ten out of 11 active AR Now! members
Active participation in CLUP Now!, Land Watch Asia, and
People’s Agrarian Reform Congress
Post-2014 study Literature review and data gathering
Key informant interviews
Survey with CSOs
Focus group discussions
Round table discussion
One study on “Exploring the Next Steps of Agrarian
Reform Implementation in the Philippines”
Paralegal formation
and mobilisation
CARPER orientation
Paralegal training
Re-tooling workshop
Regular coaching and clinics
211 farmers in Batangas, Capiz, and Iloilo oriented on CARPER
54 paralegal volunteers trained in Batangas, Capiz, and Iloilo
112 paralegals trained in Negros
DAR budget
monitoring
Round table discussion
Desk research
One DAR budget monitoring report
page
41
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESComponent 2: IP issues
Sub-component Major activities conducted Accomplishments (outputs and/or outcomes)
IP research and
documentation
Research, mapping, and digitising
spatial data on IP territories for a
national database; data analysis and
capacity building for IP communities
AR advocates and CSOs engaged in riparian and fishery
reform also became part of the project in order to include
critical spatial data for their work
The range and volume of spatial information has more
than quadrupled and now cuts across the sectors
of agrarian reform, agriculture, indigenous fishery
communities, and the various conflicting land uses that
threaten land tenure (mines, etc.)
The data generated by the project has already been used by
at least seven communities in management planning of their
ancestral domains, where they were able to identify conflicting
claims and land uses overlapping with their territories
Formal complaints and petitions with DAR and DENR
have already been filed by three communities using data
from the project
The results of the project were used during the National
Protected Area Governance Review conducted by DENR
and the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) to assess
overlaps within National Parks
Data will be presented in the General Assembly and used in
strategic planning of the national Alliance Against Mining
Securing land tenure Gathering of evidence and proof,
documentation, delineation and
filing of applications for ancestral
domain claim by the Agta indigenous
community affected by APECO
Organisation of four sectoral organisations – small
farmers, small fishers, IPs living in lowland/coastal areas,
IPs living in upland/mountain areas
Empowerment of the organised groups in articulating
their issues/concerns vis-à-vis various government
agencies concerned
Component 3: Land Watch Philippines and NES coordination
Sub-component Major activities conducted Accomplishments (outputs and/or outcomes)
Case documentation
and policy dialogue
on land grabbing
Data gathering, drafting, validation Seven case studies documented and presented in a
policy dialogue jointly organised by AR Now!, House
Committee on Agrarian Reform, and ANGOC
NLUA campaign Strategy meetings, lobbying with Congress
(House of Representatives and Senate)
One draft bill passed in the House of Representatives;
ongoing lobbying with Senate
Scoping studies on
women
Data gathering, drafting, validation One study presented in policy dialogue jointly organised
by PhilDHRRA, ANGOC, and the Inter-Agency Committee
on Rural Women (IACRW) including the Philippine
Commission on Women (PCW), DAR, and DA
Scoping study on IPs Data gathering, drafting, validation One draft paper being finalised; paper to be presented at
national IP conference in October 2014
Case documentation
and policy dialogue
on municipal waters
Documentation of best practices in
delineation of municipal waters, drafting
of Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC)
Six cases being drafted; draft JMC to be presented in
policy dialogue with DA-BFAR, Department of the Interior
and Local Government (DILG), NFR, and PhilDHRRA
page
42
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Sub-component Major activities conducted Accomplishments (outputs and/or outcomes)
Information
dissemination on
VGGT
Drafting of papers, regional
consultations, and national forum
Three desk studies in relation to land governance were
prepared: i) review of major land laws; ii) national land
use; and iii) responsible agriculture investments. These
studies were presented and discussed in two experts’
roundtable discussions, three regional consultations, and
a national conference
The research studies were used to update the NES document
Land monitoring Data gathering, drafting, validation In partnership with ANGOC, PhilDHRRA took the lead for
the LWA’s land reform monitoring initiative. It focused not
only on farmers but included fishers and IPs, looking at
the tenure instruments and target areas for reform and
threats to tenure security, among other issues. PhilDHRRA
presented its findings from the land monitoring study for
validation by partner NGOs and POs. PhilDHRRA included
a mini capacity development activity for monitoring,
using the indicators of the land reform monitoring
initiative. During the presentation/validation activity,
participants were asked for suggestions on how the data
generated could strengthen the advocacy of various
campaigns (e.g. land use and CARPER and community-
level campaigns)
Quick Response
Fund (QRF)
Review of proposals, release of funds Six QRF proposals supported; projects were able to
identify 23,923.013 hectares not yet issued with NOCs
and about 80,000 hectares not included in DAR’s
database for land acquisition and distribution. Also,
given the request from the House Committee on
Agrarian Reform, two bills were drafted by AR Now! and
submitted to this Committee
NES coordination Meetings of members, review and
planning workshop
ILC members took the opportunity to meet during
each NES-related activity to brainstorm on strategies
and targeted outputs. ANGOC is monitoring partners’
implementation of NES activities and helps see to it that
progress is on track
ANGOC coordinated the review and planning
workshop (May 2014) for ILC members to review the
accomplishments of Year 1 and to plan for Year As a result,
the NES document has been updated while an initial
draft of the log-frame has been formulated. ANGOC has
provided significant inputs to the NES document
In terms of lessons, Year 1 experience indicates that flexibility is key to the implementation
of the various NES activities, as certain factors are beyond members’ control. The political
situation (e.g. changes in government officials, new ordinances), for instance, affects
lobbying and advocacy efforts. Super-typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan), which hit the country in
November 2013, disrupted the focus and operations of ILC members and partners involved
in NES activities.
Coordination amongst ILC members remains a challenge, given their different priorities,
work styles, and institutional set-ups. It should be noted that ILC members are also
implementing other activities outside the NES work plan. Constant follow-up and bilateral
meetings have been undertaken to mitigate the situation.
page
43
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESNES Year 2: October 2014 – October 2015
During the ILC Asia Regional Assembly (held in Mongolia in September 2013), the Philippine
members held a caucus to initiate planning for Year 2 of the NES. Then on 27–28 May 2014,
the ILC CSO members in the Philippines met and reviewed the progress of the NES and
prioritised plans for Year 2, based on the following aims:
» Intensify existing advocacy efforts and campaigns on key asset reform laws that require
sustained interventions;
» Build on the gains and lessons from Year 1 (activities that proved successful in effecting
change and that have generated support from broader groups and have been
acknowledged by government).
