Jerome R. Ignacio

Integrated Rural Development Foundation of the Philippines (IRDF) 1

Outline:

I.                     Brief Profile of Dingalan

A.      Physical Profile

B.      Historical Background

C.      Dingalan’s Natural Resources

D.      Agricultural Condition

II.                   Threats and On-Going Degradation of Dingalan’s Natural Resources

A.      Commercial Logging

B.      Mining

C.      Pacific Coast Cities Development Plan

D.      Other Threats

III.                  Responding to Environmental Issues and the Plight of Dingalan People

A.      Characteristic of the Issues

B.      The IRDF Project in Dingalan

C.      Strategies and Methodologies

D.      Initial Assessment of the Initiatives

IV.                Lessons Learned

A.      Problems/Factors Hindering Implementation

B.      Lessons Learned

I.                    BRIEF PROFILE OF DINGALAN

A.      The Municipality of Dingalan

“Dingalan” is a Dumagat word, which means, “by the side of River Galan.” It was told that Dumagat people gave the names of almost all rivers, creeks, mountains, and hills in Dingalan since they were the original inhabitants of this mountainous land.

Much of the harsh and difficult living conditions in the uplands of Dingalan have remained. The Dumagats continues most of their nomadic ways while the non-Dumagat farmers are still striving to enrich their land and defend them against land grabbers. But although Dingalan has remained a poor municipality, its forest resources has significantly contributed to the country’s economy by being one of the major sources of timber during the period when timber, together with copra and sugar, are among the country’s prime exports.

Dingalan used to be just a sitio of San Luis, when the latter was still a barangay of Baler, when Baler was still a town of Tayabas. The Municipality of Dingalan was founded on June 16, 1962 by virtue of Republic Act 3490. It is now divided into 11 barangays with 76 purok or sitio. Dingalan has a total population of 19,312 and a total household population of 3,855.

Dingalan is the southernmost municipality of Aurora province. It is located at the mid-section of the Sierra Madre Mountain Range and is surrounded by natural borders. To the north is the Mingan Mountains which separates Dingalan from San Luis and the rest of the Aurora towns; to the west are the mountain ridges of Sierra Madre that separate Dingalan from the provinces of Nueva Ecija and Bulacan; to the south is the Umiray River and the vast mountains of northern Quezon; and to the east is the Pacific Ocean.

Dingalan can be reached by land through the highway passing through Cabanatuan City. Approximate distance from Metro Manila to Dingalan is 182 kilometers. Although it is part of Aurora province, there is no available infrastructure that directly links Dingalan to the other towns of Aurora.

Dingalan has a total land area of 40,084.95 hectares (including about 10,000 hectares being contested by the provinces of Quezon and Nueva Ecija.) The land is generally hilly to mountainous with narrow strips of plain lands along the coast. Valleys can also be found along Dingalan’s 18 major rivers and creeks. Dingalan has 35 kilometers of coastline.

The climate in Dingalan is categorized as Type IV Climate in Corona’s Classification System. There is no exact distinction between the rainy season and the dry season. Rains are also experienced in supposedly dry months. The heaviest rains occur during the months of October to December, which coincides with strong sea current during September to February. According to residents, the strongest wind that hit Dingalan was brought by typhoon Kading on Ocotber 26, 1978 (more than 200 kph).

B.      Historical Background

The Dumagat people are the original inhabitants of Dingalan. They are a nomadic tribe. They move from one place to another depending largely on their hunting calendar. They usually hunt wild pigs and deer. Aside from hunting, they gather fruits and rootcrops. They also fish in the rivers and near the coasts using spears. The Dumagats roam freely around Dingalan until the onset of the 1900s.

During the early 1900s, farmers from Quezon, Nueva Ecija, and Ilocos provinces have already started migrating to Dingalan. These settlers complain they have no land to till in the provinces where they come from. For a long time the Dumagat people simply move away whenever settlers arrive. It was the start of difficult cultural exchange between a nomadic tribe and settlers looking for land to till.

The local condition changed rapidly when commercial loggers started to invade Dingalan. Don Felipe M. Buencamino spearheaded logging operations when he opened the first sawmill there during the 1930s. With its growing operations, logging started to compete for space with the Dumagat people and the farmer settlers. Buencamino’s sawmill occupied plain lands in northern Dingalan and the cutting of logs started to drive wild life.

