Department of Agrarian Reform

Project Development Institute

The Other Inconvenient Truths

Report of the National Conference
on Asset Reform and Climate Change

UP-Ayala Techno-Hub,
Commonwealth Avenue, Diliman,
Quezon City, Philippines
26 May 2010
 Contents

1 Message From DAR Sec. Virgilio de los Reyes

3 FOREWORD

5 INTRODUCTION

8 Summary: Ushering a Climate of Change

11 Keynote Address
Dr. James Putzel

Panel Presenta�ons 1
13 Prof. Walden Bello: Climate Change and Global Development
14 Dr. Saturnino “Jun” Borras, Jr.: Climate Change, Global Land Issues
and Implica�ons for Land Reform
15 Mr. Francisco “Pancho” Lara: Climate Change and Conflict

Panel Presenta�ons 2
16 Usec. Rosalina Bistoyong: Collec�ve Ac�on in the Peasant Sector:
the ARC Experience
17 Director Maria Grace Pascua: Collec�ve Ac�on in the Upland Resource Sector
18 Loida Rivera: Collec�ve Ac�on in the Women’s Sector

Panel Presenta�ons 3
19 Dr. Laura David: Collec�ve Ac�on in the Marine Resource Sector
20 Mr. Jude Esguerra: Collec�ve Ac�on in the Water Resource Sector
21 Usec. Narciso Nieto: Recas�ng the Agrarian Reform Strategy

Panel Presenta�ons 4
22 Dr. Rosa Perez: Result of Luzon Workshop
23 Dr. Buenaventura Dargantes: Result of Visayas Workshop
24 Virginia Verora: Result of Mindanao Workshop

25 Discussions and workshops: themes, ques�ons, answers

30 Concluding Points
Miss Aurea Teves: Next Steps

32 Appendices
1
2
 FOREWORD
National Conference on
Asset Reform and Climate Change
“Ushering A Climate of
Change” is a call to the new
administration to reverse the
effects and impact of climate
change in the Philippines by
recasting government policies
that address rural poverty.

C limate change threatens food

security and might even
lead to global food scarcity. The
Philippines is among the most
vulne-rable countries with 80% of
the population at risk.

Climate change aggravates the

various types of marginalization
of the vast majority of the people
and increases the vulnerability
of the rural poor, particularly
women.

3
 The conference aims to address the serious
deficit in the role of policies and people
empowerment by emphasizing on a shift in
power relations – which have increased the
economic and political uncertainties and the
multiple risks associated with unclear and
unresolved property rights in rural areas and
heightened the vulnerability of the rural poor
to environmental and climate change.
Our goal is to understand how asset reform
and environmental change strategies impact
on the larger issues of economic growth and
rural and urban conflict.
The main objective is to create a forum for
assessing and learning from collective action
strategies that marries asset reform with
environment protection.
The Specific objectives of the conference are
as follows:
1. To rediscover how the rural
distribution of power shapes and
is shaped by collective actions that
enable communities to protect their
livelihood and deal with risks.
4
2. To define the role and
responsibility of DAR, DENR
and the NCIP in the creation of a
stronger link between asset reform
and people’s vulnerability to
environment and climate change.
3. To identify and craft collective
actions that lessen the risks of
group, community and local
conflict as people prepare for
environmental crisis and upheaval.
Based on the above objectives, we have
achieved the following results:
1. New policy proposal and advocacy
map that reform, recount and
strengthen collective action
strategies at the community and
local level.
2. Define the role of farmer
beneficiaries and the DAR in
meeting the new political and
economic challenges.
3. Formulation of a Call to Action.
4. Establishment of a broad network
that brings AR and environmental
activities, and state and non-
state agents together in constant
dialogue.
This national conference was preceded by
three regional conferences that established
the significance and connection of asset
reform to climate change.
Aurea M. Teves
Convenor, National Conference
on Asset Reform and Climate Change
 INTRODUCTION
T he climate change agenda has been,
and remains, strongly biased towards
science and technology. Its anticipated
effects are often quantified and confounded
with quick revelations of how much higher
global temperatures will be, of how many
plant and animal species are at increased
risk of extinction, of what temperature range
spikes will spell decreased productivity
and increased hunger for citizens. In the
same vein, government leaders, when
brainstorming about climate change
responses, unleash a laundry list of
economic measures that are inextricable
from the principles of science and
technology. Paradoxically, however, these
figures and data can make the eventuality of
climate change seem less real and tangible,
making the climate change discourse seem
like a conversation only for the learned and
hosing down the interests of the common
individual.
This brand of discourse has consequently
isolated some issues that are, in fact, critical
to any measure of success for frameworks
on climate change responses. A country’s
contextual history and reality ought to be
accounted for when building the blueprint
for climate change adaptation and mitigation.
In the Philippines, the protracted histories
of agrarian reform, of indigenous peoples’
struggles and of a robust social movement
seem to have been detached from climate
change talks. Though the problematic 20-
year-old Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) has been extended with
reforms for another five years, doubts persist
over its satisfactory completion by 2014.
Perpetuating this doubt and heightening fears
is the escalation of the climate change agenda
in the government’s menu of priorities
On the 23rd of October 2009, President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed the
landmark Philippine Climate Change Act
of 2009 (otherwise known as Republic Act
9729) which mandates the establishment of
a National Framework Strategy and Program
on Climate Change and the creation of the
the Climate Change Commission under
the Office of the President. As much as
it is hailed as a big step forward for the
government’s response to climate change,
R.A. 9729 could possibly cause retracted
steps for the unfinished agrarian reform
program and the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Acts (IPRA). For one, the blatant exclusion
of the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) and the National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) from the
Advisory Council of the Climate Change
Commission is already indicative of a
climate change response framework that
is unmindful of ongoing asset reform
processes and that enables the leverage
of land to widen the social, political and
economic gaps in the country.
While the state declares it a policy to
“systematically integrate the concept of
climate change in various phases of policy
formulation, development plans, poverty
reduction strategies and other development
tools and techniques by all agencies and
instrumentalities of the government”1,
it failed to declare that reinvigorated
commitments to asset reform and to
indigenous peoples rights are also requisite
ingredients in this systematic integration.
Social movements, communities and
concerned citizens are, therefore, obligated
to grab the ball of responsibility and call
on the government to re-examine its major
policy blunder. Through collective action,
the government’s vision can be unclouded
as to the centrality of most affected peoples
and communities in the national climate
change framework, action plan and budget
allocation.
5
 It is with these assumptions and aspirations
that this event, the National Conference on
Asset Reform and Climate Change, was
conceptualized. The Project Development
Institute, together with the Department of
Agrarian Reform, hopes to trumpet the
need for the inclusion of asset reform and
local action in the national climate change
framework. In addition, the inclusion
of asset holders in the formulation and
implementation of climate change action
plans is a banner call of the conference.
By highlighting the persisting land tenure
issues in the country, the conference aims
to strengthen the argument that the DAR
and the NCIP are necessary placements in
the Climate Change Commission.
This conference aims to thicken
the discourse on climate change by
highlighting the phenomenon’s undeniable,
yet still overshadowed, links to agrarian
reform, indigenous peoples rights and
collective action of communities that have
direct stakes on land and other natural
resources. The panel presentations tackled
the correlation of climate change to land
reform, to conflict, and to collective actions
for water, marine, and upland resources.
The nexus between climate change
and the women’s and peasants’ sectors
were also sought out in the presentations.
Recommended actions for all the
stakeholders involved in the climate change
agenda are proposed.
6
In a series of regional conferences in
Mindanao, Visayas and Luzon, the
conference organizers provided platforms
for the voices of affected communities,
asset holders, rights claimants and
other local stakeholders such as local
government units, local offices of national
government agencies, NGOs, academic
institutions and individual advocates, to
be heard. These voices were synthesized
into regional reports presented in Panel 4
presentations of the conference.
With this convergence of both dedicated
experts and eager learners about climate
change, the organizers hope to sustain the
chatter over the centrality of asset reform
and collective action in influencing the
national discourse on climate change.
What are not yet seen in the formative
national climate change framework and
national climate change action plan
are incovenient truths that need to be
addressed. The conference does not
aim to challenge the role of science and
technology in climate change adaptation
and mitigation. On the contrary, it
seeks to find the relevance of science
and technology in the realities of power
imbalances, people’s rights and the
tortuous asset reform processes. The
potency of climate change adaptation and
mitigation strategies would be enhanced
if people and their rights claims are
not alienated from the requisite science
and technology to manage increasing
uncertainties in the natural world.
Narciso “Boy” Nieto
Undersecretary
Department of Agrarian Reform
7
 SUMMARY
R edistributing property rights through agrarian
reform is a key policy direction that should be
taken by the new administration of president apparent
Benigno Aquino III to help the country adapt to climate
change, experts on land reform and asset change said at
a recent conference.
The “National Conference on Asset Reform
and Climate Change” organized by the Project
Development Institute, an NGO advocating agrarian
reform, and the Department of Agrarian Reform,
on Wednesday called on the incoming Aquino
administration to reverse the effects and impact of
climate change by reshaping government policies
toward the rural poor, who are the most vulnerable to
the vagaries of the environment.
8
James Putzel of the Crisis States Research Center at the
London School of Economics, who has done extensive
studies on land reform in the Philippines, said a rise in
the sea level threatens the livelihoods and survival of
70 percent of the country’s 1,500 seaside municipalities
along the Philippines’ 32,000-kilometer discontinuous
coast line – one of the longest in the world.
Climate change also will affect access to and
management of fresh water and likely aggravate the
impact of natural disasters on the country, and cause
declines in agricultural production.
DAR Undersecretary Narciso Nieto said the agency
is “thinking about recasting” its strategy on building
agrarian reform communities to meet the effects of
climate change and “how this will shape the over-all
nature and priorities of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program.”
He said climate change will prove costly to
investments already made on water impounding
systems and communal irrigation, which were not
built to withstand the expected increased demand for
household consumption during the El Nino months
or the expected large volumes of rain during the
monsoon season.
Climate change also will render upland communities
vulnerable to landslides during the rainy season and to
bush and forest fires during the dry spells, he said.
In addition, entrants or migrants fleeing the deadly
effects of climate change in their areas will create
tension and pressure on communities they decide
settle in. Such conflicts can now be seen in the Bicol
region, Mindoro, Negros and Central and Northern
Mindanao, Nieto said.
The challenges from climate change confronting the
country “are highly political, deeply connected to
immediate problems of poverty,” Putzel said.
The challenges also “raise immediate issues of national
policy in relation to strategies for agricultural and
industrial production and redistributive reform – not
least agrarian reform,” he said.
“Climate change adaptation measures need, first
and foremost, to reduce the vulnerability of both
communities and production systems to the instabilities
of climatic conditions,” he said.
This entails the “distribution and redistribution of land
rights” to encourage investments and improvements on the
land and gain access to credit lines to finance them, he said.
“We have long known that small holders deal better
with the microclimates that characterize farming
everywhere and in conditions of capital scarcity they
make better use of labor and land than do large farm
operators,” he said.
He said the country needs a new kind of agribusiness
that will move away from the practices of the old
landed elites in the Philippines as exemplified by
the Aquino family-run Hacienda Luisita that merely
retain their vast landholdings without developing high
value agricultural production, seek niche markets for
9
Philippine products abroad, promote food processing
and boost agricultural exports.
The country needs an agribusiness industry
that “combines the energies of small producers,
cooperatives and entrepreneurs willing to deploy new
technologies and take risks,” he said.
“The President-elect could demonstrate that his
government represents generational change by setting
an example and convincing his family to finally put
the story of Hacienda Luisita behind them – change
it from a story of land held in violation of successive
legal efforts to redistribute it and from a story of
successive protests and even killings to put down social
mobilization, to a story of justice and forward looking
development,” Putzel said.
“The question now is whether the threats posed
by climate change will be enough to provoke the
formation of a new coalition that rises above family
interests, narrow class interests – whether of capital
or labor – local community interests, to take the
necessary risks and launch the long term programmes
required to make the country as a whole more
10
productive and in ways that are environmentally
sustainable,” he said.
Ria Teves, executive director of the Project
Development Institute, proposed several immediate
steps to address climate change through asset reforms.
She pushed for the recasting of the government’s
agrarian reform policy by incorporating the threat of
climate change so that the new agrarian reform strategy
would involve the agrarian reform beneficiaries
and their organizations and NGOs in land tenure
improvement and economic support services to develop
livelihoods while considering environmental mitigation
and adaptation measures.
There should also be bottom-up consultations with
the communities concerned that should involve the
beneficiaries, DAR and other stake-holders, she said.
The new strategy and new models on dealing with
climate change should then be presented for adoption
by the incoming government and the international
community that provides development assistance for
agrarian reform.