Objectives, achievements, and major activities were then reviewed by ILC members and
the ILC Secretariat during an NES second year planning session in Manila on 21–22 July As a
result of the review, members agreed on the following general objectives:
» Pursue reforms and protect the gains of past and current asset reform policies
and programmes;
» Address inter-sectoral concerns on land and future legal frameworks;
» Enhance the capacities of the basic sectors to demand and defend their rights
and natural resources;
» Develop a comprehensive and coherent land data system;
» Enhance coordination among ILC members in the Philippines.
During the same planning session, activities, expected outputs, and expected results were
agreed for the second year of the NES.
Pursue reforms and protect the gains of past and current asset reform policies and programmesILC members agreed to work together in focusing specifically on the following two laws:
Post-CARPER and LTI completion
CSOs have agreed to wait for legislative action to approve CARPER extension up to June
2016 and facilitate pending land distribution up to completion. For post-CARPER scenarios,
CSOs have not yet reached agreement on the option of a law on Agrarian Reform and
Rural Development (ARRD) with a new institutional set-up and a focus on support services.
During NES Year 2, the engagement of the Center for Peace, Justice and Human Rights in
the Philippines (KATARUNGAN) is envisaged, among others.
In this context ILC members will:
» Promote the approval of the CARPER extension by identifying CARPER champions in
the Senate and lobbying outside the Senate for CARPER extension; proactively engage
with other sectors (e.g. Church, academia, media); attend public hearings; follow the
approval process and pressure legislators for approval;
page
44
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES » Contribute to the completion of land distribution by organising grassroots mobilisation
and community orientation and enhancing paralegal work;
» Facilitate civil society consensus on the post-CARPER situation by facilitating the draft
of a bill on ARRD and conducting consultations at multiple levels with stakeholders
(government, CSOs, etc.).
The following outputs and results are expected:
» CARPER extension approved until June 2016;
» National mobilisation;
» Review profile/terms of reference (ToR) of paralegals and develop training modules
responding to new tasks targeting selected participants, with a specific focus on
gender issues;
» Two trainings for each organisation (PAKISAMA, TFM, CARRD);
» Inter-organisational sharing of frontline community organisers, advocates, and
campaigners (30 people for two days) to build synergy and effective joint campaigning;
» Draft of ARRD bill based on broad consensus.
Lead organisation: AR Now!
Fisheries Code
There are 864 costal delineations pending in the Philippines and there is open debate on
whether a JMC or administrative order could bypass the current requirements, which are
impeding progress. On the basis of this requirement, LGUs and mayors should be equipped
to take action. NFR is now looking at administrative options, and once the best option is
found it needs to be mainstreamed. The Fisheries Code is also a priority for the International
Year of Family Farming (IYFF). As during NES Year 1, collaboration between NFR, PAKISAMA,
and PhilDHRRA will be further pursued and strengthened.
In this context, ILC members will:
» Enhance the network of fisherfolk federations on the basis of the current fishery movement;
» Work to strengthen implementation of the Fisheries Code in 64 delineated costal municipalities,
based on existing success stories (six case studies and video produced in Year 1).
Outputs and results:
» Network of fisherfolk federations strengthened;
» Effective use of the finalised case studies for evidence-based advocacy;
» Video used to promote costal water delineation with LGUs for municipal plans.
Lead organisation: PAKISAMA
page
45
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESAddress inter-sectoral concerns on land and future legal frameworks
Members agreed to focus on the following two laws:
» National Land Use Act (NLUA)
» CLUP Now!, an ongoing national campaign that is calling for the passage of a National
Land Use Act, is a broad-based informal coalition of NGOs and POs. A number of ILC
members in the Philippines are engaged in and are supporting the campaign.
The following activities have been identified, to be coordinated by ANGOC:
» Develop materials in support of the CLUP Now! campaign;
» Support participation of ILC members in CLUP Now! lobbying activities.
ANGOC, in partnership with CLUP Now!, will coordinate and support the lobbying and
advocacy activities related to the national land use campaign. As a follow-up to Year 1,
advocacy maps will be used in the campaign, with PAFID taking the lead in producing them.
Resources will be provided to support the participation of PO partners of ILC members in
the country in mobilisation activities of CLUP Now!
The following results are expected to be achieved:
» Production of advocacy maps, PowerPoint presentations, and training on using maps
as advocacy tools through workshops;
» Mobilisation of people for lobbying activities.
Lead organisation: ANGOC
Land Administration Reform Act (LARA)
Currently civil society is not engaging with the process of LARA formulation, and there is
very little knowledge about provisions of the law relating, for instance, to land registration.
Currently, in the case of ancestral domains, NCIP under IPRA is not issuing titles due, among
other reasons, to problems of registration. CSOs are now ready to engage in the process of
influencing and monitoring LARA in terms of people-centred provision of land governance.
Engagement with the World Bank is envisaged.
The NES will support:
» Developing ToRs for a stocktaking of the current LARA process (including gender
dimensions and impacts on rural women). The results of the stocktaking will be used to
establish the status of the LARA bill and determine how ILC can influence the process.
The study will include the mapping of powerful actors influencing the LARA process;
» Convene a civil society event to share findings and build a common position.
Expected results are:
» A study, including the map of actors;
» Engagement of CSOs in the LARA formulation process;
» A civil society event on LARA.
Lead organisation: PAFID
page
46
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Enhance the capacities of the basic sectors to demand and defend
their rights and natural resourcesIn the frame of the NES, key activities are aimed at empowering rural people to secure
their rights to land. Empowerment is done through capacity building and evidence-based
advocacy tools.
Skills and competencies for paralegals: Related to Objective 1 and specifically to the
activity focusing on CARPER completion, the NES will support paralegal training courses
(activity a.2.2 above). The training module will review the paralegal profile and skills based
on current country challenges and opportunities, by including monitoring skills for data
collection and storage. Paralegal data management related to specific cases will inform the
database system (see activity 4.3.2 on national land data system and Land Watch).
Lead organisation: AR Now!
Skills and competencies in zoning: Currently there is a lack of capacity among CSOs and
communities on zoning. When the NLUA is approved, communities will be affected by its
implementation and will be faced with competition from powerful and well equipped
actors. Skills are needed to prevent these powerful actors prevailing over the interests
of rural communities. Therefore the NES will develop capacities amongst civil society by
facilitating community work and engagement with the government. It will seek to open
up spaces of collaboration, with the UNDP governance programme and with the National
College of Public Administration and Governance (UP-NCPAG) and the School of Urban and
Regional Planning (UP-SURP) at the University of the Philippines.