Since then, commercial logging in Dingalan went on almost completely undisturbed until now. During the second world war, Japanese forces took over the logging operation of Buencamino to supply lumber for their barracks and other infrastructures. After the war, the Dingalan Forest Products Corporation (DFPC) was set-up. In the early 60s, Roberto Gopuansuy put up the South Eastern Timber Corporation (SETIC). DFPC operated in northern Dingalan while SETIC operated in southern Dingalan. During that period, DFPC and SETIC were exporting round timber directly to Japan and other countries. Labor disputes crippled the operations of DFPC in the early 1970s prompting it to shut down leaving hundreds of its former workers with no alternative livelihood but to farm. After DFPC closed down, Dingalan Wood Industries Corporation (DWICO) took over the logging area of DFPC. During the 1980s, a new company Inter-Pacific Forest Resources Company (IFRC) operated in Dingalan.

During the 1980s, conflicts between logging companies were becoming more intense as less and less good timber can be found in the forest. For instance, various hauler-contractors of IFRC started to fight over who will haul which logs. SETIC also started to intrude into the concession area of Rabago, which operates in Quezon province. Later on, IFRC and SETIC started fighting over concession boundaries.

Logging was temporarily stopped in 1995, after more than 50 years of continuous logging. At that period, more than 90% of original forest cover of Dingalan have been cut leaving behind less than 2% old growth dipterocarp forest.

Logging also threatened the lives and livelihood of the indigenous people and the growing number of farmer-settlers. By the time Dingalan Municipality was founded, almost all lands classified as alienable and disposable have been titled to the names of owners of logging companies. Don Felipe Buencamino became the owner of all plain lands in the old town center, Soriano-Montenegro Investment (Soriamont) and Roberto Gopuansuy shared ownership over more than 30,000 hectares of largely mountainous land in southern Dingalan and portion of Gen. Nakar, Quezon. Presently, the Green Circle Properties and Resources (GCPR) under the representation of Atty. Romeo Roxas jumped into the bandwagon as it claims ownership of former estates claimed by Gopuansuy and Soriamont. It is also reportedly buying the properties of IFRC and the heirs of Buencamino.

Aside from logging, Dingalan has also become a site of major military activities in the country. Dingalan Bay was among the last exit points used by Japanese forces in 1945. After the war, a large portion of its mountain was declared training ground of the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1957. It has become sites of successive US-RP Balikatan Military Exercises from 1982 to 1984.

These military events directly threatened the lives and livelihood of the local inhabitants. The declaration of the SEATO training ground encroaches on upland villages of Dumagat and non-Dumagat people. The military exercises and actual battles that happened there caused damaged not only to crops and livelihood but also to the lives of many people in Dingalan.

C.      Dingalan’s Natural Resources

Before the massive deforestation, more than 90 percent of the total land area of Dingalan was Dipterocarp Forest and Mossy Forest. It has been home to different wild animals such as the Philippine Deer, Wild Pig, Philippine Hawk Eagle, Large Bats and Water Monitor Lizards.

In 1991, according to a survey conducted by NAMRIA, out of a total area of 28,980 hectares, only 437 hectares of old growth dipterocarp forest are left, and 16,591 hectares of residual dipterocarp forest remain. On the other hand, there were 1,031 hectares of sub-marginal forest and 4,191 hectares of brushland and grassland.

Dingalan also has nine watersheds namely Dingalan, Dikapanikian, Agria-Paltic, Amutan, Ibuna, Malamig-Biga-Iyapit, Malacauayan, Umiray, and Calmon-Sumacbao-Santor. Major rivers supply most of the local household and agricultural water needs. Furthermore, Umiray River now supplies water to Angat Dam in Bulacan through the Umiray Angat Transbasin project. Out of the nine watersheds, only one, Dingalan Watershed Reservation, has been proclaimed through a law signed by former President Fidel Ramos.

Dingalan is endowed with rich coastal-marine resources. Dingalan has about 35 kilometers of coastline along which two major coral reef areas are found – Cabog and Agria Point. Dingalan is among the regular target areas of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for the establishment of marine sanctuary. Fish catch in Dingalan includes blue marlin (malasugi), yellow fin tuna, galunggong, salmon, dolphin fish (dorado), Spanish mackerel (tangigue), barracuda (panghaluan), lapu-lapu, sapsap, juvenile big-eye scad (buraw) and others.