Dr. James Putzel
D
r. Putzel is the Director of the Crisis States
Research Centre in the Development Studies
Institute at the London School of Economics and
Political Science. He wrote the book A Captive Land:
the Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines
in 1992 about the political economy of the agrarian
reform policy and its implementation during the time
of Ferdinand Marcos and of Cory Aquino. To this day,
he remains as the most authoritative figure on Hacienda
Luisita. His extensive research and publications portfolio
range from analysis of the politics of the financial crisis
, the politics of development in Southeast and East
Asia, democratic transition and the roles of foreign
and NGOs in development. He was a Visiting Senior
Lecturer in Political Science and a Visiting Research
Associate at the School of Economics at the University
of the Philippines in the late 1980s.
Dr. James Putzel opened the conference with an emphasis
on the fact that the problem of climate change presents
deep and fundamental challenges. He expounded that
though the problem is primarily perceived relative to the
physical environment, climate change challenges are, in
fact, highly political in nature and are deeply related to
the immediate causes of poverty. Bearing this in mind,
national policies for climate change adaptation should,
therefore, be designed to similarly respond to social and
economic pressures. He emphasized that these policies
should also promote strategies for agricultural and
industrial production and for redistributive reforms.
Keynote Address
He further opined that the failure of the Philippine elite
to fully industrialize the country means that there is no
urgent need for the country to reduce its greenhouse
gas emissions, in fact, evidence shows that the country
contributes very minimally to global warming. In
addition, he continued, the position of the Philippines
as a net carbon sink can be maximized to rally
necessary resources for climate change adaptation.
The professor additionally outlined the impacts of climate
change as they relate to the Philippine context, arguing
that the serious and negative impacts of climate change
on the agriculture and fisheries sectors will severely
affect the poor. He pointed out that one clear threat is
that on communities living along coastlines. As it is - he
stressed out - these communities are already vulnerable
due to problems of access to and management of limited
resources, such as fresh water. The vulnerability they
suffer is further aggravated by natural disasters.
Dr. Putzel identified urgent actions necessary for climate
change adaptation. These include measures that reduce
the vulnerabilities of communities and production
systems and also measures to ensure the redistribution of
land rights. He reiterated that people will be unwilling to
invest in land improvement if they do not hold the rights
over their land, stressing further that small landholders
should be rightly incentivized because they control the
backbone of the country’s productivity. It is they who
invest more on land, with their hard labor, more so than
large or small absentee land owners.
The respected professor noted that climate change
imposes more pressure on agricultural systems. He
added that land reform, thus, needs to contribute to
improving land productivity through two approaches.
The first approach he identified is the rehabilitation and
improvement of irrigation. This recommendation, he
proposed, would address the fact that less than half of
land equipped for irrigation is actually developed for
irrigation. The second land reform approach Dr. Putzel
recommended is the development of the country’s
agribusiness sector which plays an important role in
expanding production. The development strategies
could include investment in green technology and
11
in new kinds of agribusiness, and could also include
contract managements that combine new technology
and stakeholders partnership.
Speaking about developmental asset redistribution,
the professor argued that neoliberal strategies do not
accelerate growth. He added that there is a need to boost
the effectiveness of the state’s regulatory powers, and
that strong markets do not emerge without this strong
regulatory capacity of the state. He described the state as
weak because it serves the short-term interests of the elite,
a tradition that can be challenged by a social movement
that is strong enough to press for palliative change. He
stated that the minimal investments put towards new
smallholders only create perverse incentives such as
engaging in speculation and land selling. Thus, he added,
the regulatory powers of the state should incorporate
the implementation of a viable land registration system,
especially since a system of taxation on land and
improvement in agriculture is impossible without clear
12
ownership rights. Further, he emphasized that agrarian
reform needs to be swift and comprehensive, otherwise, it
becomes a drain on state resources.
Dr. Putzel drew attention to the declining foreign
aid to agriculture and manufacturing sectors, and the
shift of donor agencies’ focus on good governance.
He pointed out that the agencies need to refocus their
aid programmes on the development of agricultural
production systems.
As a closing note, the professor emphasized that turning
failure into success is possible through agricultural
modernization and industrialization. According to him,
tapping new technologies and improving the agriculture and
manufacturing sectors in ways that are environmentally-
friendly are keys to success. The establishment of a political
organization capable of creating alternatives for productive
investments, and which social movements consider
legitimate, is of utmost necessity