XSF will coordinate this activity by building a team of experts to design a training curriculum
based on the systematisation of current experiences (from barangay to municipal plans),
and by piloting and testing the curriculum. This activity will use and inform the national
land spatial data system (see below).
Lead organisation: XSF
Skills and competencies in conflict management and resolution: ILC members will
build capacities for mediating and resolving conflicts due to confrontations between
communities and the private sector/mining, farmers and IPs, etc. Through the NES, new
tools and channels will be explored, as promoted by international organisations to solve
conflicts or enforce mediation (e.g. International Finance Corporation (IFC) ombudsman,
World Bank/ADB inspection panels). PAFID will coordinate the activity by developing ToRs
(which new channels will be explored, how to approach and follow procedures) for a
manual to systematise new tools available to help CSOs defend their territories. This activity
will be strongly linked to the Quick Response Fund (QRF) (see below).
Lead organisation: PAFID
Skills and competencies in negotiation: NGOs lack capacity to facilitate, and communities
to control, the FPIC process (e.g. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs)) and negotiation.
There are diverse dynamics in negotiations between communities and private sector
companies, as well as between communities, triggered by the activities of foreign investors.
page
47
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESThe ILC Secretariat will facilitate contact with the International Institute for Environment
and Development (IIED), an ILC member with expertise and knowledge in this area. The
following activities will be undertaken: build NGO and community negotiation skills
through improved understanding and use of resource assessment tools (EIA, Environmental
Compliance Certificates (ECCs), etc.); and pilot trainings in three areas (16–20 participants
each) on EIAs, ECCs, FPIC, spatial maps and planning, resource inventory/assessment, and
agribusiness contracts. Expected results will include improved negotiation capacity for 45–
60 NGO representatives and community leaders; better negotiation results; systematisation
of current expertise within ILC members; and a campaign clinic.
Lead organisation: PAFID
Evidence-based advocacy tools: This activity will aim to produce advocacy maps and
build capacities on environment-related advocacy. CSOs are not currently equipped with
effective advocacy tools or data visualisation correlated by analysis to be able to influence
land governance. Five advocacy maps will be produced in the potential areas of a) the
Centennial Dam; b) APECO; c) Sambilog; d) Caluya; and e) Picop, by consulting with affected
people and NGOs, analysing data, and producing advocacy maps. These areas will be further
reviewed by ILC members at the start of implementation of Year 2 of the NES.
Lead organisation: PAFID
Quick Response Fund (QRF): As reported in NES Year 1, land defenders in the Philippines
are at risk. Therefore a fund is maintained to provide support in emergency situations,
as part of ILC’s strategic approach in NES countries with high levels of land-related
violence. The fund is to be activated only if needed, to assist land rights defenders in
emergency situations.
Lead organisation: ANGOC
Develop a comprehensive and coherent land data systemLand data system: During the first year of the NES, activities were developed for the land
data system; the component for IPs’ ancestral domains has been completed and only needs
maintenance and updating. The component related to agrarian reform needs to be further
developed. Due to the current lack of a comprehensive national database on land, there is
interest from many actors, including government institutions, which promises easy access
to available data. During Year 2, activities will be aimed at completing the development
of the spatial data system, fostering collaboration with the government for data sharing,
and strengthening capacities of ILC members for data gathering. Moreover, the national
experience of the land data system will be strategically linked with partners in Cambodia
and Indonesia, where reliable land data is also available, to build a regional initiative.
Expected results are: 1) the national land spatial data system will be completed and used by
land-concerned organisations; 2) it will link with the role of ILC members at local level for
data collection and use.
Lead organisation: PAFID
page
48
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Land Watch Philippines report: Based on NES year 1 results, ANGOC will coordinate with ILC
members and partners in a data gathering process based on agreed indicators (including
IPs, fisherfolk, and gender). The activity for Year 2 is aimed at producing a comprehensive
Land Watch report for the Philippines and linking it with policy work (see Objective 1) and
with the national land spatial data system. In developing this report, data availability within
ILC members in the Philippines will be assessed. A validation workshop will be organised to
review the draft report. Coordination with PAFID will be undertaken to determine what data
can be used appropriately or linked with the spatial mapping initiative. The report will then
be used in support of the policy work and campaigns of various organisations. This activity
will take the opportunity to link with the ILC global initiative on land and environment
defenders to monitor violations of human rights in relation to land.
Lead organisation: ANGOC
Enhance coordination among ILC members in the PhilippinesCurrently coordination has been led by components (grouping of themes and activities), but
with challenges in knowledge sharing and maximisation of synergies. As reported for NES
Year 1 implementation, coordination among ILC members remains a challenge given their
different priorities, work styles, and institutional set-ups. It should be noted that ILC members
are also implementing other activities outside the NES work plan. To overcome such
limitations and perform effectively, measures have been agreed for Year 2 implementation.
A coordinating committee will be established, composed of ANGOC, PAKISAMA, TFM,
PAFID, CARRD, AR Now!, and XSF, and will hold quarterly meetings for reporting and mutual
accountability
ANGOC is the ILC member selected to coordinate the NES. Members are free to test the
recommendations made by the Mid-Term Review6 in this respect, in recruiting an NES
facilitator (junior full-time/senior part-time facilitator) to allow effective coordination of the
committee and facilitation with NES partners in the Philippines, as well as NES monitoring,
reporting, communication, media relationships, and resource mobilisation. The facilitator
will ensure a communications mechanism to share NES news and opportunities and periodic
updating. Members, supported by the facilitator, will develop proposals for expanding and
co-funding NES-related activities.
It is expected that the coordinating committee will be expanded as needed on the basis
of specific processes or expertise involving e.g. PhilDHRRA, CLUP Now!, NFR, ATM, PKKK,
AFA, KATARUNA, ALG, and KASAPI, among others, and AFA, AIPP, and Oxfam, who are ILC
members with work or affiliations in the Philippines. Networking with other campaign
groups will be undertaken by ILC members if deemed appropriate.
