FINAL CONFLICT MAP

Conflict Assessment Report- Maasin, Iloilo

Mediators Network for Sustainable Peace(MedNet), Inc. -Visayas

Introduction:

The municipality of Maasin was chosen to be one of the project sites of KZE project. Maasin was given priority because of its contribution to the water supply in the province of Iloilo particularly in the city. Also, resource used conflicts are prevalent in terms of conservation, protection and usage of resources derive from the Maasin watershed. The Peoples Organization and NGO in the area expressed their willingness to assist in the implementation of the project.

Key Informants interview was conducted in the four barangays of Maasin watershed. It was decided to conduct the interviews in four barangays out of the sixteen that consistthe area of watershed. The four barangays are strategically located at the major points of the watershed and are subject of previous conservation, protection and rehabilitation projects of the different civil society groups and agencies. Other interviewees include members of people’s organization which are representatives of barangay organizations in sixteen barangays inside the Maasin watershed area. FGDs were also conducted with four groups of stakeholders: The KAPAWA, Barangay Councils, members of PAMB and the barangay organizations.Consultations with the representatives of the LGU and MIWD were initiated during the Management Board regular meeting.

Findings:

The following are two major conflicts perceived to have an impact on the Protection, Rehabilitation and Conservation of Maasin Watershed:

1. Conflict over the benefits derived from the use of resources of Maasin Watershed among and between the people in the area and government instrumentalities that has the mandate to utilize and distribute the resources of the area – WATER.

Background of the conflict:

In the 1990s, the Metro Iloilo Water District (MIWD) sourced 72 percent of its water requirement from the Maasin catchment but due to lack of coordination among its users and conflicts in strategies in preservation, it resulted to the gradual withering of the watershed which forced the MIWD to began exploring other sources like surface and deep wells. But the latter resources have also diminished due to continuous diggings of private wells within MIWDs concession area.

It is at this time that concerned agencies intervened and implemented the Comprehensive Site Development Project of the Maasin Watershed that includes rehabilitation of a portion of denuded forest areas by contracting local communities as their partner to the said project. In exchange for their participation, they have to give-up their farmlots inside the designated areas of the project. In turn the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) through the Forestry Sector created the Sub-Project Site Management Office (SUSIMO), hired the local community members as workers or contractors for the reforestation of the area either as area caretaker or seedling provider with fixed payment per seedling or area planted.

To further support the initiative done in rehabilitating and to preserve the Maasin Watershed from future denudation from human activities, the local government of Maasin passed a resolution prohibiting all agricultural activities inside the Maasin Watershed.

The MIWD on its part contributed one million peso (P1,000,000.00) to the management of watershed through the DENR and LGU but discontinued the said contribution as they were not satisfied with the way their contribution have been used.

Local organizations were organized at the barangay level and later on were formed into a federation (Katilingban sang Pumuluyo nga naga-Atipan sa Watershed sang Maasin, KAPAWA-Maasin) to manage the reforestation efforts of government and private sectors. To sustain the organization and to help its members increase their income, the KAPAWA established a cooperative primarily to finance and market the products of its members.

Conflicts with regard to the conservation, protection, and rehabilitation (CPR) of the Maasin Watershed began to surface after the termination of the project by the Forestry Sector of DENR which provided funds for the rehabilitation of a portion of Maasin Watershed.

The residents inside the watershed area are dependent on farming. They gave up their farm lots in exchange for their participation in the tree planting activities of the said project by either contracting a specified area or providing seedlings to the project. Since the project has been terminated and the funds have been exhausted, they have been left without any primary source of income that could sustain their daily living. Livelihood projects were set-up for members of organization deputized to help in the CPR – but this could barely give them enough income for their families.

Issues and Concerns:

  1. Compensation benefits of local forest rangers:

One of the duties of the local people’s organization is to provide forest rangers from their ranks, to protect the so-called critical portion of watershed area and to apprehend and report the violators to their organization for proper action. They were provided before with a compensation of six hundred pesos (P600.00) per month from the contribution of the provincial government which were then given to them directly. But this was cut-off by the provincial government and instead hired six regular forest rangers which are not members of the local organization. The burden of responsibility now lies on the shoulder of the federation which is also faced with financial difficulties. This resulted to in-activity of the local forest rangers which they think are very vital in protecting the watershed area.Given the extent of area to be guarded by forest rangers, they have to leave their livelihood unattended during their rounds inside the watershed. Continued non payment of their allowances may result to inactivity that will place the watershed in further encroachment.