Prof. Walden Bello
Climate Change
and Global Development
P
rof. Bello is an elected Congressman of the
Akbayan partylist and a former professor of
Sociology at the University of the Philippines.
He writes on issues about development, trade and
globalization, and is a founder and Board member of
several organizations.
Prof. Bello began his discussion by establishing the link
between climate change and global development,
first laying his points for arguments in the second stage
of the global economic crisis which was triggered by the
near-bankruptcy of Greece, the collapse of the financial
market and, possibly, the government. He stressed that
this crisis has had major impacts on the components of
the real economy, namely, in production, consumption,
investment and employment
Prof. Bello is an elected Congressman of the Akbayan
partylist and a former professor of Sociology at the
University of the Philippines. He writes on issues about
development, trade and globalization, and is a founder
and Board member of several organizations.
Prof. Bello began his discussion by establishing the link
between climate change and global development, first laying
his points for arguments in the second stage of the global
economic crisis which was triggered by the near-bankruptcy
of Greece, the collapse of the financial market and, possibly,
the government. He stressed that this crisis has had major
Panel Presentations 1
impacts on the components of the real economy, namely, in
production, consumption, investment and employment.
Further, he elaborated that this crisis on the real economy
has bearing on the debates on climate change and
sustainable development, especially since the present
international economy is heavily characterized by fossil
fuel-intensive transportation and accelerated integration
of production and market. He argued that the collapse
of the export-oriented global economy has led to de-
globalization, or a falling back on local markets with
de-globalized production structures. This collapse calls
for change in the reigning economic development model,
which as he pointed out, de-globalization could respond
to with its more climate-friendly, ecological ways of
organizing economic life. De-globalization opens up to
low consumption practices that are based on sustainable
and decentralized production processes.
The professor shared his strong opinion that the
assumptions of techno fixes solving climate change
problems and perpetuating consumption trends are
illusions. Proposed fixes such as the use of biofuels and of
market-based mechanisms, such as carbon sequestration
and carbon trading, are part of the illusions. He referred to
the resistance of Annex 1 countries against legally-binding
emission cuts as the cause of failure of the COP 15 climate
change negotiations. The voluntary cuts were set at very
low levels and rich countries were reluctant to come up with
minimum commitments for aid. He pointed out that the
negotiations actually displayed the reliance on international
financing institutions to finance adaptation measures.
Prof. Bello opined that even the most ambitious
agreements for climate change mitigation and adaptation
will be a mere band-aid if the fundamental driver of
climate change – the export-oriented globalized capitalist
economy – will continue to reign. He called for the
“dethroning” of the export-led model, and in its place
adopt climate-sensitive and people-sensitive models.
These models should further integrate elements of de-
globalization of production, namely, the reorientation
of production to the domestic market, the recreation of
sustainable agriculture and industry and the promotion of
more egalitarian distribution of assets and income.
13
 Dr. Saturnino “Jun” Borras, Jr.
Climate Change, Global Land Issues and
Implications for Land Reform
D
r. Borras is a holder of the Canada Research Chair
in International Development Studies and is a
professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada.
He fervently researches on agrarian reform and rural
development issues, has published a number of books and
works with various international development institutions.
Dr. Borras started off by stating that the debates around
climate change have provoked the development discourse
on land grabbing in the global context. He related that
the global agro complex of energy and food and the
convergence of energy, finance, and food crises in recent
years have posed serious implications for land debates as
companies and governments rush to invest in resource-rich
countries. Consequently, he added, the re-evaluation of the
importance of land for food-for-export and agro-fuel crops
has given rise to the current phenomenon of land grabbing.
He argued that the mainstream development framework
holds land as an important resource for which resources
are poured, and the ideal regulation of which is
apparently through codes of conduct. He disagreed and
instead stressed that this only facilitates land grabbing.
Land reform, he maintained, remains relevant, but has
been rendered narrow and shallow.
Dr. Borras acknowledged that “global land grab” is a
useful and relevant term, but is rather a catch-all phrase.
He instead proposed a reframing of the concept’s
framework to include such aspects as the analyses of
land use charges, land property relations change and
14
the direction of change. Governments and civil society
organizations, he said, should look at how these relate.
Current discourse is apparently limited to the examination
of export-related changes but fails to consider land
use change for local exchange. He cited the example
of biofuel for export which is captured in debates, but
biofuel for domestic use is not. Current discourses on
land grabbing, according to him, also exclude potential
reformist perspectives such as “Not all land use changes
are bad” or “Land property changes are highly political”.
He informed the conference attendees that the direction
of land use change can take four forms: a) food to food;
b) food to biofuel; c) non-food to food; and d) non-food
to biofuel. The occurrence of these forms of land use
change especially in rural regions is inadequately captured
in the current land grabbing discourse. The prevailing
analyses focus on the conversion of land devoted to food
for domestic exchange into land for production of export
crops and biofuel which both threaten food security. But
there are actually positive reformist outcomes of land use
change that also need to be considered and he mentioned
as examples the conversion of wasteland for food or of
biofuel for domestic use. He emphasized that there are
characters of land use change that are equally important to
understand, but are missed out in current discourses.
The directions of land property relations change,
meanwhile, include redistribution (zero-sum game),
distribution (positive sum game), non-redistribution
(maintains the status quo), and reconcentration.
Dr. Borras revealed that there is a trend towards
maintaining the status quo and reconcentration, but
radical discourse on land grabbing is focused on
reconcentration while the other types are not addressed.
He lay emphasis on the importance of studying where
the Philippine Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program fits in these quadrants.
Additionally, the professor shared that the land grabbing
debate is too focused on foreign land grabs. Focus, he
surmised, should be on the character of change that the deals
have brought upon agrarian structures. He encouraged that
the political economy framework be used in studying land
reform, land policy, and land grabbing issues.
 Mr. Francisco “Pancho” Lara
Climate Change and Conflict
M r. Lara is a PhD Candidate and Research
Associate at the Crisis States Research Centre at
the London School of Economics. He has, in different
leadership positions, been a part of such organizations
as the Philippine Peasant Institute and VSO, and was
formerly a Chief of Staff at DAR. He extensively
writes and advocates about agrarian reform.
Mr. Lara started off with a disclosure that conflict
is seldom discussed in the discourse of climate
change, but that climate change brings prospects of
conflict from such crises arising from floods, famine,
mass migration and massive social disturbance.
He expressed that the literature, however, is very
speculative and is difficult to substantiate on this topic.
In the analyses of conflict and climate change, Mr.
Pancho conjectured that the most plausible effect would
be migration. He cited cases with demonstrable effects
: a) evacuation due to rising flood waters in Mindanao
led to serious cases of inter- and intra-clan conflict;
b) tensions between head-enders and tail-enders of
irrigation systems in Central Luzon; c) rising incidence
of crimes and violence as people fight to secure food
stocks in response to climate-induced shocks in Bicol
and Eastern Visayas. He added that government may
pour in money in irrigation, for instance, but conflicts
arising from such an investment should be considered.
Mr. Lara went on to identify other effects of conflict and
climate change: a) increased demand for energy and use
of energy as bargaining chip and its indirect effects on
conflict; b) urban-rural tensions as fresh water becomes
scarce; c) tensions among local governments for
scarce government resources, depending on exposure,
sensitivity and adaptive capacity of local areas. These
effects he juxtaposed against the uneven emphasis and
structure of the overall national disaster framework.
Climate proofing should be accompanied by conflict-
proofing, he proposed. Green stimulus fund is being
recommended but such stimulus programs tend to be
geographically exclusionary, where prioritization is
based on political importance rather than on the scale
and vulnerability of the areas.
He further proposed that humanitarian assistance
flows be informed by local political structures and
constraints. Collective action issues over common
pool resources should be addressed, and proactive
and immediate institutional responses and actions on
property rights issues be taken.
He indicated that one important matter being discussed
in the Climate Change Commission is the selection of
the government agency that can work constructively
on the issue of climate change. He offered that the
Department of Agrarian Reform can be the responsible
agency, stressing the extensive experience of DAR
with communities and in dealing with collective action
issues, the personnel’s ability to deal with various
stakeholders, and finally, its ability to set up Agrarian
Reform Communities.
15

