Product brochure-Development intervention-Conflict Referral System

Published by

ConRefSys Conflict Referral System

Version 1.0

Imprint As a federally owned enterprise, we support the German Government in achieving its objectives in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development.

Published by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Registered offices Bonn and Eschborn, Germany T +49 228 44 60-0 (Bonn) T +49 61 96 79-0 (Eschborn) 2/F PDCP Building Rufino cor. Leviste Streets Salcedo Village, Makati Philippines T +63 2 892 9051 I: www.enrdph.org Responsible Dr. Walter Salzer Environment and Rural Development Program Program Director and Principal Advisor E: walter.salzer@giz.de Source and Copyrights © 2013 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Authors Eddie Quitoriano Editors Shaleh Antonio, Max-Johannes Baumann, Marifel T. Moyano, Dolores Nuevas Layout / Design Marifel T. Moyano Copyright on Photos The photos in this publication are owned by GIZ unless otherwise indicated on the photo.

Maps The geographical maps are for information purposes only and do not constitute recognition under international law of boundaries and territories. GIZ does not guarantee in any way the current status, accuracy or completeness of the maps. All liability for any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from their use is excluded.

Printed and distributed by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Place and date of publication Manila, Philippines April 2013

Contents Figures and tables

4

Why use ConRefSys

5

Acronyms and abbreviations

6

Acknowledgements

7

Summary

9

ConRefSys: An Introduction

12

ConRefSys: Policies supported by the product

16

About ConRefSys Conceptual framework Specific objectives Product description Conflict identification and participatory conflict analysis Conflict referral scope Conflict contingency for early warning Conflict monitoring Process model Referral process modules Stakeholders’ roles

20 24 25 25 26 26 27 29 30 33

Anticipated results

36

Technical and financial feasibility

41

Recommendations

44

References

45

3

Figures and tables Figures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EnRD (Phase II) Program Framework Conflict Referral Conceptual Framework Conflict (Contingency) Escalation Model Sample conflict monitoring forms: Component Level Sample conflict monitoring report: Program Level Referral process Sample results of constructive handling and mitigation

15 20 21 27 27 30 36

1 2 3 4 5

The ConRefSys’ type of referrals Pre-conditions required by the Conflict Referral System Stakeholders roles Stakeholders by location of conflict Process and Use of Output indicators of constructive handling and mitigation Cost items and coverage of costs

22 23 33 34

Tables

6

4

38 42

Why use ConRefSys

1

For NGAs and LGUs: Social forces variably interpret regulatory frameworks and have differential access to administrative rules and procedures either due to information asymmetry or imbalances in access to power and resources. The ConRefSys enable national government agencies and local governments to enhance conflict sensitivity in the dispensation of laws, policies and regulations.

2

For social forces: Regulatory frameworks and rules and regulations in the Environment and Natural Resources sectors tend to overlap.

What is written in one set of rules may overlap with other set of rules. The ConRefSys enable them to have a better understanding on how law and policies work when dispensed by state agents.

3

For all stakeholders in the Environment and Natural Resources sectors: Social and political processes operate alongside administrative rules and procedures. The ConRefSys provide a comprehensive understanding of the interplay of several factors influencing the speed or slowness of procedures.

4

For Civil Society Organizations: Although the main duty bearer for state administration are the agents of the state, Civil Society Organizations also act as duty bearer on behalf of rights holders and claimants. The ConRefSys allow Civil Society Organizations to identify best courses of action in aid of speeding the dispensation of laws and policies.

5

For the private sector in the Environment and Natural Resources sectors: Access to power and resources give it the advantage in seeking speedier response from state agents. However, they may fall into the trap of quick solutions and short cuts that ultimately leads to escalation of conflicts and loss of investments. The ConRefSys allow the private sector to consider the effects of unequal dispensation of laws and policies.