.

  1. Continued practice of slash-n-burn farming inside the watershed:

Faced with lack of economic opportunities, the people especially the members of the local organizations were forced to take action illegally by tilling portion of watershed for their livelihood. This puts the organization in a very difficult situation since they have duties to perform by strictly enforcing the law prohibiting any agricultural activities in the area at the same time protecting the lives of its members by providing them additional source of income. According to interviewees, the organizations livelihood programs for members are limited due to its financial difficulties.

  1. Problems affecting relationship between members of the organization:

For some members, relational issue is slowly developing within the organization due to the mandate of the organization as a major partner of the government agency in the protection of watershed and the continued practice of “kaingin” by some members to augment their family income. There are already a number of cases filed in courts by the organization against their members who violated the law. Another factor that creates relational issues is those involvedin the livelihood program of the organization. Some members were unable to fulfill their obligation to the organization with regards to their balances on their loans and non-cooperation in the activities undertaken by the organization. Funds intended for the livelihood of members were sometimes used for the allowances of forest rangers.

  1. Problem on Data ( “Users’ Fee”)

The local communities of Maasin watershed including its Local Government Unit believes that there should be a fixed amount or formula to be used in determining the amount intended forthe LGU by the concessionaire (MIWD) as stated in the Local Government Code and other laws that governs monetary compensation to the LGU where the natural resource is located. On the other hand the, the MIWD has been giving its share to the management of watershed through the provincial government as stipulated in their franchise approved by the Congress of the Philippines. The MIWD is firm on its stand that their obligation is solely to provide potable water to areas specified in the franchise.

Stakeholders Matrix:

Stakeholder / Position / Interest / Level of Motivation / Level of Influence / Source of Power
1. Upland Communities
>Barangay Councils
> Local Organizations / 1.Be allowed to till portion of land inside the watershed
2. Financial equivalent for every services rendered for the protection of watershed / 1. Regular source of income / High / High / 1. Member of a federation which is duly recognized by government structures as major partner in watershed management
2. Formal Authority- bgay councils has imminent power derived from LGC to assert its share in the extraction of resources in their locality.
2. Local Government unit (Maasin) / 1. MIWD should remit their share to the treasury of the municipality.
2. Strict implementation of the law especially the local ordinance prohibiting any agricultural activities inside the critical area of the watershed.
3. Lower the cost of water supply in the municipality and access to potable water by establishing public faucet at strategic places. / Be able to provide basic services to the people in upland areas
To provide alternative livelihood to its constituents in watershed areas from the share of MIWD. / Low to moderate / High / Formal authority – can demand rightful contribution based on existing laws.
3. National Government Agency (DENR) / Implement the law- this may sometime costs the peoples livelihood but need to be enforced. / Sustain the gains achieved in rehabilitating the watershed / Moderate / High / Procedural power – as the lead agency of Protected Area Management Board, it can facilitate the dialogue among stakeholders
4. The PO Federation / Regular compensation to its members performing as forest rangers.
Allocation of funds for the livelihood of members affected and are involved in the rehabilitation and protection of the watershed / Motivation of members to actively participate in all organizational activities without having to worry so much for their daily needs.
Funds intended for allowances of forest rangers can be used for the welfare of more members. / High / High / Nuisance – could rally its member association in sixteen barangays
5. Metro Iloilo Water District (MIWD) / Guarding of watershed is not MIWDs obligation, it is the responsibility of local police or AFP if there are violators encroaching the area.
The 1% percent contribution from the profit shall be remitted to provincial treasury. / Continued supply of water
Upgrading of water facilities to serve more areas / Low / Low / Resource power- has the control of money and facilities

Force Field Analysis of the Conflict:

The continued defiance of Metro Iloilo Water District to contribute to the protection of watershed to the local government unit of Maasinaffects the capability of local communitiesto protect the watershed area from further destruction. Although, several projects have been introduced and sourced out through the people’s organization to generate income for the livelihood of local communities and to provide forest guards in the watershed, it is not enough to contain the illegal activities inside the watershed.

Secondly, the people in the upper portion are slowly losing interest to participate in the protection and rehabilitation efforts of the watershed unless they are compensated for the time and effort they spent in such activities. This is a strong indication that the needs of the people in the area should be given consideration by the users and management of the Maasin watershed.