6 Independent Mid-Term Review of implementation of the ILC Strategic Framework, with reference to NES implementation.
page
49
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES
LOG
ICA
L FR
AM
EWO
RK: I
MPL
EMEN
TATI
ON
YEA
R 2,
OC
TOBE
R 20
14 –
OC
TOBE
R 20
15O
bjec
tive
1: P
ursu
e re
form
s an
d pr
otec
t the
gai
ns o
f pas
t and
cur
rent
ass
et re
form
pol
icie
s an
d pr
ogra
mm
es
Sum
mar
yIn
dica
tors
Mea
ns o
f ver
ifica
tion
Ass
umpt
ions
Base
line
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e 1:
Post
-CA
RPER
and
LTI
co
mpl
etio
n
Cur
rent
ly C
SOs
have
agr
eed
to w
ait f
or le
gisl
ativ
e ac
tion
to a
ppro
ve C
ARP
ER e
xten
sion
up
to J
une
2016
and
faci
litat
e pe
ndin
g la
nd d
istr
ibut
ion
up to
com
plet
ion.
For p
ost-
CA
RPER
sce
nario
s, C
SOs
have
not
yet
reac
hed
agre
emen
t on
the
optio
n of
an
Agr
aria
n Re
form
and
Rura
l Dev
elop
men
t law
with
a n
ew in
stitu
tiona
l set
-up
and
a fo
cus
on s
uppo
rt s
ervi
ces
Expe
cted
out
com
e 1.
1C
ARP
ER e
xten
sion
app
rove
d un
til J
une
2016
App
rova
l of e
xten
sion
law
Cop
y of
the
new
law
CA
RPER
has
bee
n ce
rtifi
ed b
y th
e
Pres
iden
t as
urge
nt le
gisl
atio
n
The
bill
still
has
to b
e de
liber
ated
by
the
agra
rian
refo
rm
com
mitt
ees
of b
oth
hous
es o
f Con
gres
s
Act
ivity
1.1
.1Id
entif
y C
ARP
ER c
ham
pion
s in
the
Low
er
Hou
se a
nd S
enat
e an
d lo
bby
outs
ide
of
Con
gres
s fo
r CA
RPER
ext
ensi
on. E
ngag
e
othe
r sec
tors
(Chu
rch,
aca
dem
ia, m
edia
).
Att
end
publ
ic h
earin
gs. F
ollo
w th
e ap
prov
al
proc
ess
and
pres
sure
legi
slat
ors
for
appr
oval
Num
ber o
f CA
RPER
cha
mpi
ons
appr
oach
ed, p
artic
ipat
ion
in p
ublic
hear
ings
, new
act
ors
enga
ged
Min
utes
of m
eetin
gs,
pict
ures
and
vid
eos
Pers
iste
nt a
nd ta
rget
ed lo
bbyi
ng
of in
divi
dual
legi
slat
ors
base
d
on s
ound
pol
itica
l map
ping
and
join
t str
ateg
izin
g w
ith
CA
RPER
legi
slat
ive
cham
pion
s is
impo
rtan
t
Cur
rent
CA
RPER
cha
mpi
ons
in b
oth
hous
es o
f Con
gres
s
need
tech
nica
l sup
port
from
CSO
lobb
yist
s
Act
ivity
1.1
.2N
atio
nal m
obili
satio
nN
umbe
r of o
rgan
isat
ions
/peo
ple
mob
ilise
d
Cop
y of
new
s re
leas
es o
n
dire
ct a
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es
Effec
tive
lobb
ying
invo
lves
str
ong
publ
ic p
ress
ure
Vario
us fa
rmer
s’ fe
dera
tions
stil
l nee
d to
sho
w c
once
rted
actio
n
Expe
cted
out
com
e 1.
2Pe
ndin
g la
nd d
istr
ibut
ion
is c
ompl
eted
(gra
ntin
g an
d di
strib
utio
n of
land
title
s)
Num
ber o
f new
AR
bene
ficia
ries
Perc
enta
ge o
f pen
ding
land
hol
ding
s
redi
strib
uted
aga
inst
CA
RPER
targ
et
CA
RPER
exp
ired
on 3
0 Ju
ne 2
014,
but
did
not
mee
t
its ta
rget
of l
and
dist
ribut
ion
(an
estim
ated
180
,000
to
390,
000
ha a
re s
till t
o be
dis
trib
uted
). D
AR
has
stat
ed th
at
all l
ands
for w
hich
an
NO
C w
as is
sued
prio
r to
that
dat
e
shou
ld b
e di
strib
uted
Act
ivity
1.2
.1G
rass
root
s m
obili
satio
nN
umbe
r of o
rgan
isat
ions
/peo
ple
mob
ilise
d
Act
ivity
1.2
.2C
omm
unity
orie
ntat
ion
and
enha
ncin
g
wor
k of
par
aleg
als
– co
nduc
t a re
view
profi
le/T
oRs
of p
aral
egal
s an
d de
velo
p
trai
ning
mod
ules
resp
ondi
ng to
new
task
s (c
aref
ul s
elec
tion
of p
artic
ipan
ts a
nd
atte
ntio
n to
gen
der i
ssue
s)
Two
trai
ning
s fo
r eac
h or
gani
satio
n
(PA
KISA
MA
, TFM
, CA
RRD
)
Inte
r-or
gani
satio
n sh
arin
g of
fron
tline
com
mun
ity o
rgan
iser
s, ad
voca
tes,
and
cam
paig
ners
(30
peop
le fo
r tw
o da
ys)
Num
ber o
f par
aleg
als
trai
ned
Num
ber o
f tra
inin
gs o
rgan
ised
One
sha
ring
sess
ion/
conf
eren
ce
cond
ucte
d
Cop
y of
act
ivity
repo
rts/
min
utes
Trai
ning
of k
ey fa
rmer
lead
ers
and
staff
on
effec
tive
AR
cam
paig
ning
is im
port
ant
Fron
tline
org
anis
ers
of IL
C
mem
bers
hav
e no
t had
the
chan
ce to
exc
hang
e no
tes
and
build
cam
arad
erie
, whi
ch is
impo
rtan
t in
crea
ting
the
mos
t
effec
tive
join
t cam
paig
n pl
an
Cur
rent
lead
ers/
orga
nise
rs n
eed
furt
her c
apac
ity-
build
ing
inpu
ts
No
mee
tings
hav
e ev
er b
een
held
bet
wee
n fro
ntlin
e
orga
nise
rs o
f ILC
mem
bers
page
50
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES
Sum
mar
yIn
dica
tors
Mea
ns o
f ver
ifica
tion
Ass
umpt
ions
Base
line
Expe
cted
out
com
e 1.