Usec. Rosalina Bistoyong
Collective Action in the Peasant Sector:
the ARC Experience
U
sec. Bistoyong is the Undersecretary for Support
Services at the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Prior to joining the DAR in 2007, she was working
with the National Commission on Indigenous People.
Usec. Bistoyong shared the highlights of some of
DAR’s recent activities concerning climate change.
The DAR, in collaboration with the Climate Change
Congress of the Philippines and the Climate Change
Commission, co-organized a series of consultations
(3 island-wide and 1 national), attended by 700
participants. The consultations aimed to interface
climate change initiatives of civil society with that of
government and create awareness on climate change
among various sectors. She relayed that the results
of the consultations were submitted for inclusion in
the formulation of the national framework strategy on
climate change.
She imparted that one of the issues raised in the
consultations is climate change and its effects on
rural communities and rural activities (e.g., typhoons
and heavy floods damage lives, insufficiency of
water supply for irrigation, depleting fish supply).
One other issue brought forth was that of land
conversion, which reduces the land area available for
16
Panel Presentations 2
distribution. Communities, she stressed, are interested
in reforestation projects but do not have the land to
devote to them. The other issues discussed in the
consultations, she added, were the anthropogenic
causes of environmental degradation such as mining,
the need for effective governance, and the impacts on
indigenous peoples.
As she conveyed, one major recommendation during
the DAR consultations was the formulation of an
integrated water management program that cuts across
political boundaries and appropriates importance on
indigenous knowledge and practices. She believed
that the DAR and NCIP should take the lead for such
programs.
The Undersecretary presented the DAR’s latest
accomplishment report and discussed the details of
its ARC Strategy – its principles, modalities, and
accomplishments. She reported that the agency
has a remaining target of 1.57 million hectares for
distribution.
She reiterated that climate change will magnify the
poverty situation, adding that the special ARCs like
those in IP areas will be the most affected by the
change. She presented the specific priority steps to be
taken by DAR: 1) intensification of land distribution;
2) integration of modules on climate change in the
ARB capacity development program; 3) integration
of climate change adaptation, mitigation and disaster
risk management in the ARC development plans; 4)
clustering of ARCs for resource pooling; 5) collective
watershed management, 6) documentation and
dissemination of best practices (e.g., pest management,
organic farming), 7) development of a climate
change communication program; 8) installation of
monitoring and evaluation systems; 9) strengthening of
partnerships with other agencies; 10) intensification of
resource mobilization; and 11) promotion of collective
actions for climate change adaptation and mitigation.
 Dir. Maria Grace Pascua
Collective Action in
the Upland Resource Sector
D
irector Pascua is the Director for the Office of
Policy Planning and Research at the National
Commission for Indigenous People.
Director Pascua raised the concerns of the more than
14 million indigenous peoples (IP) representing 110
ethnolinguistic groups and occupying some 7.7 million
hectares in the Philippines. She referred to IPs as the
social group upon whom climate change will have
severe impacts even as they have the least to contribute
to climate change. She pointed out that it is exactly
because the IPs are considered the stewards of the forest
that sustaining their knowledge, systems and practices
for livelihood and environmental management that
they should be considered as primary tools for climate
change adaptation. Engagement with them is a requisite
component in land use planning, disaster preparedness
strategies and in sustainable development plans.
Director Pascua presented various policy instruments
that can support the IPs in dealing with the effects of
climate change: Kyoto Protocol, Bali Action Plan, ILO
Convention No. 169, UN Declaration on the Rights of
IPs, Convention on Biological Diversity, Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act, and the Medium-Term Philippine
Development Plan for Indigenous Peoples (MTPDP-IP).
Under the IPRA, IPs are accorded security over their
ancestral domains through the issuance of Certificates of
Ancestral Domain Titles and Certificate of Ancestral Land
Titles (i.e.,154 CADTs issued covering 4,196,501.1737
benefiting 911,369 rights holders; 241 CALTs issued
covering 14,084.7238 hectares benefiting 7,963 rights
holders). Additionally, the formulation of their Ancestral
Domain Sustainable Development Protection Plan (i.e.,
85 ADSDPPs formulated, 45 on-going), and securing the
IPs’ Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) through
proper processes (261 Certificate of Compliance to FPIC
Process issued; 1,368 Certificates w/o Overlap Issued) are
expected to provide support to indigenous people.
The Director stressed that the IPs are actually already
practicing climate change adaptation measures. They
implement diversified cropping systems, plant crops
in between stone walls, and build greenhouses that
minimize harvest failure and ensure food security.
In order to advance the situation of the IPs, the Director
recommended the formulation of an IP Master Plan
that complements government policies and programs,
generates resources for IPs, respects Indigenous
Knowledge Systems and Practices and strengthens their
organizations. Other proposed actions from the Director
were the support to the disaster risk management bill2, the
institutionalization of a national disaster risk management
framework and the promotion of a sustainable economy.
17
 Ms. Loida Rivera:

the 1996 calls to action by the International

Women’s Conference on the APEC:

• Adoption of the eco-feminist framework

• Women access to economic resources and
political decision making
• For governments to allocate 20 percent of the
national budget to social services
• To regulate TNCs and ensure observance of
social and environmental standards
• To recognize women’s contributions, knowledge
Collective Action and skills in food production and sustainable
in the Women’s Sector agriculture

M
• To ensure social and environmental standards of
s. Rivera is a woman farmer from development programs
Pampanga who has held leadership • To protect local and national biodiversity
positions in a number of farmer organizations, against TNC exploitation
such as President of Pagkakaisa ng Samahang • To protect workers’ rights and women’s informal
Magsasakang Kababaihan ng Central Luzon labor
(PASAMAKA-CL),
Secretary-General of
Nagkakaisang Magsasaka
ng Gitnang Luzon
(NGML) and President of
Samahang Magsasaka ng
Tianabang.

Ms. Rivera lamented

that climate change is
unlikely to be gender-
neutral. This is extremely
unfortunate, especially as
women are some of the
most vulnerable to climate
change. In designing
any climate change
response, policymakers
need first to recognize
women’s contribution
Launching of Muscovado and Sugarcane Processing Center in Sto. Rosario, Magalang,
to food production and Pampanga on February 4, 2010, an agribusiness own and operated by a people’s organization
agriculture. She reiterates in partnership with Project Development Institute.
18