57

Acronyms & abbreviations AFP Armed Forces of the Philippines BFAR DA Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources BFD DENR Bureau of Forest Development CBFM Community-based Forest Management CBMS Community-based Monitoring System CDP Comprehensive Development Plan CFRM Coastal Fisheries Resources Management ConRefSys Conflict Referral System CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan CSO Civil Society Organization CSS Client Satisfaction Survey DA Department of Agriculture DAR Department of Agrarian Reform DENR Department of Environment and

Natural Resources DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government DRM Disaster Risk Management DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development ENRD GIZ Environment and Rural Development Program EVLAMC Eastern Visayas Land Administration

and Management Consortium FGD Focus Group Discussion FLUP Forest Land Use Plan GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH GPH Government of the Philippines HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board HUDCC Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council IEC Information and Education Campaigns LFEWS Local Flood Early Warning Systems LGU Local Government Unit LITP Leyte Island Trainor’s Pool LMB DENR-Land Management Bureau MILF Moro Islamic Liberation Front MITs Municipal Implementing Teams MGB DENR-Mines and Geosciences Bureau MLGUs Municipal Local Government Units

6

NAMRIA Mapping and Resource Information Authority NCI National Convergence Initiative NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples NDFP National Democratic Front of the Philippines NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction and

Management Council NHA National Housing Authority NEDA National Economic and Development Authority NGA National Government Agency NGO Non-Governmental Organization NIA National Irrigation Authority NRG Natural Resource Governance NSO National Statistics Office OECD-DAC Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development Development Assistance Committee PAWB DENR Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau PRRM Framework Process and Results Based

Monitoring Framework PCA Peace and Conflict Analysis PCA Participatory Conflict Analysis PDP Philippine Development Plan 2011 2016 PLGUs Provincial Local Government Units PLUDP Participatory Land Use and Development Planning PNP Philippine National Police POs People’s Organizations POCs Peace and Order Councils RPMP-RPA-ABB Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng

Manggagawa ng Pilipinas Revolutionary Proletarian Army-Alex Boncayao Brigade SB Sangguniang Bayan TOT Training of Trainors UN-DESA UN Department of Economic and

Social Affairs

Acknowledgements This report is an elaboration of a prototype ConRefSys developed in early 2012. The description is mainly informed by a re-examination of the prototype, review of relevant literature and monitoring and progress reports of GIZ-EnRD and a focus group discussion (FGD) with 10 GIZ-supported conflict scholars from Leyte and Southern Leyte, some members of the Leyte Island Trainor’s Pool (LITP) and GIZ-EnRD staff.

The focus group discussion held in Tacloban City last January 4, 2013 were participated in by: Ofelia Bernadas, PLGU-Leyte and LITP Officer; Lucia Oronos, PLGU-Leyte and LITP Member; Elmer Abad, MENRO-Silago, GIZ Scholar; Rodrigo Tumaob, MPDC and GIZ Scholar; Rico Cajife, Executive Director, LITP; Eutiquio Beloy, LGU-Silago, GIZ Scholar; Eufemia Gacis, LITP Member, GIZ Scholar; Cecilio Marila, LITP Board Member; Alejandro Manais, CDA; Verwena Bibar, LITP Member and GIZ Scholar; Estela Creer, MLGU and LITP Member; and Polcomar Canonce, MLGU-Barobo and GIZ Scholar.

The GIZ-EnRD staff who had also assisted in the discussion were: Jose “Shaleh” Antonio, Program Monitor; Dolores Nuevas, Senior Coordinator-Natural Resources Governance Component; Mary Ann Tercero, Senior Adviser-Coastal Fisheries Resources Management Component; Amiel Tristan Gonzales, technical staff; Jam Colas, Junior Coordinator; and Madelya Arce, ITax Coordinator.

7

This knowledge product has been compiled in close cooperation with National Solid Waste Management Commission and is in line with DENR’s thrust to promote Solid Waste Management best practices to local governments and other stakeholders.

Summary The Conflict Referral System (ConRefSys) supports the OECD-DAC Guidelines on Helping Prevent Conflicts, specifically, the need to develop creative approaches and use of constructive engagements that promote incentives to peace, the need to support peacebuilding initiatives early on and even after peace processes are perceived to have been achieved and the need to support local capacity in influencing public policy.

The system also supports the Philippine government’s aspiration for just and lasting peace, rule of law and empowerment of the poor and vulnerable as embodied in the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016. The government promotes a multi-track approach to peacebuilding with the specific function of complementary tracks to address root causes of the conflict.