3Fo
cus
on p
ost-
CA
RPER
sce
nario
s: A
RRD
bill
draf
ted
base
d on
bro
ad c
onse
nsus
Dra
ft b
ill a
vaila
ble
To d
ate,
litt
le a
tten
tion
has
been
pai
d to
the
need
to
focu
s on
sup
port
ser
vice
s an
d ru
ral d
evel
opm
ent.
In th
e
post
-CA
RPER
sce
nario
ther
e is
a n
eed
for a
n A
RRD
law
,
but a
t thi
s st
age
ther
e is
no
such
law
, nor
a d
raft
ver
sion
of it
. Con
sens
us n
eeds
to b
e re
ache
d am
ongs
t CSO
s an
d
a bi
ll ne
eds
to b
e dr
afte
d
Act
ivity
1.3
Dra
ft a
bill
and
con
duct
con
sulta
tion
at m
ultip
le le
vels
with
sta
keho
lder
s
(gov
ernm
ent,
CSO
s, et
c.)
Num
ber o
f con
sulta
tions
hel
d
Num
ber o
f org
anis
atio
ns in
volv
ed
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e 2:
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
Fish
erie
s Co
de
A n
ew a
dmin
istr
ativ
e or
der (
AO
) is
issu
ed to
spee
d up
del
inea
tion
of m
unic
ipal
wat
ers
New
AO
pas
sed
Cop
y of
the
AO
Del
inea
tion
of m
unic
ipal
wat
ers
is th
e fir
st s
tep
in im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e 19
88 F
ishe
ries
Cod
e
Ther
e ar
e 86
4 co
stal
del
inea
tions
pen
ding
and
an
open
deba
te o
n w
heth
er a
JM
C o
r AO
cou
ld b
ypas
s th
e
curr
ent r
equi
rem
ents
, whi
ch a
re im
pedi
ng p
rogr
ess.
On
the
basi
s of
this
requ
irem
ent,
LGU
s an
d m
ayor
s sh
ould
be e
quip
ped
to ta
ke a
ctio
n. T
he c
urre
nt A
O m
akes
it v
ery
hard
for t
his
first
ste
p to
be
com
plet
ed
Expe
cted
out
com
e 2.
1Th
e ne
twor
k of
fish
erfo
lk fe
dera
tions
is
stre
ngth
ened
Num
ber o
f new
act
ors
invo
lved
Num
ber o
f joi
nt s
tate
men
ts/j
oint
advo
cacy
mes
sage
s/pr
oduc
ts
The
fishe
rfol
k m
ovem
ent i
s no
t yet
str
ong
enou
gh a
s a
polit
ical
act
or
Act
ivity
2.1
Stud
y to
ur a
nd c
onfe
renc
e fo
r lea
ders
of
the
netw
ork
of n
atio
nal fi
sher
s’ fe
dera
tions
and
NFR
sec
reta
riat i
n a
coas
tal m
unic
ipal
ity
that
has
suc
cess
fully
del
inea
ted
mun
icip
al
wat
ers
Num
ber o
f par
ticip
ants
/org
anis
atio
ns
atte
ndin
g
Cop
y of
stu
dy to
ur/
conf
eren
ce p
roce
edin
gs
A c
onfe
renc
e he
ld in
a s
ucce
ssfu
l
area
/mod
el p
rovi
des
grea
t
insp
iratio
n to
par
ticip
ants
Lead
ers
of c
urre
nt n
etw
ork
of fi
sher
s’ fe
dera
tions
hav
e
not v
isite
d a
succ
essf
ul c
oast
al c
omm
unity
toge
ther
that
coul
d bo
ost t
heir
reso
lve
to fo
cus
the
cam
paig
n on
the
delin
eatio
n of
mun
icip
al w
ater
s
Expe
cted
out
com
e 2.
264
del
inea
ted
cost
al m
unic
ipal
ities
stre
ngth
ened
in th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e
Fish
erie
s C
ode
base
d on
suc
cess
ful c
ase
stud
ies
Num
ber o
f coa
stal
mun
icip
aliti
es
stre
ngth
ened
Cop
y of
repo
rtIn
spira
tion
from
suc
cess
ful
com
mun
ities
mot
ivat
es
com
mun
ity le
ader
s an
d ca
taly
ses
actio
n
Fish
ers
from
coa
stal
com
mun
ities
with
del
inea
ted
mun
icip
al w
ater
s ha
ve n
ot e
xcha
nged
not
es o
r sto
ries
Act
ivity
2.2
.1Fi
nalis
e an
d di
ssem
inat
e ca
se s
tudi
esN
umbe
r of c
ase
stud
ies
prod
uced
and
diss
emin
ated
Cop
y of
cas
e st
udie
sC
ase
stud
ies
are
in d
raft
form
and
need
com
plet
ion
Act
ivity
2.2
.2Pr
oduc
e a
vide
o to
pro
mot
e th
e de
linea
tion
of c
osta
l wat
ers
with
LG
Us
for m
unic
ipal
ity
plan
s
Ava
ilabi
lity
of v
ideo
Util
isat
ion
of v
ideo
for a
dvoc
acy
Cop
y of
vid
eo p
rodu
ced
No
vide
o ex
ists
on
the
impo
rtan
ce o
r ben
efits
of
delin
eate
d m
unic
ipal
wat
ers
that
can
be
used
to
advo
cate
for f
ast-
trac
king
this
pro
cess
page
51
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES
Obj
ectiv
e 2:
Add
ress
inte
r-se
ctor
al c
once
rns
on la
nd a
nd fu
ture
lega
l fra
mew
orks
Sum
mar
yIn
dica
tors
Mea
ns o
f ver
ifica
tion
Ass
umpt
ions
Base
line
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e 1:
Su
ppor
t the
pas
sage
of
the
Nat
iona
l Lan
d U
se A
ct
(NLU
A)
Ther
e is
cur
rent
ly n
o na
tiona
l lan
d us
e pl
an in
the
Phili
ppin
es. A
dra
ft b
ill w
as p
asse
d an
d ap
prov
ed b
y th
e
Hou
se o
f Rep
rese
ntat
ives
, but
it is
stil
l aw
aitin
g ap
prov
al
from
the
Sena
te
Expe
cted
out
com
e 1.