Aside from its forest and aquatic resources, Dingalan is said to be rich in mineral deposits of copper, silica and limestone. There were also indications of gold deposits.

D.      Agricultural Condition

Dingalan is an agricultural municipality. More than half of its 3,855-household population depends on agriculture for their food and livelihood. Based on the Barangay Socio-Economic Inventories conducted by the local government in 1997, the productive agricultural land in Dingalan covers 2,267.21 hectares. Major crops planted are rice, coconut, fruits, vegetables and spices.

Rice is the primary crop. Based on statistics given by the municipal government, Dingalan harvests an average of 4,684 metric tons of rice every year. A total of 907 hectares of land is planted to rice. Such production indicates self-sufficiency in rice. Based on computations of Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS), each Filipino consumed an average of 97.24 kilograms of rice in 1997 or 266.42 grams each day. The 4,684 metric tons of rice produced in Dingalan yearly is equivalent to 2,810.40 to 3,044.60 metric tons of milled rice. Hence, after dividing by 19,312 total population in Dingalan, about 145.53 kg. to 157.65 kg of rice is available to every resident of Dingalan every year – this is way above the national average of 97.24 kilograms per individual.

Aside from lowland rice production, upland farmers continue to plant traditional rice varieties in Tapaw, Kailugan and upper Umiray. Upland farms are also planted with coconut and banana while there is an apparent expansion in the planting of abaca, coffee, rambutan and citrus. Fruit trees like jackfruit, avocado, indian mango, native santol and wild rambutan are commonly found in local upland farms.

Vegetable farming is also expanding in Dingalan. Inspite of the lack and poor condition of farm to market roads and absence of post-harvest facilities, more and more farmers are striving to ameliorate their income by testing and expanding their vegetable farms.

Next to farming, fishing is the second most important economic activity in Dingalan. Around 1,000 families are dependent on fishing as their livelihood. Dingalan has rich water resources. Its 35-kilometer coastline is roughly equivalent to 52,500 hectares of municipal waters. Although the municipal government has no data on total fish landing in Dingalan, the daily transport of high quality fish from Dingalan to Navotas and Dagupan by jeeps, vans and trucks gives a clue about the large volume of fish being marketed. This does not include the hundreds of retailers who picks fish in Dingalan and sells them in neighboring Nueva Ecija towns.

II.                  Threats and On-going Degradation of Dingalan’s Natural Resources

A.      Commercial Logging

Commercial logging operation continues to pose threats not only to the environment but also to the lives and safety of the people of Dingalan. The high elevation, steep slopes and long rainy months make Dingalan highly susceptible to soil erosion, flashfloods and landslides which have already caused lives of peasants in the past. More than half of the total land area of Dingalan has an elevation of 300 meters while one-third of the area has an elevation of 500 meters. More than half of Dingalan’s land also has a slope of more than 50%.

Last August 7, 2000, Cerilles signed a “provisional” ECC for the Special Private Land Timber License No. 5 in favor of the Green Circle Properties and Resources (GCPR). This provision allows GCPR to conduct logging operation on 27,851 hectares of land and with an annual allowable cutting volume of 22,645 cubic meters from 447 hectares (this is equivalent to more than 600 ten-wheeler-truck loads of lumber every year). It is a “special private land timber license” since GCPR claims private ownership to about 27,851 hectares of mountains, rivers and creeks.

The said provision contravenes a study conducted by the DENR under former Secretary Victor Ramos. The study found out that logging is no longer feasible in the area after the cutting and re-cutting operations conducted by SETIC there from 1960s to 1995. Moreover, according to a survey conducted by NAMRIA in 1991, out of the sample area of 28,980 hectares, only 437 hectares or 1.5 percent of old growth dipterocarp forest remain. Dumagat communities attested that only small trees have been left in the GCPR claimed area.

GCPR has started operation sometime in September or October 2000. From the start, it has been violating conditions of its license. It first resorted to buying logs from water-logging – these are usually small logs cut near the rivers, hauled manually to the riverbank, and transported to GCPR Saw Mill by making it float on the river. It also put up three mini-saw mills along Umiray River so that small logs are cut into lumber before transporting to GCPR sawmill – this way, small logs will not be noticed. Recently, it employed about 12 bulldozers and more than a dozen of heavy duty trucks to haul logs from the mountain. But because there were no big trees in designated logging sites, the bulldozers and trucks have to go further. They are now cutting logs outside the designated cutting area and some are also outside the claimed private land of GCPR.

