World Bank Document
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized 1 IPP184 v 2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS REFERENCES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i-vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 A. Background 1 B. Objective 2 C. Assessment Methodology 2 C.1. The Social Assessment Methodology 2 C.2. Institutional Assessment Methodology 3 D. Scope and Limitations 3 E. Data Collection and Analysis 6 CHAPTER 2 ASSESSMENT RESULTS 7 A. Social Assessment 7 A.1. Social Assessment Sites and IP/ICC Profiles 7 A.2. Key Findings 11 A.3. IP Perception on MRDP2 15 A.3.1. Perceived Causes of Poverty among IPs/ICCs 15 A.3.2. Expectations from DA-MRDP 16 A.3.3. Perceived Positive and Adverse Effects of MRDP2 17 A.3.4. Fears of the IPs/ICCs on MRDP 21 A.3.5. Challenges in Leadership among IPs/ICCs 22 3 A.3.6. Improving Leadership 22 B. Institutional Assessment 22 B.1. Institutional and Stakeholders Knowledge of Development. 23 B.2. Institutional Stakeholders Knowledge of MRDP 23 B.3. Institutional Stakeholders Concept of Partnership 23 B.4. Social Participation 23 B.4. Governance Systems 23 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS 25 A. Social Assessment 25 B. Implications of Social Assessment Findings 26 B.1. Poverty and Development 26 B.2. Conflict and Development 26 B.3. Leadership Effectiveness and Participatory Development 27 B.4. Development Priorities in Cultural Diversity 28 B.5.Priority Development for Women 28 CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 29 A. At the Policy Level 29 B. At the Implementing Level 30 C. On Mitigating Possible Adverse Impacts to IPs/ICCs 32 4 ACRONYMS ADDPP Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development Protection Plan AFMA Agriculture and Fishery Modernization Act BC Barangay Council BDP Barangay Development Plan BF Barangay Facilitator CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Certificate CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title CDD Community Driven development CFAD Community Funds for Agricultural Development CO Community Organizer DA Department of Agriculture DENR Department of Interior and Local Government DOD Deed of Donation FMR Farm-to-Market Road FPIC Free Prior and Informed Consent GAD Gender and Development IEC Information Education and Communication IK/T Indigenous Knowledge/Technologies IPs/ICCs Indigenous Peoples/Indigenous Cultural Communities IPDP Indigenous Peoples Development Plan IPO Indigenous Peoples Organizations IPRA Indigenous Rights Act IPTWG Indigenous Peoples Technical Working Group KII Key Informant Interview LGU Local Government Unit MF Municipal Facilitator MILF Moro Islamic Liberation Front MITA Montevista Integrated Tribal Association MLGU Municipal Local Government Unit MNLF Moro National Liberation Front MOA Memorandum of Agreement MPDC Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator MPMIU Municipal Program Management and Implementation Unit MRDP Mindanao Rural Development Program MSC Municipal Facilitator NCIP National Commission for the Indigenous Peoples NFE Non Formal Education NGA National Government Agency NGO Non Government Organization NPA New Peoples Army NSO National Statistics Office OSCC Office for the Southern Cultural Communities 5 OSY Out of School Youth PCO Program Coordinating Office PDP Project Displaced Persons PLGU Provincial Local Government Unit PPDC Provincial Planning and Development Coordinator PPMIU Provincial Program Management and Implementation Unit PSO Program Support Office RIARCS Regional Integrated Agricultural Research Centers RFU Regional Field Unit SA Social Assessment SAFDZ Strategic Agriculture and Fishery Development Zone 6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page 1. Social Assessment (SA) Process 3 2. Role Model of Tribal Council 13 3. Plan Reconciliation 14 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 1. Social Assessment Participants 2 2. Indicative List of Year 1 Rural Infrastructure Projects 5 3. Tribal Groups and Estimated Population Percentages in Agusan del Sur 7 4. Tribal Groups and Estimated Population Percentages in Compostela Valley 8 5. Tribal Groups and Estimated Population Percentages In North Cotabato 10 6. Perceived Causes of Poverty among the IPs/ICCs 15 7. Expectations of IPs/ICCs from MRDP 17 8. Perceived Effects of MRDP to IPs/ICCs 19 7 SUMMARY The Indigenous Peoples/Indigenous Cultural Communities (IPs/ICCs) are among the priority sectors purposively selected to implement community sub-projects under the Mindanao Rural Development Program (MRDP). This program is aimed at increasing productivity and income among the marginalized and disadvantaged sectors in rural areas of Mindanao. Under the Community Funds for Agricultural Development (CFAD) - the livelihood and community sub-project of MRDP, 30% of the fund