1Th
e C
LUP
Now
! cam
paig
n fo
r the
pas
sage
of th
e N
LUA
is s
tren
gthe
ned
Act
ivity
1.1
.1D
evel
op a
dvoc
acy
map
s an
d
com
mun
icat
ion
mat
eria
ls in
sup
port
of t
he
CLU
P N
ow! c
ampa
ign
Num
ber a
nd n
atur
e of
mat
eria
lsC
opy
of m
ater
ials
Act
ivity
1.2
.2Su
ppor
t par
ticip
atio
n of
ILC
mem
bers
in
CLU
P N
ow! l
obby
ing
activ
ities
(hea
rings
in
Con
gres
s, m
obili
satio
ns a
nd p
olic
y fo
rum
s
of c
ampa
ign,
mee
tings
with
exe
cutiv
e
agen
cies
)
Num
ber a
nd n
atur
e of
CLU
P N
ow!
activ
ities
in w
hich
ILC
mem
bers
are
invo
lved
Repo
rt o
f act
iviti
es
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e 2:
Eng
age
in th
e La
nd A
dmin
istr
atio
n Re
form
Act
pro
cess
Cur
rent
ly, m
ost C
SOs
are
not e
ngag
ing
with
the
proc
ess
of L
ARA
form
ulat
ion
and
ther
e is
ver
y lit
tle k
now
ledg
e
abou
t the
law
’s pr
ovis
ions
rela
ting
e.g.
to la
nd
regi
stra
tion.
Cur
rent
ly, i
n th
e ca
se o
f anc
estr
al d
omai
ns,
NC
IP u
nder
IPRA
is n
ot is
suin
g tit
les
due
to p
robl
ems
of
regi
stra
tion,
am
ong
othe
r rea
sons
Expe
cted
out
com
e 2.
1Th
e LA
RA p
roce
ss, i
ts d
ynam
ics,
and
mai
n
play
ers
are
bett
er u
nder
stoo
d
Act
ivity
2.1
Und
erta
ke a
stu
dy o
f the
LA
RA p
roce
ss, i
ts
feat
ures
, and
sta
tus
Ava
ilabi
lity
of th
e st
udy
Cop
y of
the
stud
y
Expe
cted
out
com
e 2.
2A
com
mon
pos
ition
of C
SO a
ctor
s is
bui
lt
and
stra
tegi
es fo
r eng
agem
ent a
re d
efine
d
Ava
ilabi
lity
of c
omm
on m
essa
ges
and
polic
y po
sitio
n (jo
int p
aper
s/
decl
arat
ions
)
Act
ivity
2.2
Con
vene
a c
ivil
soci
ety
even
t to
shar
e th
e
findi
ngs
and
build
a c
omm
on p
ositi
on
Num
ber o
f CSO
act
ors
invo
lved
and
part
icip
atin
g to
the
even
t
Even
t rep
ort
page
52
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES
Obj
ectiv
e 3:
Enh
ance
the
capa
city
of t
he b
asic
sec
tors
to d
eman
d an
d de
fend
thei
r rig
hts
and
natu
ral r
esou
rces
Sum
mar
yIn
dica
tors
Mea
ns o
f ver
ifica
tion
Ass
umpt
ions
Base
line
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e 1:
En
hanc
e sk
ills
and
com
pete
ncie
s fo
r par
aleg
als
See
Obj
ectiv
e 1
Expe
cted
out
com
e 1.
1
Act
ivity
1.1
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e 2:
Enh
ance
skill
s an
d co
mpe
tenc
ies
for
CSO
s an
d co
mm
uniti
es o
n
zoni
ng
CSO
s an
d co
mm
uniti
es la
ck c
apac
ity o
n zo
ning
. Whe
n
NLU
A is
app
rove
d, c
omm
uniti
es w
ill b
e aff
ecte
d by
its im
plem
enta
tion,
and
will
face
com
petit
ion
from
pow
erfu
l and
wel
l equ
ippe
d ac
tors
. Ski
lls a
re n
eede
d
to p
reve
nt p
ower
ful a
ctor
s fro
m p
reva
iling
ove
r the
inte
rest
s of
rura
l com
mun
ities
. The
se in
clud
e: z
onin
g,
confl
ict m
anag
emen
t and
reso
lutio
n, n
egot
iatio
n
(par
ticul
arly
in th
e fr
ame
of th
e FP
IC p
roce
ss w
ith th
e us
e
of E
IAs
and
othe
r ins
trum
ents
)
Expe
cted
out
com
e 2.
1Pi
lot t
rain
ing
curr
icul
a ar
e te
sted
and
com
mun
ity s
kills
are
str
engt
hene
d
Num
ber o
f CSO
and
com
mun
ity
repr
esen
tativ
es a
tten
ding
the
trai
ning
s
Att
enda
nce
reco
rds
Part
icip
ants
hav
e ba
ckgr
ound
or
know
ledg
e of
land
use
sys
tem
s/
polic
ies
and/
or z
onin
g
Act
ivity
2.1
.1Bu
ild a
team
of e
xper
ts to
des
ign
a tr
aini
ng
curr
icul
um b
ased
on
the
syst
emat
isat
ion
of c
urre
nt e
xper
ienc
es (f
rom
bar
anga
y to
mun
icip
al p
lans
)
Ava
ilabi
lity
of in
nova
tive
curr
icul
aO
ne d
evel
oped
trai
ning
curr
icul
um
Act
ivity
2.1
.2Pi
lot t
estin
g of
the
curr
icul
umN
umbe
r of p
ilot t
rain
ings
Phot
ogra
phic
and
writ
ten
docu
men
tatio
n of
trai
ning
s
Act
ivity
2.1
.3U
se a
nd in
form
the
Nat
iona
l Lan
d Sp
atia
l
Dat
a Sy
stem
Num
ber o
f cas
es in
whi
ch th
e da
taba
se
is u
sed
Num
ber o
f new
ent
ries
Cas
e re
port
s
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e 3:
En
hanc
e sk
ills
and
com
pete
ncie
s in
con
flict
m
anag
emen
t and
re
solu
tion
Expe
cted
out
com
e 3.
1C
apac
ities
of I
LC m
embe
rs a
re
stre
ngth
ened
to m
edia
te a
nd re
solv
e
confl
icts
due
to c
onfro
ntat
ions
bet
wee
n
com
mun
ities
and
priv
ate
sect
or/m
inin
g,
farm
ers
and
IPs,
etc.