Since GCPR started its logging operations, illegal loggers sprouted almost everywhere – many of whom are said to be paying royalties to GCPR since they use GCPRs license when transporting lumber from Dingalan to Metro Manila or other provinces. IFRC also started operating its sawmill after “arrangements” were done with GCPR and local environment officials. IFRC’s concession was covered by the 1995 log ban. The operation of its sawmill now is not covered by any ECC.

The on-going logging operations directly affects the natural capacity of the forest to recover. Based on a survey initiated by community members and one forester, trees in the residual forests of Dingalan and portion of Gen. Nakar are still small measuring from 20 to 50 cm (dbh). Selective logging method prescribes that loggers can only cut trees measuring 70 cm (dbh) and 50% of trees measuring 60 cm (dbh). This is to allow natural regeneration of forest species. Cutting of trees near rivers is also prohibited. Because there are no more big trees in prescribed cutting areas, GCPR may be forcing its logging workers to cut even the small trees and to cut trees that are outside the prescribed cutting area.

If the situation continues, it will not be impossible that in the next ten years, the residual forest in southern Dingalan and portion of Gen. Nakar will become cogonal lands similar to the first logging areas in northern Dingalan.

B.      Mining

At present, there are eight mining applications in Dingalan. Their combined mining claims is 49,146.88 hectares, about 9,000 hectares more than Dingalan’s land area. Out of these eight applications, Green Square Properties Corporation (GSPC), a sister company of GCPR, is the most active having acquired an exploration permit from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau. GSPC’s link with GCPR makes the situation more alarming for the residents of Dingalan. The growing number of bulldozers being dispatched by the company in the mountains of Umiray raised questions and anxieties on whether GCPR/GSPC is only logging or is it already preparing for its mining operation.

Mining will no doubt exacerbate the deteriorating conditions of Dingalan’s natural resources. Dingalan is classified as a critical ecoligical zone. It serves as a buffer from extreme weather conditions (such as heavy winds and rains) that come from the Pacific. At stake are the different ecosystems – the forests/mountains, watersheds, valleys, and the coastal areas.

Mining activities will also affect the lives and livelihood of thousand of farmers and fisherfolk who now consists about 80% of Dingalan’s population.

C.      Pacific Coast Cities

According to statements made by GCPR/GSPC, the real goal of their program is to build the Pacific Coast Cities – a project that will curve out a new city in Dingalan and Gen. Nakar towns and put up its center in its claimed properties in Barangay Umiray.

The new city will host national government offices as well as regional and international business centers. It will put up central business districts similar to those in Makati and Ortigas, allot space for national government agencies, establish a new University City, an Industrial City for medium and heavy industries, international port, and resort and recreation area for tourists, business executives and government officials.

The project will directly affect the people of Dingalan since infrastructures for the Pacific Coast Cities will be built on lands that are the most productive agricultural lands in Dingalan at present. Reading materials produced by GCPR/GSPC pointed out that the flat and moderately sloping lands in Dingalan are the most favorable sites for building infrastructures of the envisioned cities.

Fisherfolk communities will also be affected. The planned internatinal port, yacht club, beach resorts, and coastal vacation houses will mean dislocation of their communities. The opening of an international port also poses grave danger to the coral reef found around Dingalan Bay.

Meanwhile, the question, “how GCPR/GSPC will finance this ambitious project?” remain a puzzle. Right now, many countries are undergoing some sorts of economic difficulties, our currency remains weak against the dollar, and most foreign investments in the country are portfolio investments.

Questions on technicalities are also being raised. For instance, there are no comprehensive studies on the feasibility and the actual need for setting-up such infrastructures and how these plans are integrated in development plans of regions that will be affected, which consist of Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog and National Capital Region. There are also no studies on how the remaining forest resources will be preserved, given the fact that the claimed private land of GCPR/GSPC is surrounded by declared protected areas which include the watershed reservation covering the upper part of Umiray River. There are no plans on how the rights of indigenous people will protected.