Dr. Laura David
Collective Action
in the Marine Resource Sector
D
r. David teaches Oceanography at the University
of the Philippines Marine Science Institute. She
holds a PhD degree from the University of South
Carolina and is one of the pioneers of motion remote
sensing in the Philippines.
Dr. David began by emphasizing the paradoxical
reality of Philippine coastal areas being populated
despite the high risk and the destructive effects on
housing and livelihood from typhoons. People’s
natural reaction is to create protection. With climate
Panel Presentations 3
change, she articulated, the impacts are compounded
– damage is caused to property, livelihood and food
source. She articulated that people’s natural response
to the dwindling food supply is to increase fish catch,
reactions that are meant to be first-aid but sometimes
end up exacerbating the problem.
As a specialist in the marine resource sector, she
imparted the little known fact that coral reefs provide
protection against climate change. Seagrass, coral
reefs, and mangroves provide protection to coastal
communities as they naturally buffer against high-
energy waves, even under scenario of sea-level rise.
She said though, that a multi-level information and
education campaign (IECs) is required to make all
sectors understand the importance of coral reefs.
Dr. David identified some specific climate change
adaptation strategies: a) practice of non-destructive fishing
(e.g., mariculture that is climate proof); b) protection
of coastal habitats; c) development of strategies for
accelerated and synergetic effects; d) governance (i.e.,
transparency in access to natural resources); e) crafting
of IECs; and f) formalization of consultations with
various stakeholders. She further cautioned against
privatization of the coastal commons and underscored the
need for the national government to build the resilience
of communities. It is ideal, she contended, that coastal
residents be included in tenurial policies.
18
 Mr. Patrocinio “Jude” Esguerra
Collective Action
in the Water Resource Sector
M
r. Esguerra is the Executive Director of the
Institute for Popular Democracy. He is an
established economist and sociologist.
Mr. Esguerra started off by recognizing that collective
action failed in the irrigation system, and that an
analysis of this failure will contribute to understanding
collective action problems and to designing
government support for the water resources sector.
He noted that the problem is manifested in the non-
functioning one-third portion of the downstream system
in national irrigation and communal irrigation systems.
The climate change-induced erratic rainfall pattern
and dry spells, he continued, only further indicate the
necessity for rehabilitating irrigation systems.
He referred to a study by Hayami and Kikuchi3 to
illustrate reasons for failure of collective action in
irrigation systems. Collective action, according to the
researchers, fails when water is abundant or severely
scarce and succeeds when water is moderately
scarce. This is attributed to the fact that an abundance
of water supply does not provide incentive to
communities to save on consumption or supplement
the supply. On the other hand, cooperation among
users is difficult to achieve as conflicts arise
20
especially between upstream and downstream users
during periods of scarcity.
Mr. Esguerra continued sharing the findings of Hayami
and Kikuchi, specifically, that the size of areas that
needs irrigation also influences the failure or success of
collective action, where compliance is better observed
in smaller areas. Collective action is also made more
difficult if farmers have more access to off-farm or non-
farm livelihoods than when farming is the dominant
economic activity in a community. When the community
is older, collective action becomes more successful.
As the topics of poverty and inequality were not taken
up by the cited study, Mr. Esguerra complemented
the findings with his statement that these are also
influential in the success or failure of collective action.
He explained that when the poor prioritize their
survival needs, they tend to place less value on the
management of their water resources.
Having had an extensive experience with community
engagement, Mr. Esguerra emphasized the important role
communities play in designing resource management
projects. He insisted that institutional arrangements
introduced in communities should enhance rural
managerial capacities, and consequently, enhance
natural resource management in these communities. He
criticized the patronage system that dominates the present
operations of the National Irrigation Administration where
service delivery and responsiveness to community needs
are directed by objectives for political coalition building.
Offering his proposition to the incoming Aquino
administration, he asserted that rural poverty can be
addressed through social protection strategies that go
beyond public works to provide employment guarantee
schemes (much like those in India). He continued to
say that farmers are risk averse, but that an employment
guarantee scheme can encourage them to invest in the
productivity of their farms.
 Usec. Narciso Nieto
Recasting the Agrarian Reform Strategy
H
e proceeded to identify three main areas of
concern within which the costly effects of climate
change can be gravely felt. First, he elaborated, climate
change will hit investments on water impounding
systems because they are not built to withstand
consumption needs during droughts or increased
rainfall episodes. Second, the vulnerability of ARCs in
fragile and coastal areas will be heightened (i.e. risks
of landslides during the rainy season and forest fires
during dry spells). Finally, he explained that climate
change will also increase the risk of conflict resulting
from the entry of migrants into the ARCs. He claimed
that these risks put to test the DAR’s ARC approach,
yet the experience and expertise of the agency also
serve to address these.
He advised that a careful evaluation of the ARC
development plans is timely, especially as the threats of
climate change impact even those communities outside
ARCs. The support services available under the ARC
strategy, he revealed, were not designed to respond to
the effects of climate change.
The undersecretary likewise conveyed his doubts
over the strategy of land distribution in the public
domain. He surmised that this action might have
literally reshaped the environment and now
contributes to deforestation, landslides or droughts,
thus imposing intensifying the possible effects of
climate change on agrarian reform beneficiaries. He
called for a more careful study and analysis of this
area of concern.
In closing, Usec. Nieto urged the DAR to be proactive,
to recast its agrarian reform policy to promote collective
action among various stakeholders. Concretely, he
recommended the formulation of an AR Development
Program that identifies the geographical areas which
are most vulnerable to climate change and that outlines
strategies for enhancing community resilience.
21

Dr. Rosa Perez
Result of Luzon Workshop
D
r. Perez is a member of the Inter-governmental
Panel for Climate Change and is a retired
hydro-meteorologist at the Philippine Atmospheric,
Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
(PAGASA). She has published a number of papers on
the vulnerability of the Philippine coastal and marine
resources to climate change, sea level rises and urban
flooding, among others.
Dr. Perez, prior to discussing the results of the Luzon
workshop, briefly noted that, in addition to the
extreme climactic events, land use change also creates
uncertainties, pushing farmers to migrate to less
productive land and endangering biodiversity.
22
Panel Presentations 4
She then continued by stressing that it is of utmost
importance to highlight the human face of the effects
of climate change, more than merely highlighting the
levels at which temperatures will increase. In fact, she
argued, the increased risks of communities to climate
change were caused by socio-economic hazards and
vulnerabilities, rather than by erratic climate patterns.
Resources for climate change mitigation and adaptation
should also be perceived as investments and not
expenditures.
Dr. Perez shared that the issues broached during the
Luzon workshop included increasing temperatures,
drying up of rivers, scarcity of resources, soil
degradation, and disrupted economic activities. The
recommendations crafted by the workshop participants
were as follows:
• Completion of redistributive reform, securing
land from conflicting laws;
• Encouragement of active participation of small
farmers in projects and programs;
• Development and inclusion of environmental
indicators in government programs
• Forging of strategic partnerships among rural
movements and other stakeholders
• Adaptation of effective measures, safety nets,
and climate change catastrophic risk insurance.
 Dr. Buenaventura Dargantes:

urban needs
• Inclusion of climate change issues in student
curricula (to include topics on watershed
management, renewable energy)
• Advocacy of climate change issues in local
special bodies
• Documentation of local actions in vulnerable
communities (ex. vulnerabilities caused by geo-
hazards and human-induced such as mining)
• Documentation of displacement due to
development aggression and policies (cases
that deny people the use and control of
the resource base should be part of the
documentation)
Result of Visayas Workshop

D
r. Dargantes is the Coordinator for the Program
on Integrated Water Resources Management,
Research & Extension. He is also the Director of the
Institute for Strategic Research and Development
Studies at Leyte State University.
Dr. Dargantes conveyed at the conference that the
Visayan region is faced with challenges related to its
water resources. He shared that the Visayas workshop
gave communities the opportunity to share lessons and
compile the following recommendations:
• Forging of partnership between communities
and government by integrating community
participation in local development planning
• Mainstreaming of issues in local and national
levels through participatory planning
• Setting-up of incentives to protect the
environment
• Inclusion of gender and development agenda
in climate change agenda, emphasizing its
differential impact

• Inclusion of climate change issues in CARPER

• Calling on accountability of LGUs on non-
implementation of laws – LGUs respond
differently from national mandates
• Repeal of automatic debt servicing and instead
use of the budget to finance climate change
mitigation and adaptation programs
• Implementation of renewable energy strategies
such as the development of the region’s
coconut industry
• Integration of climate change concerns in
Comprehensive Land Use Programs (CLUPs)
• Customization of education on climate change
for basic sectors, taking account of rural vs.
23
 Ms. Virginia Verora

and the denudation of the Taguibo watershed due to

mining and illegal logging activities She conveyed
that the Mindanao workshop focused on four areas
in constructing the recommendations – gender, crop
technology, planning and policy. The specific yet
brief recommendations, as she relayed them, were as
follows:

• Acceleration of relevant information

dissemination to all sectors starting with
government
• Development of low/zero carbon
technology
• Propagation of indigenous species
• Mainstreaming of resource propagation
Result of Mindanao Workshop techniques

M
s. Verora is the Community Development/
Gender Specialist and Chief of Operations of
the IFAD-supported Northern Mindanao Community
Initiatives and Resource Management Project.
Ms.Verora began by reporting at the conference
that the Mindanao workshop successfully tackled
the DAR experience in CARAGA, experiences
of an NGO in.practical climate change responses,
indigenous people’s perspective on climate change,
• Policy coverage for indigenous seeds
• Multi-cropping in watershed areas
• Values formation for the youth (mobilize
students to plant trees)
• Food protection – sustainable livelihood
• Allocation of community forests per
barangay
• Community support for poverty alleviation
programs in the barangay
• Determination of the carrying capacities of
communities and natural resources