Num
ber o
f ILC
mem
bers
trai
ned
on
confl
ict m
anag
emen
t
page
53
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES
Sum
mar
yIn
dica
tors
Mea
ns o
f ver
ifica
tion
Ass
umpt
ions
Base
line
Act
ivity
3.1
Dev
elop
a m
anua
l to
syst
emat
ise
new
tool
s av
aila
ble
to h
elp
CSO
s de
fend
thei
r
terr
itorie
s
Ava
ilabi
lity
of m
anua
lC
opy
of m
anua
l
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e 4:
En
hanc
e sk
ills
and
com
pete
ncie
s in
ne
gotia
tion
Expe
cted
out
com
e 4.
1N
GO
and
com
mun
ity n
egot
iatio
n sk
ills
and
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
ava
ilabl
e re
sour
ce
asse
ssm
ent t
ools
are
impr
oved
Act
ivity
4.1
Trai
ning
nee
ds a
naly
sis.
Dev
elop
trai
ning
desi
gn a
nd p
ilot t
rain
ings
in th
ree
area
s
(16–
20 p
artic
ipan
ts e
ach)
on
EIA
s, EC
Cs,
FPIC
, spa
tial m
aps
and
plan
ning
, res
ourc
e
inve
ntor
y/as
sess
men
t, ag
ribus
ines
s
cont
ract
s
Num
ber o
f tra
inin
gs
Num
ber o
f NG
O re
ps a
nd c
omm
unity
lead
ers
trai
ned
(out
of a
targ
et o
f 45–
60)
Att
enda
nce
reco
rds
Act
ivity
4.2
Syst
emat
isat
ion
of c
urre
nt e
xper
tise
with
in
ILC
mem
bers
hip
Num
ber o
f tim
es IL
C m
embe
rs u
se
know
ledg
e ge
nera
ted
Act
ivity
4.3
Esta
blis
hmen
t of f
our c
ampa
ign
clin
ics
Num
ber o
f clin
ics
esta
blis
hed
Repo
rts
of a
ctiv
ities
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e: S
et u
p Q
uick
Res
pons
e Fu
ndLa
nd ri
ghts
def
ende
rs a
re a
t ris
k an
d re
ceiv
e lit
tle
assi
stan
ce in
em
erge
ncy
situ
atio
ns
Expe
cted
out
com
e 5.
1La
nd ri
ghts
def
ende
rs a
re a
ssis
ted
in
emer
genc
y si
tuat
ions
Act
ivity
5.1
Prov
ide
supp
ort o
n an
ad
hoc
basi
sN
umbe
r of H
R de
fend
ers
assi
sted
Writ
ten
repo
rts
of c
ases
page
54
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES
Obj
ectiv
e 4:
Dev
elop
a c
ompr
ehen
sive
and
coh
eren
t lan
d da
ta s
yste
m
Sum
mar
yIn
dica
tors
Mea
ns o
f ver
ifica
tion
Ass
umpt
ions
Base
line
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e 1:
Fur
ther
de
velo
p th
e co
mpo
nent
on
agra
rian
refo
rm
Ther
e is
a la
ck o
f a c
ompr
ehen
sive
nat
iona
l dat
a
syst
em o
n la
nd. D
urin
g N
ES Y
ear 1
, the
dat
a sy
stem
was
com
plet
ed fo
r IP
terr
itorie
s, bu
t dat
a re
late
d to
agr
aria
n
refo
rm is
stil
l lac
king
Expe
cted
out
com
e 1.
1Th
e sp
atia
l lan
d da
ta s
yste
m is
com
plet
ed
and
used
and
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith
gove
rnm
ent i
s im
prov
ed
Perc
enta
ge o
f com
plet
ion
Act
ivity
1.1
Com
plet
e th
e da
tase
t by
stre
ngth
enin
g
capa
citie
s of
ILC
mem
bers
Num
ber o
f new
ent
ries
by IL
C m
embe
rsD
atab
ase
Expe
cted
out
com
e 1.
2Po
licy
and
advo
cacy
wor
k un
der O
bjec
tive
1 is
str
engt
hene
d th
roug
h la
nd m
onito
ring
activ
ities
Num
ber o
f adv
ocac
y pr
oduc
ts/e
vent
s/
activ
ities
info
rmed
by
the
Land
Wat
ch
repo
rt a
nd d
ata
Act
ivity
1.2
Pr
oduc
e a
com
preh
ensi
ve L
and
Wat
ch
repo
rt a
nd li
nk it
to p
olic
y w
ork
Ava
ilabi
lity
of th
e re
port
Cop
y of
the
repo
rt
page
55
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESIMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE, OCTOBER 2014 – OCTOBER 2015
Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
OBJECTIVE 1
1.1.1 Lobby Congress for CARPER extension
1.1.2 National mobilisation
1.2.1 Grassroots mobilisation for pending land distribution
1.2.2 Paralegal training
1.3 Consultations for draft ARRD bill
2.1 Study tour and conference of fisherfolk leaders and NFR
in successful coastal municipalities
2.2.1 Finalise and disseminate case studies on coastal municipalities
2.2.2 Video documentary on coastal water delineation
OBJECTIVE 2
1.1.1 Develop advocacy maps and communication materials
for the CLUP Now! campaign
1.1.2 ILC members participate in CLUP Now! lobbying activities
2.1 Study on the LARA process
2.2 Civil society event on LARA
OBJECTIVE 3
2.1.1 Build team of experts to design training curricula
2.1.2 Pilot test the curricula
2.1.3 Use and inform the National Land Spatial Data System
3.1 Develop manual to systematise new tools to help CSOs defend
their territories
4.1.1 Training needs analysis, design, and piloting in three areas
4.1.2 Systematise expertise of ILC membership
4.1.3 Establish four campaign clinics
OBJECTIVE 4
1.1 Strengthen ILC members’ capacities on spatial data gathering
and complete the dataset
1.2 Produce a comprehensive Land Watch report and link it to policy work
page
56
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES References
BFAR (2002)
Department of Agriculture website
De Vera (2007)
Draft Strategic Plan of AR Now! (2012)
FAO, Fishery Country Profile (2003)
Gould (2002)
Habito and Briones (2005)
Indigenous Peoples Summit Resolution (2011)
Issue papers of NGOs for Fisheries Reform (various years)
Manila Declaration on Indigenous Peoples and Community Conserved Areas (2012)
MTPDP (2004–2010)
NSCB (2000)
NSO (2011)
PARRC (2008)
PARRDS (2007)
Philippines Access to Land Monitoring Report, PhilDHRRA (2010)
Philippine Asset Reform Report Card, PhilDHRRA (2008)
Philippine Country Paper, Land Watch Philippines (2008)
Philippine Environment Monitor (2004)
Polestico, Quizon, and Hildemann (1998)
Quizon (2007)
Quizon and Paganghan (2014) “Review of Selected Land Laws and Governance of Tenure
in the Philippines: Discussion Paper in the Context of the Voluntary Guidelines on the
Governance of Tenure (VGGT)”. 17 March 2014 (draft).