The project Pacific Coast Cities raises a lot of issues. One major issue that should be addressed is on national patrimony – does it justify the act of granting the sole right to utilize thousands of hectares of land, natural resources, and ancestral lands to a group of individuals or a company such as GCPR/GSPC. Aside from the 30,000 hectares of land that was declared by deposed President Estrada as Special Economic Zone, GCPR/GSPC also grandiosely drafted the development plan for about 240,000 hectares of land that include the whole of Dingalan, portions of Nueva Ecija and Bulacan provinces, parts of Metro Manila, and the provinces of Rizal, Laguna and Quezon.

If allowed to continue with its plans, the development plan will disenfranchise Dumagat people of their ancestral domain, peasant settlements can be overran by infrastructures, even barangay sites can be overran since documents show that barangay sites in southern Dingalan are part of GCPR/GSPC estates.

Leaders of peasant and indigenous people in dingalan listed down three major reasons why the Pacific Coast Cities should be stopped.

First, Pacific Coast Cities uses the “promise of development” to grab thousands of hectares of land from the farmers and indigenous people in Dingalan and Gen. Nakar. In the name of “development,” GCPR/GSPC people warned CLOA holders that they can do nothing but surrender their land rights to the company. They explained that CLOA holders have three choices: a) sell their lands to the company; b) share their lands with the company or; c) lease their lands to the company. Last year, Atty. Roxas requested the Department of Agrarian Reform to cancel all CLOAs within his claimed property. GCPR’s logging operations also affirms its private claim since DENR awarded the company a “private land timber license. ”

Second, while the project is remotely underway, its proponents, the GCPR/GSPC, have been using the “development plan” to justify its logging operations and mining plans.

And third, true development, in the case of Dingalan, is the development or progress in the existing livelihood of majority of the people, particularly in agriculture and fishery. Even the government accedes that Dingalan’s agriculture and fishery sectors are productive and possess great potentials. At present, at least 3,000 households out of the 3,855 households in Dingalan rely on agriculture and fishery as their means of living. This means that if only the government would render economic support to these two sectors, 3,000 families in Dingalan would directly benefit from it, while subsequently adding to food security in the country.

                  D. Other Threats

Dingalan faces several other threats to its environmental resources. First is the opening of Umiray-Angat Transbasin project which diverted water flow from the Umiray River to Angat Dam in Bulacan through a tunnel. Its operation started just last year and yet, Umiray residents already feel its harsh effects. The water level of the river decreased significantly, thus affecting the only means of transportation of about 1,000 families living in upper Umiray communities. Boats that used to regularly transport people or goods from the mouth of Umiray River to Libutan have been unable to pass smoothly through half of the route. On the other hand, the residents also face the threat of a flashflood whenever it rains hard.

Regarding biodiversity, people have observed the influx of tilapia and carp fishes that came from Angat Dam. Though this may seem favorable, it however threatens the original species found in Umiray River.

In agriculture, the sudden expansion of vegetable farming in the uplands raised the danger of soil erosion. The need to cope with market demands abruptly changes the farming practices of upland farmers. Less and less traditional upland rice are being planted in favor of planting tomatoes, gabi and spices. But the topographical condition and the local climate keep such practices at the minimum. At most, a farmer will be planting vegetable on one-fourth hectare lots only since other portions of his farm may not be suitble to vegetable crops. It can be said that the rugged terrain of Dingalan helps preserve biodiversity since most of its land cannot be developed for agriculture.

In the fishery sector, signs of overfishing are becoming more apparent. For instance, in gathering bangus fry, old timers observe that their catch has been declining in the past five years as more and more people gather bangus fry. There were also many cases wherein “sabalo” (matured bangus) are caught in nets of fishermen.

A recent sampling survey of Dingalan’s coral reefs also showed signs of damages caused by blast fishing. But the coral reef located in the outer portion of the bay is believed to be in better condition since they are hardly visited by fishers because of the rough seas and protruding rocks. The sampling survey also showed good quality of seawater and the fast recovery of some damaged corals. The Bureau of Fisheries have been planing to set up a marine sanctuary in Dingalan, but due to the planned construction of the international port, the project is still pending.

III.                RESPONDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND THE PLIGHT OF DINGALAN PEOPLE

A.      Characteristics of the Issues

The problems currently facing the people of Dingalan is but one of hundreds of other land-related cases confronting the Philippine countryside.