Factors that could contribute to the escalation of conflict and hinder the resolution process:

  1. Continued defiance of MIWD to contribute financially to the management of watershed out of their income generated from their extraction of water from Maasin could be viewed by the local communities as an act of taking advantage of their concern and participation in rehabilitating and protecting the area.
  2. Lack of interest on the part of the local government to assert its right in demanding contribution from MIWD.
  3. Non clarification of the previous contributions made by MIWD to the DENR and LGU for the management of watershed.

Functional ingredients of conflict resolution:

  1. All parties are willing to resolve the issue on “user’s fee” through a facilitated process. The Protected Area Management Board could act as convener on this issue as all parties are represented in the board.
  2. The issues on Forest Rangers Disallowance, continued practice of slash-n-burn farming are results of non-generation of income from the use of watershed resources by MIWD. All parties agreed that this will be resolved as long as there is clear indication that financial assistance will be pouring in upon the resolution of user’s fee issue.

`

Conclusions:

The Maasin watershed is the only source of potable water by the MIWD to the residents of IloiloCity and four municipalities along its way. It is therefore in the interest of MIWD to preserve the resources of Maasin for continued supply of water to its constituents. While the people in the watershed are still willing to protect the area, their needs and livelihood should not be jeopardized during their participation in protection efforts. In the conduct of FGDs and interviews, the need to compensate the people of the efforts they render in protecting the watershed should be addressed.

Recommendations:

Primary recommendations gathered throughFGDs and interviews.

  1. All representatives in the conflict resolution conference should be an official of the agency that could give commitment to any agreements that may come up in the process.
  2. Areas for protection and rehabilitation should be identified. Activities and financial needs in implementing these should be presented to the LGU MIWDfor their financial commitment.
  3. Clarification of previous disagreements on the usage of financial contribution of MIWD to the LGU and DENR.
  4. Allocating areas for agricultural activities of the communities.
  5. Regularization of forest rangers.

Since all stakeholders are represented in the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) of Maasin Watershed, a dialogue between and among the stakeholders could be considered a big possibility. It was not only discussed well during their previous meetings due to lack of focus to this issue. PAMB as a mechanism for dispute resolution is in a natural position to convene and initiate the dispute resolution process.

2.Conflict over subdivision of 24has. lot at the boundary of watershed area.

Background of the conflict:

In early 1990s, a Comprehensive Site Development Project was implemented for the rehabilitation of Maasin watershed. The entire Maasin watershed was resurveyed and relocated its boundaries as well as constructing road access to the area. Thus, affecting several parcel of lands located along the boundary of Maasin Watershed. The case at hand is one among several unresolved boundary conflicts in the area.

The area in conflict is a 24 hectare lot of Simeon Marbebe, located at Bgy. Bolo, Maasin, Iloilo, by his heirs. It is situated at the boundary of Maasin watershed. In early years, Simeon Marbebe distributed the said land among his five siblings as his inheritance to them. Since technology to determine the exact location and area at that time is not available to them, the old Marbebe used an indigenous method to subdivide the said property in particular using trees and rivers as monument for boundaries. Not until in the 1960s that the said land was surveyed and registered to the Registry of Deeds (RoD)

In the late eighties, the conflict began to develop among the siblings of Simeon Marbebe. Unequal distribution of land was the main issue to them, one party having smaller area than the other sibling. The other issue was a conflict in the documentation of the survey. There was an interchange of name in the document that resulted to a long legal battle in the court between the two siblings. In 1991, the said case was decided by the court, settling the issue of interchange of name in the survey document. But the conflict continued, again raising the question of boundaries. Efforts to settle the issue was repeatedly undertaken by concerned relatives by hiring private surveyor -- but disagreements on where the monument was previously located as compared to their actual possession created tension among them. Thus -- the surveyor halted its survey activities.

To add to the existing problem, a recent document obtained by them from RoD, indicates that a portion of 24 hectare lot was within the watershed area. Two lots will be affected if the new document will be used as base document to their planned resurvey.

Issues and concerns:

  1. Access to farm to market road:

The land was subdivided by the old Marbebe during the time that the area was inaccessible to any type of motorized transportation. When the farm to market road was constructed, other parcel of lots were not accessible to the road.

  1. Security of tenure:

Because of unclear location of boundaries of parcel of land of each family, claims of portion of land being occupied by one family are normal occurrence in the area. This resulted to non-development of the area as they were apprehensive to make any development pending the final determination of boundaries. A possibility of some portion of lands is within the watershed area poses another concern to them as it may affect the actual possession of some families.