24
 Discussions and Workshops: themes, questions, answers
Salient Points of
Keynote Address Discussion
T he primary argument hurled against agrarian
reform is the efficiency of economies of
scale. Doubts exist as to the readiness of small
producers in addressing a problem as big as
climate change. The long-term objective in the
Philippines, therefore, should be to get people
out of the land, to create vibrant employment
and industries. This can then make large-scale
farming possible in time, although large scale
farming can be unsustainable. In the Philippines,
labor is an important resource, and in small-scale
farming, labor can be an investment for improved
land productivity. Agribusiness can provide
technology but maintenance of land is controlled
by smallholders or owners.
Defining and harmonizing adaptation measures are
a challenge for the country. These actions need to
be designed in such a way that yields opportunities
for the government to demand resources. For
instance, in demanding to keep the country’s
forests and re-establish its forests, climate change
adaptation measures could include the reduction of
farming intensity.
Swift asset reform seems difficult in procedural
and democratic regimes. In the Philippines,
agrarian reform is written for the elite’s favour
and social movements have been unable to change
elite behaviour. In fact, social movements have
been unable to alter their own behaviour, which
exhibits their focus on the language of the
international donor. They should instead focus
the dialogue on industrialization and boosting
agricultural production. Indeed, redistributive
reform is difficult in democracy, but there have
been exemplary experiences in some countries.
Democratic states have the power of imminent
domain, whereby they can set compensations at
the levels that they want. Moments of crisis in
such states actually offer opportunities for reform,
such was the case in the Philippines in 1986
though the political debate was lost during the
crafting of the AR program. What seems more
pressing now is for the country to rehabilitate
its agriculture sector. The country is better
off engaging in a process of registering lands,
and the government should offer incentives for
better usage of the land.
With the new AR law embodied in the CARPER,
the government intends to complete land
redistribution, plug loopholes and address the
lack of support services. The efficient delivery
25
of support services is a major condition for the
success of agrarian reform, and for this, Php150
billion has been appropriated over the next five
years. Landlord resistance and control of
the police force remain as major challenges
that prevent settling of reform beneficiaries.
Resolving these would necessitate strong
political will, support of the DAR and skilled
people at the grassroots level. Local power is
central to the success of the AR program, for
without the mobilization of peasant movements,
for example the Sumilao farmers’ march, the
CARPER law would not have been enacted.
Agrarian reform in the Philippines represents
the partial successes of people’s struggles. It is
important to recognize the need for the creation of
an enabling environment that encourages people
to invest in agriculture. As stakeholders struggle
26
to maximize the CARPER, they should not
lose sight of the strategic needs, specifically,
of creating approaches and alliances that
promote increased agricultural investments.
To complement this, the Congress should reignite
the debate about land ownership documentation,
and social movements should help by pushing the
executive to prioritize the documentation.
Agribusiness of good quality is also essential.
Malaysia and Rwanda represent interesting
examples of this. In Rwanda, the state provides
incentives to agribusiness owners to work with
smallholders and introduce new technology. Now,
Rwanda supplies coffee to European markets,
whereas Philippine coffee struggles to attract
investments. The country’s social movements
should think about developing new products, and
entrepreneurs should invest in these.
 Salient Points of Panel 1 Discussion
E xperience shows that disasters, such as those
induced by climate change, can similarly lead
to social cohesion. But the disasters can also have
negative implications vis-a-vis migration. Social
cohesion between inhabitants and the new entrants
can become seeds for conflict (e.g., clan relations)
as they become rivals over the same set of resource.
Refugee movements offer lessons for dealing with the
issue of climate change migrants and conflict. Political
reorganization and the identification of the terms
and discourse of action are vital in preventing
conflict induced by climate change impacts. At
present, there are diverse trends and experiences in
new moves towards agriculture investments.
Land grabbing is far from being a fresh topic.
However, land grabbing in the name of
climate change is a relatively new discourse
generated by the fusion of industrial agro-food
complex and energy complex. For instance,
the unsustainability of fossil-based agriculture
has renewed corporate interest in land, thereby
contributing to motives and incidences of land
grabbing. In Germany, the increased demand for
biodiesel production based on grapeseed oil has
resulted in the expansion of oil palm plantations in
Indonesia that yield grapeseed oil substitutes to be
used for consumer goods manufacturing.
For the DAR, the problem really is the
enforcement of the contract and not the code
of conduct itself. The framework of the code
of conduct is already problematic, and with the
inevitable expansion of investments, management
becomes a hefty obstacle. Since the DAR is
outside the purview of the decentralization
process, it can – unlike other agencies – deal
directly with local governments units in relation
to environmental management. The issue of
land reform should be a shared agenda of
government departments and the challenge
of policy and mandate harmonization should
be overcome. The drawbacks from lacking
and inefficient resource allocation and weak
legislative support should also be resolved.
27
 Salient Points of Panel 2 Discussion
T he ADSDPP is a crucial instrument in
aligning the overlapping development
plans and approaches of various government
agencies. It clarifies the steps and procedures for
collaborating with other agencies and civil society
organizations in the implementation of development
plans. In addition, CADT processing has sufficient
provisions that respect existing property rights.
The DAR collaborates with PAGASA by
mainstreaming major programs based on risk maps
provided by PAGASA.
The problem of unfair pricing is perceived by
some to be an even worse obstacle than the
impacts of climate change. As a response, the
DAR emphasizes the importance of value addition
in consonance wit organization of farmers. The
DAR has helped coconut farmers by urging them
towards production of virgin coconut oil and coco
coir and by assisting them in complying with
BFAD requirements on quality standards. In other
instances, the DAR has helped farmers diversify
into atchara and soap production, from previously
selling just their papaya crops in the market.
28
Salient Points of Panel 3 Discussion
C limate change is expected to exacerbate the
effects of illegal fishing. Gaining conviction
against illegal fishers is almost impossible due to
a lack of awareness of environmental laws on the
part of LGUs, lawyers and judges. Some NGOs,
such as the Alternative Law Groups (ALG), ELAC
and Tanggol Kalikasan, help educate judges
and lawyers on pertinent environmental laws.
Unfortunately, where there is technical capacity for
apprehending the criminals, conviction rates still
remain low.
Information and education campaigns for
climate change and its effects should be
mainstreamed in the communities. Information
such as PAG-ASA’s climate forecasts and seasonal
forecasts should be disseminated in communities
to plan better for planting season. Payment for
environmental services could also be an approach
to environmental management, for example,
people residing downstream could pay upland
residents to protect watersheds. Unfortunately,
some documented cases of such arrangements point
to conflict breeding as an unintended outcome.
The potential benefits of fees collection from
decentralized environmental management, and its
propensity for local politician capture, still needs to
be sought out and documented.
With the prevailing problems surrounding
distributed lands – illegal land conversions,
conflicts with IP claimants and expansion of
agrofuel crop production – the concern that the
DAR eases out of social justice issues persists.
Even with the enactment of CARPER, there
remains 1 million hectares of land awaiting
distribution to some 450,000 farmers. The DAR
should be careful not to use climate change
to justify non-distribution of these lands, if
failure in distribution does indeed become the
result of the extended agrarian reform law.
 Salient Points of Panel 4 Discussion
T he discussions showed that the production
and dissemination of IEC materials
on climate change is a common need.
Additionally, the impacts of the change at the
community level need to be identified and
publicized. A community-based knowledge
system would be of great benefit.
IEC materials should be designed and targeted
relative to specific sectors’ needs and issues.
Tapping local special bodies would be strategic
in the dissemination of information on climate
change.
Stakeholders from the regional workshops also
conveyed that they hope to receive capacity-building
to deal with the link between poverty and climate
change. Raising communities’ awareness in calling for
transparency and accountability of programs relevant
to food and climate change was also an indicated need.
Any information dissemination drive to
increase awareness of climate change issues
should be integrated in both formal and non-
formal education systems. Local government
units should be held responsible in allocating
budget for this action.
29
 Concluding Points

Ms. Aurea Miclat-Teves

The real challenge in the climate change dialogues, she

maintained, is mustering energies towards addressing
the links between climate change and power, which
was why the discussion of collective action strategies
were at the core of the conference.

Politics, Ms. Teves stressed, is excised from debates on

climate change. In fact the traditional response to climate
change issues has been to form national coalitions and
inter-agency bodies. As she clearly put it, these are puny
solutions that mistake inputs for outcomes.