But Dingalan is unique. First, it is one land case that represents the current struggles of the Filipino peasants against mining operations, logging concessionaires and destructive “development” projects. Secondly, the Pacific Coast Cities project is by far the biggest such project being initiated in the country. And lastly, the project puts forward anew the issues of destructive mining and logging operations, environmental degradation, food security, human rights violations, ancestral domain and land reform reversals.

The Dingalan case depicts how private interests exploits the natural resources in the name of “development.” Their exploitation of the natural resources is exhaustive – from trees to mine deposits to land speculation. This is done without considering its effects to the critical ecological condition of Dingalan. It put at stake a large tropical ecosystem. The benefit from such exploitation is the accumulation of gigantic profits by private interests, particularly GCPR/GSPC.

Logging, mining and real estate development also put at stake the survival of the indigenous people’s communities and other peasant settlements in Dingalan and Gen. Nakar. It threatens the local farming and fishing activities, which are the primary sources of livelihood there. It threatens the ancestral domain claims of the Dumagat and their right to self-determination. It threatens the peasant communities who in the past fifty years have been pushing government to recognize their rights to the land they till. Hence the present threat to the natural resources of Dingalan is also equivalent to the threat to the land rights claim of the Dumagat and other peasant communities in the affected areas.

B.      The IRDF Project in Dingalan

Title of the Project:       Developing Sustainable Community-Based Resource Management Systems in Critical Ecozones in Dingalan

The project aims to help empower communities to have greater access to and control over resources; specifically, the project will help develop their capacity to identify their needs and problems, formulate appropriate resource management plans and utilize and manage their resources on a sustainable basis to meet short and long-term community goals.

To meet this, the project combines both community development strategies and resource conservation efforts.

IRDF employs a community-based, system-oriented and participatory approach to development and resource management. This approach recognizes the crucial roles of communities in sustaining the regeneration and conservation of the natural resources in Dingalan. Hence, the project puts primary emphasis on empowering the farming, fishing and indigenous people’s communities to enable them to gain greater access and control over their resources and manage these resources in a sustainable manner.

C.      Strategies and Methodologies

The IRDF project in Dingalan has four major components, namely, (1) organizing and community empowerment, (2) agrarian reform advocacy and legal assistance, (3) agroforestry and sustainable upland farming, and, (4) sustainable coastal resource management.

Organizing and community empowerment is focussed on the formation of local organizations of farmers, indigenous people, fisherfolk, women and rural youth. It aims to unify rural communities by advocating their common interests. For example, farmers bind together when it comes to the issue of land tenure and further development of their farms. In the case of the indigenous peope, their common interest is their ancestral domain claim. For the small fishermen, they unite on their demand for an equitable distribution of income in fishing.

The advocacy component is designed to extend support to the local people’s struggle towards achieving their demand for a genuine agrarian reform, the recognition of ancestral domain, and recognition of the people’s role in managing the community’s natural resources Present activities range from assisting in research & liaisoning, and bying and holding mass actions, to protest the logging operations in the area and the planned mining and “development projects.” Agrarian and environmental issues in Dingalan are intertwined that it is necessary to address both. The problem of deforestation is undoubtedly caused by massive commercial logging operations in the area. Although the practice of kaingin farming also contributed to the deforestation, the area that it has covered is considered minuscule compared to the areas exploited by the logging operations. In fact, kaingin farmers occupy only 2,267.21 hectares of land as compared to the 18,798.80 hectares being exploited by commercial logging. We cannot also afford to overlook the threats posed by the proposed mining operations by several companies and GCPR/GSPC’s ‘development’ plans, both of which have not conducted any environmental impact assessment.

The agroforestry and sustainable upland farming component focusses on developing the local practice of agroforestry and integrated/diversified farming systems. At the core of this component is the establishment of community agroforestry nurseries and the production of varied planting materials. These nurseries supply planting materials of fruit bearing trees such as cacao, coffee, coconut and citrus. The project promotes farming practices that enhance protection of the environment while also providing for the economic needs of the farmers. Contour farming and other organic farming practices are introduced in the communities.

The sustainable coastal resource management component aims to develop and implement a sustainable coastal resource management plan for Dingalan Bay. This task entails the necessity to organize, educate and mobilize the marginalized fisher communities, unify them on their general demands for fisheries reform, and incorporate in these demands the proposed CRM plan. The component focusses on developing and educating the small fisherfolks to become the primary agents in leading community-based coastal resource management.