facility is specifically allocated for the IPs/ICCs. Thus, the Social Assessment (SA) was conducted in order to enhance the social participation process in the implementation of the MRDP-APL2 by consciously involving and engaging the IPs/ICCs along with the other minority and disadvantaged groups in planning and implementing development interventions under the Program. More specifically, the study intends to: (1) Determine the IPs/ICCs beliefs and concept of development, motivation, development experiences, and the institutional stakeholders competencies on development initiatives; (2) Identify possible adverse impacts and risks of the Project on IP’s/ICCs; and, (3) Identify organization processes and delivery mechanisms to maximize the ICCs/IPs’ access to, and meaningful engagement in MRDP activities. Methodology and Processes: The assessment included secondary and primary data collection, processed through qualitative analysis. The Social Assessment (SA) conducted was an LGU-led process carried out by two teams. The first team conducted the Community Stakeholders Assessment (CSA) and the second team conducted the Institutional Assessment (IA). This was done to understand the social, cultural, environmental, and political context affecting the stakeholders considered in the study. The SA considered the sixteen (16) sites where the proposed farm-to-market road (FMR) sub-projects under MRDP–APL2 shall be initially implemented as the sample sites. Among these are the provinces of Agusan del Sur, Compostela Valley, North Cotabato, Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat. The MRDP partner agencies such as the National Commission for the Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), Office for the Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Integrated Agricultural Research Centers (RIARCS) also participated in the assessment to determine their possible contributions to MRDP2 implementation. While some Local Chief Executives/LGU Officials were invited as Key Informants in the interview. The SA started with the evaluation and documentation of MRDP-APL 1 experiences. And the process consists of two (2) phases. The first phase involved gathering the data/information on the perceptions, beliefs and values of the IPs/ICCs toward MRDP. 8 For the preparation for APL2, an initial SA activity was conducted thru focus group discussions (FGDs) from April -May 2006 in the pre-listed sites. For this activity about 784 participated in the FGDs of which 51% (402) are considered/belong to IPs/ICCs. The data collected for the assessment were focused on issues that are relevant to MRDP-APL 2. The SA looked into the following variables: (1) Cause of Poverty; (2) Capabilities needed for poverty reduction; (3) Expectations from DA-MRDP; (4) Priority Needs; (5) Fears of the ICCs/IPs on MRDP; (6) Challenges in Leadership of the IP/ICCs; (7) Safeguards for women; and, (8) Safeguards for the IPs/ICCs.. The second phase of the SA involve the evaluation and validation of the earlier findings. Another set of FGDs and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) was conduct in the four selected IP communities from October 2-6, 2006. These sites are as follows: (1) Brgy. Prosperidad, Montevista, Compostela Valley (2) Sarayan-Kisupaan-Salat. President Roxas, North Cotabato; (3) Barangay Nati, Senator Ninoy Aquino, Sultan Kudarat; (4) Libuton-Cagan New Bataan. Social Assessment Findings: It is in these provinces: Agusan del Sur, Compostela Valley, North Cotabato, Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat that majority of the IPs/ICCs reside. The LGUs were also the implementers of MRDP-APL1 and have proposed FMR projects for possible year 1 implementation. Despite the Christianization of some tribal members, the respondents believed that the IP/ICC culture is still intact. But some indicated that the young get discriminated in school because of their cultural status. Despite advancement in farming and medical technology, IPs still practice traditional methods in farming and still consult “baylan” (medical priestess) for medical services. 1. The respondent’s perception of poverty is that it is commonly caused by behavioral, structural, political, and technological problems. The behavioral problems perceived to be the causes of poverty are: laziness, indolence, and lack of education. The structural problems are corruption of political and spiritual leaders and lack of government support. The perceived political factor is the unstable peace and order because of the rebellion, and the lack of human rights protection. The lack of cooperation and unity among the tribal groups has also compounded the problem. Another reason they cited as the cause of poverty is the insufficiency of income or returns through practicing their traditional ways of farming and other economic activities. And they stated