World Bank (2004)
page
57
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NESANNEX:
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Scoping Workshop on Current Challenges on Access to Land and Resources in the Philippines, 31 May–1 June 2012
GOVERNMENT
Ms. Aiza Namingit, Office of Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Lone District of Ifugao,
House of Representatives
Atty. Aison Garcia, DAR Legal Affairs, Department of Agrarian Reform
Ms. Jane Capacio, Support Services Office, Department of Agrarian Reform
Mr. Joey Austria, Chief, Indigenous Community Affairs Division, Special Concerns Office, Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Director Jonathan Adaci and Maribelle Dulnuan, National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
Mr. Marriz B. Agbon, President, Philippine Agricultural Development and Commercial Corporation (PADCC),
Department of Agriculture – Office of the Secretary
DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS
Ms. Emily Mercado, Delegation of the European Commission
Mr. Aristeo Portugal, Food and Agriculture Organization
Ms. Erlinda Dolatre, GIZ, Environment and Rural Development Division
Mr Yolando Arban, Country Presence Officer
CSOs
Mr. Ernesto Lim, Jr., Coordinator, AR Now!
Mr. Jesus Vicente Garganera, National Coordinator, Alyansa Tigil Mina
Mr. Edwin Nerva, Executive Director, CARRD
Ms. Gemma Rita Marin, Executive Director, John J. Carroll Institute for Church
and Social Issues
Mr. Anthony Marzan, Executive Director, KAISAHAN
Mr. Dennis Calvan, Executive Director, NGOs for Fisheries Reform
Mr. Dave de Vera, Executive Director, PAFID
Ms. Arze Glipo, Asia Pacific Network for Food Sovereignty
Ms. Cathy Tiongson, Advocacy Officer, Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement
Atty. Lizel Mones, Executive Director, SALIGAN
Dean Roel R. Ravanera, Xavier Science Foundation c/o College of Agriculture
Kalayaan Constantino, Oxfam Campaigns Officer
page
58
| NES
Pro
mot
ing
peop
le c
entr
ed la
nd g
over
nanc
e in
the
PHIL
IPPI
NES Norly Mercado, Oxfam East Asia GROW campaign
Lulu Reyes, Land Equity International
Ronaldo Masayda, NGO Forum on the ADB
ORGANISERS
Divina Luz Lopez, National Coordinator, Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources
in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)
Jennifer Javier, Research Officer, PhilDHRRA
Nathaniel Don Marquez, ANGOC
Antonio B. Quizon, ANGOC
Maricel A. Tolentino, ANGOC
Ms. Seema Gaikwad, ILC Asia Coordinator
Erin Jan Sinogba, Project and Information Officer, ILC Asia
Reggie Aquino, Documenter
Review and Planning Workshop of CSO Members of ILC in the Philippines Antipolo City, Philippines, 27–28 May 2014
Ma. Genesis Catindig, AR Now!
Edwin Nerva, CARRD
Dave De Vera, PAFID
Armando Ridao, PAKISAMA
Armando Jarilla, TFM
Roel Ravanera, XSF
Nathaniel Don Marquez, ANGOC
Catherine Liamzon, ANGOC
Marianne J. Naungayan, ANGOC
Anna Brillante, ILC Asia Projects and Information Officer
NES Year 2 Planning Session - Manila, Philippines, 21–22 July 2014
Ma. Genesis Catindig, AR Now!
Edwin Nerva, CARRD
Dave De Vera, PAFID
Armando Ridao, PAKISAMA
Raul Socrates Banzuela, PAKISAMA
Armando Jarilla, TFM
Nathaniel Don Marquez, ANGOC
Catherine Liamzon, ANGOC
Marianne J. Naungayan, ANGOC
Raul Gonzalez, Consultant
Annalisa Mauro, ILC Secretariat
Andrea Fiorenza, ILC Secretariat
The contents of this work may be freely reproduced, translated, and distributed provided that
attribution is given to the International Land Coalition, and the article’s authors and organisation.
Unless otherwise noted, this work may not be utilised for commercial purposes.
For more information, please contact [email protected]
or go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0
Edited by David Wilson. Design by Federico Pinci.
Printed on recycled/FSC paper.
ILC is a membership-based network, opinions expressed in this document are the result of
a national multi-stakeholder process and therefore its contents can in no way be taken to
refl ect the offi cial views and/or position of ILC, its members or donors. The ILC Secretariat
would appreciate receiving copies of any publication using this study as a source at
ISBN: 978-92-95105-12-6
ILC wishes to thank the following donors, whose support made this research possible:
ILC's National Engagement Strategy
NES Promoting people centred land governance
PHILIPPINES
International Land Coalition Secretariat at IFAD Via Paolo di Dono, 44 , 00142 - Rome, Italy
tel. +39 06 5459 2445 fax +39 06 5459 3445 [email protected] | www.landcoalition.org
ILC Mission
A global alliance of civil society and intergovernmental organisations working together to
promote secure and equitable access to and control over land for poor women and men.
ILC Vision
Secure and equitable access to and control over land reduces poverty and contributes to
identity, dignity, and inclusion.
Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC)Mr. Nathaniel Don Marquez, [email protected]
www.angoc.org
The People’s Campaign for Agrarian Reform Network (AR NOW!)Mr. Wilson Requez, [email protected]
Centre for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (CARRD)Mr. Edwin Nerva, [email protected]
Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID)Mr. Dave de Vera, [email protected]
www.pafi d.org.ph
Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA)Mr. Raul Socrates Banzuela,
[email protected] www.pakisama.com
Task Force Mapalad (TFM)Mr. Armando Jarilla, [email protected]
taskforcemapalad.org
Xavier Science Foundation (XSF)Mr. Roel Ravanera, [email protected]