D.      Initial Assessment of the Initiatives

Organizing and Community Empowerment

The project aims to sustain and support on-going initiatives in resource management and community empowerment. As part of the empowerment process, the project is directed towards development and dissemination of appropriate, equitable and sustainable resource management approaches and technologies towards restoring bio-diversity and ecological balance in critical ecozones in Dingalan, Aurora.

The organizing and community empowerment component is conducted through the processes involved in social preparation, formation of people’s organizations and consolidation of community-based initiatives.

Organizing activities reached 24 purok/sitios and established 12 organizations of farmers, indigenous people and fishermen in the eight barangays of Dingalan and one barangay in Gen. Nakar. Two municipal level formations were also set-up: the Pinagkaisang Samahan ng Magbubukid sa Dingalan (PSMD) and a loose coalition of peasant organizations and Church workers which was formed to monitor logging activities of GCPR.

Developing Agroforestry and Upland Farming Systems

While project benefits have yet to be fully realized, they are sufficient enough to support continuing community initiatives in resource protection and rehabilitation. Project beneficiaries have adopted various agroforestry techniques such as contour farming, intercropping and planting of assorted fruit and forest trees.

From year 2000 up to the second qaurter of 2001, IRDF was able to set up seven community-based agro-forestry nurseries. Around 361 farmers already benefitted from these nurseries.

Labor, through bayanihan or “free exchange of farm labor” serves as the main form of labor used to manage and maintain the agroforestry nurseries. Farmer-cooperators were formed into small groups that were given their respective schedules and tasks in daily and weekly nursery activities.

This form of shared labor enhanced farmers’ cooperation and instilled a sense of ownership that made them more responsible in managing their respective agroforestry nurseries.

In year 2000, a total of 35,800 assorted fruit and forest trees were produced in the community nurseries. From this production, a total of 17,300 seedlings were either outplanted or distributed to farmers for outplanting.

Another 18,000 seedlings were propagated during the second half of 2001. A total of 13,200 seedlings were dispersed for outplanting by the farmers. About 5,000 seedlings were set-aside for asexual propagation.

To ensure higher survival rate of outplanted seedlings, outplanting was scheduled from October to February to catch up with the rainy months in Dingalan. Farmer cells or groups of five to seven farmer-cooperators helped each other in preparing their farms for the planting.

The outplanting of fruit and forest tree seedlings was planned based on workshops conducted with the farmers’ groups. Individual farm layouts were discussed and cross-farm visits among the farmer-cooperators were conducted.

Aside from the planting of these seedlings, the project also engaged in seeds production of selected crop varieties, e.g. vegetables and rice.

Trial planting of at least ten types of vegetable crops were conducted. These trials aim to determine the adaptability of high value vegetable crops in their farm. There are also thirteen (13) types of traditional rice varieties that were collected for dissemination in neighboring upland communities.

The agroforestry component assists the farmers in further developing their farms. In the case of the Dumagat communities, the project encourages planting of staple crops and assorted vegetables to improve their food security. Several trainings and seminars on sustainable upland farming have been conducted as part of the project. These seminars give emphasis on soil and water management as well as in integrated or diversified farming. The said seminars also try to inculcate among the farmers their role as stewards of the forests.

The growing of high-value fruit tree seedlings at the nurseries gave the farmer-cooperators new options in planning their farms. Citrus species, coffee and other high-value fruit tree seedlings are now available to farmers. One important gain of the farmer-cooperators is that they are learning the different techniques in propagating high value fruit tree crops.

Agrarian Reform Advocacy

These organizations play a very important role in the advocacy and campaign efforts against logging and mining operations of GCPR/GSPC. The campaign started last May 2000 when the indigenous people from Kalompit/Dayapan, under the leadership of the Umiray Minorities Livelihood Association (UMILA), united to protest against the GCPR’s logging operations. Armed with a letter of protest, they trooped to the office of former DENR Secetary Cerilles and Director Al Rashid of the Forest Management Bureau (FMB) on August 10, 2000. Within that same month, another protest letter was made. In November 200, 300 residents of upper Umiray signed a petition letter affirming UMILA’s opposition to the logging operation.

Because of these protest actions, Cerilles was forced to order DENR-IV to investigate the case. However, it was very apparent that DENR-IV is poised to protect GCPR since it is the same agency which processed the latter’s logging application. On December 7, 2000, the DENR’s investigating team, during its supposed investigation in Umiray, Dingalan, led representatives of indigenous people in Umiray into signing a letter retracting their protest.

