Posted on August, 19 2014

In June, representatives from WWF-Indonesia and the district government of Mahakam Ulu visited Cordillera, the mountainous northern region of the Philippines, to learn how indigenous Philippine communities have benefited from the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. The IPRA is a national law which comprehensively recognizes indigenous peoples’ rights to their ancestral lands and has established the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) to safeguard the rights of native communities. The law also mandates the recognition of indigenous peoples’ representatives in government structures. Similarly, Indonesia issued two important regulations in relation to indigenous peoples. A 2012 constitutional court ruling allows indigenous peoples to reclaim their customary forests and a 2014 act allows them to reorganize their village structures based on customary systems (1).

The great parallels between the two countries created the perfect opportunity for a learning exchange between WWF-Indonesia and the indigenous groups of the Philippines. The exchange took place in two indigenous communities: the Ibaloi people in Tinongdan, Benguet and the Kankanaey people of the Fidelisan community in Sagada, Mountain Province (western and northern regions of Cordillera respectively). The WWF-Indonesia team drew inspiration and learned from “on the ground” experiences of the Philippine communities. Specifically, the team sought guidance concerning free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), resource management and the balance between traditional governance institutions and other governance approaches.

In the two communities, the group met with elected officials, traditional leaders, government institutions and the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (an Indigenous Peoples organization). The big challenge communities in the Philippines face in the implementation of the IPRA is the presence of conflicting laws governing land and resource use. For example, many of the ancestral lands of indigenous communities are in forest reserves and therefore are considered inalienable -- this makes the indigenous communities liable for occupying forest reservations. Another major issue relates to mineral resources, most of which are located in ancestral domains. There are many conflicts now between indigenous communities and mining companies. The delineation and awarding of ancestral land certificates is an expensive and lengthy process which is why very few indigenous communities have acquired legal recognition of their ancestral lands under the IPRA.

In terms of governance, the Tinongdan community adapted its traditional structure to more closely resemble the political administration of the state. This is because the community has become more mixed in composition and many of the traditional governance systems have already been assimilated into the state-imposed systems. On the other hand, the Fidelisan community has managed to maintain its traditional governance system (the dap-ay) and work collaboratively with the government system. For both communities, the socio-cultural aspects of the community remain under the jurisdiction of the traditional systems (such as council of elders).

For both communities, despite the differences in political systems in place, land tenure issues are a similar challenge. Many of the people do not hold legal titles over the lands that they occupy and use. Both communities are located in forest reserves but their presence in the area is allowed by the state in recognition of their prior occupation of such lands before the advent of government systems. However, because of this state the people do not have security of tenure.

In Tinongdan, because of the sustained struggle of the people, they earn some royalties from the dams that operate in the area and they also get a portion of the taxes paid by the mining companies. Such funds are coursed through the government bodies.

In Fidelisan, where no mining or other such activities are in place, and because the community is homogenous, the traditional system of resource use and management is still very much observed. The community regulates the harvesting of forest resources and the government respects such systems. For example, there is a total log ban in the Philippines, but people in Fidelisan can cut trees for their housing and fuel needs for as long as they do not sell the wood.

One of the highlights of the exchange also included discussions about FPIC, how this is obtained and who implements the process. The principle behind FPIC states that all communities have the right to give or withhold consent to projects that may affect their land. Consent is vital to ensure a level playing field between communities and the government or companies, but due to the dynamic nature of gaining authorization, challenges often arise in the actual process. Through the visits, WWF-Indonesia was able to talk with community members about how FPIC was being handled by the Philippine government (NCIP). The process is rather long and complex, and even the local government unit finds it challengening to implement. Community members and local authorities believe it is the community that should decide but under the NCIP guideline, it is the regional director of the NCIP who gives the certificate of consent. While it is recognized that this may be a safeguard for communities, it is felt that it takes away the community’s decision making authority. This helped the team to think through different approaches that may be used during the FPIC process in Indonesia.

This visit proved invaluable in the wealth of knowledge and information it provided. In regards to governance, the team uncovered an example in which modern and traditional political structures work collaboratively, as in Sagada. Imposed governance systems will work after a period of time and when it allows for communities to adopt some of their traditional systems, such as in the case of Tinongdan. When it comes to resource management, the team was impressed by the community awareness around the need to conserve scarce resources. A final lesson the team learned was that of transparency. In the town hall of Tinongdan, the barangay council (the administration of the village) prominently displays its finance and activity report for all those interested to see. Such a practice, WWF-Indonesia believes, would do well to ensure transparency at the village level once introduced in Kalimantan.

Concluding their travels, the WWF-Indonesia team arrived home armed with the valuable local-level lessons learned to help implement these new policies in a way that ensures communities can take the lead in managing their lands and resources sustainability.

(Reporting contributed by Jasmine Benjamin and Minnie Degawan of the WWF Forest and Climate Programme, and Zulfira Warta, WWF-Indonesia)

 (1) 2012 court ruling decision #35 on separation of customary forest area; 2014 act #6 related to villages.