The conference presentations and workshops

engendered the following conclusions:

M s. Miclat-Teves is the Executive Director of

Project Development Institute and Conference
Host.
Ms. Teves began her summation of the conference
by drawing attention to the role that power plays in
the climate change discourse. She noted that the new
administration (that of Noynoy Aquino) campaigned on a
platform of anti-corruption and good governance, which
presented hope for addressing poverty and vulnerability.
The efficiency of the state to influence, however, should
be underlined by a credible commitment to tackle political
power in addressing climate change.
She went on to say that good governance can hold
different meanings for different people, especially as
it relates to the climate change response. Some people
argue that it would mean transferring the burden of
responsibility to the private sector and to international
development agencies. Others, meanwhile, suggest that
the civil society come up with concrete responses, such
as village-level disaster management committees. Still,
others argue that nothing can be achieved unless regional
and global agreements are put in place. But she asserted
that these agreements will only reduce the actions to
global and regional meetings that yield very few results
and exclude support to potential and existing climate
change initiatives, such as asset reform programs.
30
• The threat of rapid climate and environmental
change requires a democratization of power
in favour of those directly affected by the
changes. This calls for a review of the state
of country’s endowments and entitlements
afforded to the rural and urban poor population.
Subsequently, this necessity restores asset
reform as the central component in crafting
climate change responses. That asset reform
should be at the center of climate change
discourse should be recognized. A bottom-up
approach is vital in leveraging the interests
of those most vulnerable and in operating on
a strategy that aims for outcomes from the
national down to the village level.
• There is a strong demand for synergizing
responses from central and local government,
private sector, and civil society. The task of
the central government, then, is to create
and foster the institutional setting to protect
vulnerable sectors.
• The state and its centralized agencies should take
the lead in allocating strategic investments for
climate change adaptive measures such as those
for flood control, irrigation, and resettlement.
Local governments, for their part, should craft
useful ordinances and should facilitate local
budget that enables environmental protection.
 The budget should, in turn, address the real needs
of communities, protect vital ecological resources
and attract climate sensitive investments.
• Non-government organizations should focus
on enhancing capabilities and capacities. They
should harness their track record in developing
collective action solutions. The private sector,
meanwhile, can take the reigns in developing
alternative technology and other crucial
environmental projects of the government (ex.
La Mesa Watershed Protection).
• With regard to the Department of Agrarian
Reform, the proposed next steps are to
incorporate credible commitments into the
budget. Usec. Nieto spoke of a renewed agency
policy direction that reinforces the Agrarian
Reform Communities (ARC) model as a viable
village-level collective action response to climate
change. The DAR is best prepared to tackle the
issue of power and collective action strategies
at the bureaucracy and local levels. It has
consistently engaged the civil society and private
sector, and is in fact the only remaining rural-
focused national line agency with a nationwide
portfolio and structure. The agency has proven
that it is central in settling disputes in the case of
land and asset reform and in providing support
services. Through the years, it has shown that it
has a direct role as the vehicle in the transfer of
power from the haves to the have-nots.
From the issues and challenges that were raised
in the conference, three immediate responses to
climate change should be taken:
1. Recasting the agrarian reform strategy
This should be accomplished by developing
a new policy framework that incorporates the
threats of climate change and is guided by the
following equation:
Agrarian Reform = [Peoples
Participation (LTI+ESS+PBD) x CC
effects and impacts – Vi}
The previous 1986 framework had
already involved the LTI + ESS + social
infrastructure building. The reformulated
agrarian reform program should be people-
centered, placing people at the center of
all DAR activities. This includes showing
credible commitment to its goals. More
importantly, a bottom-up process is critical in
implementing these activities.
The improved policy framework should expend
considerable work on the documentation
of landholdings. The participation of social
movements, people’s organizations and
nongovernment organizations should be
enlisted in the documentation, and also in the
implementation of land tenure improvement
initiatives.
At present, the direction of agrarian reform
activities contrast with some of those
recommended in the Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao workshops. For example, the
government’s promotion of HYVs and of
biofuel is actually perceived as disadvantageous.
In recasting a new AR framework, the
recommendations of different stakeholders, as
represented in the three workshops, should be
seriously considered and fully integrated.
2. Strengthening collective action strategies at
the community level
This should be done through bottom-up
consultations and planning processes. The
expected output should be a new development
plan that clearly defines the roles of the
stakeholders.
3. Presenting the development plan to national and
international community.
Models on the approaches to climate change
adaptation and mitigation – within and outside of
ARCs - should be developed and presented. These
models can be showcased for donor assistance,
31
 Appendices

A. Conference Papers
1. Usec. Narciso Nieto
2. Aurea Teves
3. Dr. James Putzel
4. Mr. Francisco Lara, Jr.
5. Usec. Rosalina Bistoyong
6. Dir. Marie Grace Pascua
7. Ms. Loida Rivera
8. Mr. Jude Esguerra
9. Dr. Laura David
10. Dra. Rosa Perez
11. Dr. Buenaventura Dargantes
12. Ms. Virginia Verora

Luzon
1. Dra. Rosa Perez
2. Ms. Aleli Marcelino
3. Mr. Danny Carranza
4. FIAN-Philippines
5. Mr. Alejandro Carillo - PDI
6. Mr. Arthur Casiño - PDI

Visayas
1. Dr. Buenaventura Dargantes
2. Mr. Emil Justimbaste
3. Rev. Fr. Herminio Dajao La Viña

Mindanao
1. Ms. Virginia Verora
2. Mr. Feliciano Radana
3. Mr. Ernie Ruiz
4. Mr. Alejandro Otacan

B. Conference Programme
C. List of Participants
D. Steering Committee
E. Secretariat

(Footnotes)
1
R.A. 9729 Sec. 2 Declaration of Policy
2
The day after the conference, Republic Act 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of
2010 was enacted by PGMA.
3
Fujie, M., Y. Hayami and M. Kikuchi. (2005). The conditions of collective action for local commons management: The
case of irrigation in the Philippines. AgEcon 33: 179-189.
32
 Appendix A - Conference Programme

Project Development Ins�tute Department of Agrarian Reform

May 26, 2010, UP- Ayala Land Techno Hub

Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

PROGRAMME
8:00 A.M. - 8:30 A.M. REGISTRATION

8:30 A.M. - 8:40 A.M. Na�onal Anthem

Introduc�on

8:40 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. Opening Remarks Sec. NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN

DAR Secretary

9:00 A.M. - 9:30 A.M. Keynote Address: Is Asset Reform an Indispensable Component for Responding
to Environmental and Climate Change?

DR. JAMES PUTZEL

Professor, London School of Economics

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

10:00 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. PANEL I: ASSET REFORM, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND CLIMATE
CHANGE

Speaker 1. Climate Change and Global Development

DR. WALDEN BELLO

Congressman, Akbayan Partylist

Speaker 2. Climate Change, Global Land Issues and Implica�on for Land Reform

DR. JUN BORRAS

St. Mary University, Canada

Speaker 3. Climate Change and Conflict FRANCISCO LARA, JR.

Crisis States Research Center,
London School of Economics
10:45 A.M. - 11:15 A.M. OPEN FORUM

Panel Facilitator: MR.JOHN PHILIP SEVILLA,

Princeton University
Board Member, PDI
33
11:15 A.M. - 11:45 A.M. PANEL II: COLLECTIVE ACTION STRATEGIES

Speaker 1. Collec�ve Ac�on in the Peasant Sector: The ARC Experience

USEC. ROSALINA L. BISTOYONG

DAR Undersecretary for Support Services

Speaker 2. Collec�ve Ac�on in the Upland Resource Sector

Director MARIE GRACE PASCUA, NCIP

Speaker 3. Collec�ve Ac�on in the Women Sector

LOIDA RIVERA
President, Federa�on of Peasant Women in
Luzon (PASAMAKA-L)

11:45 A.M. - 12:15 P.M. OPEN FORUM

Panel Facilitator: Dir. HERMINIA SAN JUAN,

DAR-SSO

12:15 P.M. -1:30 P.M. LUNCH BREAK

1:30 P.M. - 2:00 P.M. PANEL III: CLIMATE CHANGE, WATER RESOURCES AND COLLECTIVE ACTION

Speaker 4. Collec�ve Ac�on in the Water Resource Sector

JUDE ESGUERRA,
Execu�ve Director, IPD

Speaker 5. Collec�ve Ac�on in the Marine Resource Sector

DR. LAURA T. DAVID

Physical Oceanography,
UP Marine Science Ins�tute

2:00 P.M. - 2:45 P.M. OPEN FORUM

Panel Facilitator: Mr. RAMON MICLAT,

UP Marine Science Specialist

2:45 P.M. - 3:00 P.M. Recas�ng the Agrarian Reform Strategy

USEC. NARCISO B. NIETO

DAR Undersecretary,
Finance and Administra�on/
Project Implementa�on Officer, FAPs