Emboldened by the protest actions led by the indigenous people, other farmer-led organizations and church people also joined the protest and expressed their opposition to GCPR’s operations. Both IP group and farmers’ organization also had an opportunity to air their grievances during in two forums held in UPLB.

 On April 26, 2001, a picket-protest at the DENR office in Quezon City was staged by about 150 indigenous people and farmers from Dingalan. DENR Sec. Alvarez was compelled to face the protesters. He promised to personally investigate the matter and uphold the rights of indigenous people and poor farmers living in the area. But until now, GCPR logging operation continues and is even expanding.

Right now, members of the municipal peasant federation PSMD is focussing on a municipal-wide education campaign to reach out to the biggest number of peasants in Dingalan and make them understand the threats posed by GCPR’s operation and educate them on the role and options that the rural communities have in protecting the environment against unhampered exploitation.

PSMD, together with Church workers who have supported it, were united on calling for the following demands:

First, stop the logging operations of Green Circle and cancel the Special Private Land Timber License No.5 (SPTL #5) awarded by the DENR to GCPR;

Second, reject GSPC’s application for mining in Dingalan;

Third, scrap the Pacific Coast Cities project and put a stop to GCPR/GSPC’s massive land-grabbing activity;

Fourth, respect the rights of the indigenous people to their ancestral domain;

Fifth, uphold the rights of farmers to the lands they have been cultivating for decades;

Sixth, distribute abandoned lands to small farmers;

Seventh, put up support services to improve the livelihoods of the farmers, fishermen and indigenous people in Dingalan.

Coastal Resource Management

The coastal resource management plan was expanded to include inland aquatic resource. Four communities were involved in developing the concept of the coastal and and aquatic resource management plan. Of the four communities, two are coastal communities and two are riverside communities.

The coastal and freshwater resource management plan calls for the following: (1) the establishment of a marine sanctuary in Dingalan Bay particularly in Cabog; (2) protection of breeding grounds of freshwater species; (3) campaign against destructive fishing activities, such as blast fishing and use of cyanide; (4) demand to stop commercial logging activities that contribute to the siltation of rivers.

Iinformation-drive on the importance of setting up a fish sanctuary in Cabog, Dingalan was started early this year. The need for a fish sanctuary in the area is propelled by the following reasons: a) the need to preserve the coral reefs in Cabog; b) the need to prevent overfishing, and the use of active and destructive fishing gears; c) the need to appropriate the area as part of the ancestral domain of the indigenous people; and, d) to forestall plans of constructing an international port that is detrimental to the natural habitat of marine life in Dingalan Bay. At present, two groups from different communities are actively participating in this effort: a group of fishermen from Paltic and a group indigenous people engaged in traditional fishing using spears in Cabog.

IV.                PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND LESSONS LEARNED

A.      Problems/Factors Hindering Implementation

1.       The whole GCPR/GSPC projects (logging, mining, Pacific Coast Cities) is a threat to the environment and welfare of the people of Dingalan.

2.       Lack of political will among government agencies and local government units to protect the environment and uphold the rights and welfare the indigenous people and small peasants.

3.       Prescence of armed groups in Umiray who harrass people known to be protesting against the operations of GCPR.

4.       Extreme poverty among the majority of peasants, fisherfolk and indigenous people in Dingalan.

5.       Land tenure problems of majority of farmers in Dingalan.

6.       Absence of laws appropriating areas for the ancestral domain of the Dumagat people.

7.       Natural calamities (i.e. destruction of crops/livelihood due to typhoons and landslides).

B.      Lessons Learned

1.       Biodiversity conservation efforts should be community-based, system-oriented and participatory.

2.       Environmental problems in the country cannot be addressed without dealing with the socio-economic and political context.

3.       The presence and poverty of rural communities in critical ecological zones (upland, watershed areas, coastal) and the lack of other alternative livelihood justify the need to mobilize marginalized rural communities in biodiversity conservation program. Members of these rural communities see themselves and their next generations as the primary beneficiaries of biodiversity conservation.

1 98 Mapangakit Street Pinyahan Quezon City, Philippines 1100

Tel. No. (632) 436 1831, Fax: 63-2-4350815, Email: irdf@info.com.ph