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

34
3:15 P.M. – 4:00 P.M. PANEL IV: BROADER EFFECTS

I. Result of Luzon Workshop DRA. ROSA PEREZ

Na�onal Climate Expert

II. Result of Visayas Workshop DR. BUENAVENTURA DARGANTES, Visayas

State University

III. Result of Mindanao Workshop MS. VIRGINIA VERORA

Coordinator, IFAD

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

Panel Facilitator: MS. CARIDAD ASPIRAS, DAR

4:30 P.M. - 4:45 P.M. Next Steps AUREA M. TEVES

Execu�ve Director, PDI
President, FIAN-Philippines

4:45 P.M. - 5:00 P.M. Closing Remarks: Message from the President of PRRM

Mr. ISAGANI SERRANO

Member of PhilDel to the Climate Nego�a�ons
(Cope 16, Bonn Intercessional)

5:30 P.M. COCKTAILS

Overall Facilitators: Aurea M. Teves

Francisco Lara Jr.

USHERING A CLIMATE OF CHANGE :

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ASSET REFORM AND CLIMATE CHANGE

35
 Appendix B - LIist of Par�cipants

NAME ORGANIZATION 31. Alejandro Otacan DAR - Caraga

32. Casiano Eclar Jr. DAR
Donor Agencies 33. Teofilio Q. Inocencio DAR
1. Agus�na Musa ADB 34. Lev Nikko Macalintal DA
2. Agnes Pantas�co GTZ 35. Engr. Jeane�e Manuel NCIP
3. Takehike Sakata EoJ 36. Marcy Ballesteros DAR-PDMS
4. Yolando Arban IFAD 37. Anania Tagudin DAR-PDMS
5. Anna de Guzman German 38. Renato Navata DAR
Embassy 39. Manuel Abad DTI-CARP
6. Joy delos Reyes JICA 40. Marissa Presentasyon NIA
7. Erlinda Dolatre GTZ 41. Joel Pilapil PCA
8. NPC dela Rosa Interna�onal 42. Narciso Nieto DAR-USEC
Alert 43. Tony Evangelista DAR
9. Etsuko Taneda JICA 44. J. Dominador Gomez NEDA/CEDS
45. A.S. Sallidao NCIP-CO
Speakers 46. Ireneo Ramos DA/BSWM
10. Buenaventura Dargantes ISRDS-VSU 47. Ofelia Mendoza DENR/PDO
11. Jun Borras SMU Canada 48. Corazon Checa DENR/PEO
12. Danny Carranza Rightsnet 49. Homer Toblas DARPO I
13. Virginia Verora DAR-NMCIREMP 50. Aaron Lozada DAR
14. James Putzel LSE 51. Dianne delos Reyes DAR
15. Sunny Sevilla PDI Board 52. Roland Manalysay DARAB
16. Rosa Perez 53. Romeo Reyes IAS
17. Walden Bello Congress 54. Pearl Armada DAR IV-B
18. Grace Pascua NCIP 55. A�y. Ivy Magabo DAR
19. Ramon Miclat MSN c/o 56. Ma. Elena Cabanis BARBD
Comecab UPMST 57. Romeo Mendizabal DENR-CARP
20. Laura David UPMSI 58. Boobie Ceno LBP
21. Jude Esguerra IPD 59. Herminia San Juan DAR Director
22. Loida Rivera PASAMAKA-L 60. Rosie Villamin DPWH
23. Ria Teves PDI 61. Shiela Marie Encabo NEDA
62. Atanacia Guevarra BARC
Government Organiza�ons 63. Jaime Mata DAR OIC-Chief
24. Anselmo Sang Tian Butuan City 64. Medel Mercado DAR
Water District 65. Alberto Obcena DAR
25. Ernie Ruiz Butuan City 66. Isabelita Estrada PARC Sec.
Water District 67. Bong Mendoza UP
26. Elmo Bañanes DAR 68. Nelia Manahan DAR
27. Alexis Arsenal DAR 69. Rodolfo BM Bueno DAR
28. Julita Raganlang DAR 70. Nestor Bayoneto DAR
29. Felix Aguhob DAR 71. Dante de Leon DAR
30. Faiser Mambuay DAR - Caraga 72. N. Briones DAR

36
 73. Perla Baltar DA-PPO 116. Miriam C. UP
74. Chris Morales DA-PS 117. Romeo Royandoyan CSI
75. Wilfredo Cabagua DAR-PS 118. Raegan Gabriel La Liga
76. Sally Manuel DAR Policy Ins�tute
77. Jessie Colto DAR 119. Anthony Marzan Kaisahan
78. Rosalina Bistoyong DAR 120. Jennifer Corpuz Tebtebba
79. Liza Nepotedis SSO 121. Voltaire Tupaz TFIP
80. Cynthia Cander DAR 122. Aida Vidal CCODP
81. Ma. Susana Perez DAR-FAPSO 123. Carmina Flores-Obanil Focus on the
82. Datu Yusoph Mama DAR Global South
83. R.T Inson DAR 124. Heidi Fernandez Kaisampalad
84. Arnold Arriela DAR 125. Catherine Briola FIAN Phils.
85. Noemi Carpio DA 126. Raffy Rey Hipolito FIAN Phils.
86. Catalino Aus DAR 127. Aison Garcia Saligan
87. Lina Manlucao DAR 128. Arnold de Vera Saligan
88. Romualdo Mu�n DAR
129. Mary Ann Manahan Focus on the
89. Mike Benjamin
Global South
90. Celes�na Tam DAR
130. Ricky Gonzales IPD
91. J.S. Nepomuceno DAR/FAPSO
131. Larry Santos IPD
92. A�y. Percival Peralta DAR/FAPSO
132. Ricardo Reyes Akbayan
93. Ramon Estanislao III DAR Bulacan
133. Men Sta. Ana AER
94. MBV Tenetrancia DAR
134. Ruel Punongbayan PDI
95. Vergel Algador LGU
135. Ramon Ayco PDI
96. Virgilio Acuña DAR
136. Jofre Manankel
97. Corazon Cozy DAR
98. Gerundio Madueño Usec. –DAR
People’s Organiza�ons
137. Wynona Corilla SAMATT
Non- Government Organiza�ons
138. Danilo Salonga NASAKA-K
99. Lisa Alano AFRIM/ED
139. Fernando Luis CRPMPC
100. Reyduard Gelera JPMAP/ President
140. Carling Domulot, Sr. BUKAL
101. Emil Jus�mbaste PFI
141. Jessie Rey Davocol NASAKA-K
102. Philip Arandia
142. Acod Ampuan Kasabwahan,
103. A�y. Lee Bagadiong
Mindanao
104. Elin Mondejar PDI Board
143. Arthur Casiño Mindanao
105. Dra. Leila dela Llana FIAN
144. Amado Higante NMGL
106. Kaiser Recabo, Jr. LMDA
145. Baby Mangilit PASAMAKA
107. Ray Abanil KAISAMPALAD
146. Eva Manglicmot SMC
108. Arnold Tapere Propegemus FI
147. Azineth Cagaoan PASAMAKA
109. Rodel Sango Kaisampalad
148. Helen Abarra EPIK
110. Joanne Dulce SoG
149. Al Carillo PASAMBOT
111. Elvis Ayuda FIAN
150. Adora Ferrer NMGL
112. Leonora Ayuda FIAN
151. Lita Domacena LAKAS Women
113. Jeremy Balondo
152. Salome Hugante NMGL
114. Lorie Beyer EED-TFIP
153. Lourdes Macabasag NMGL
115. Isagani Serrano PRRM/President
154. Violeta de Guzman NMGL
37
 Appendix C - Steering Commi�ee

1. Usec. Narciso “ Boy” Nieto

2. Ria Miclat-Teves
3. Francisco “Pancho” Lara
4. Eddie Quitoriano

Appendix D - Secretariat

DAR
1. Caridad Aspiras
2. Gemma Falgus

PDI
3. Myrna Arandia
4. Gina de Fiesta
5. Analyn Osias
6. Dianna Ydia

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

38