It was in mid-2010 when the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and its local partners embarked on completing the Peace and Conflict Analysis (PCA) packages. This process was followed through with the introduction of training tools and modules that were used in the specialized trainings for the Leyte and Negros Trainor’s Pool and the multi-stakeholder conflict sensitization workshops conducted in Leyte, Southern Leyte and Negros Occidental in 2011 until early 2012. The prototype of the ConRefSys was introduced only in March 2012.

The ConRefSys is a hybrid adaptation of the multi-track and process-structure approach of conflict transformation by Lederach Pyramid, Fisher’s (2011) contingency model of third-party intervention and hierarchical conflict referral systems used by private firms.

ConRefSys seeks to emphasize the bottom-up approach to hierarchical referral where the scalar process provides opportunities for positive transformation of relationships, interests, and the structure and institutions governing the behavior of conflict parties.

The GIZ Environment and Rural Development (EnRD) Program is a nine-year, two-phased program that will end in June 2014. Its overall goal is to sustainably improve the management of natural resources by responsible national government agencies as well as local governments and communities. One of the agreed indicators of performance explicitly binds the program to a commitment of constructively handling and mitigating at least 30% of recorded conflicts. By June 2012, EnRD has recorded 171 conflicts, of which 157 are directly within the program scope.

The conflicts recorded by EnRD are generally horizontal and comprises inter-group competition over resources in land, forestry and fishery, and inter-local government boundary conflicts. These conflicts are generally linked to existing laws, policies, and rules and regulations. The duration of most conflicts have been associated with imbalances in access or interpretation of data, unequal access to laws and policies and weaknesses in state administration. It is hypothesized that third-party intervention through the referral system will de-escalate conflicts and provide an environment for transformation in three areas, namely: interests, relationships and structure. Changes in the structure and overall institutional framework conditions will be determined by other factors, but the referral process will enhance the demand side for institutional reforms.

This report is an elaboration of a prototype ConRefSys developed in early 2012. The description is mainly informed by a re-examination of the prototype; review of relevant literature; and monitoring and progress reports of GIZ-EnRD, and a focus group discussion with GIZ-supported conflict scholars from Leyte and Southern Leyte, some members of the Leyte Island Trainor’s Pool (LITP) and GIZ-EnRD staff.

The application of the system can be initiated by local authorities, civil society organizations or parties affected by the conflict. The modular approach also allows flexibility in timing and location of the intervention, and where the starting point would vary according to pre-existing availability of the basic elements of the system.

9

ConRefSys An Introduction • Policies supported by the product

11

ConRefSys An Introduction “There are two sides to everything. But only once you become aware that there are three sides, you start to comprehend.”

Heimito von Doderer, Austrian author (1896-1966)

Conflict resolution is a priority of the Philippine government and this intention is embedded in the 16-Point Social Contract adhered to by the administration of President Benigno Aquino III (Deles, 2012) and the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2011-2016. The government adopts a multi-track approach to addressing the conflict, namely: (a) Track 1, which focuses on negotiated political settlements with various armed groups; and (b) the Complementary Tracks, which seek to address the causes of armed conflict and other issues affecting the peace process, focused development in conflict-affected areas and creation of an enabling policy climate for peace.

The government has also placed five major guideposts in the current medium term agenda, namely: (a) anti-corruption / transparent, accountable and participatory governance; (b) poverty reduction and empowerment of the poor and vulnerable; (c) rapid, inclusive and sustained economic growth; (d) just and lasting peace and the rule of law; and (e) integrity of the environment and climate change mitigation and adaptation (NEDA, 2011:6).

Nature of conflicts Conflicts could be constructive and functional. Conflicts can spiral into advantage or benefits to individuals or groups; or, they could be dysfunctional and destructive (McCuddy, 2003). Ideally, the preferred path of those involved (conflict actors) is the so-called “self-help solution” (Slaikeu and Hasson, 1998). Self-help approaches to conflict resolution often do not work when the conflict source is linked to intervening factors such as laws, policies, and rules and regulations, or imbalances in access and interpretation of data. Much more so when conflicts have escalated to a level of heightened violence and loss of life and property and, thus, requires power-based intervention. Thus, when, where and how to intervene is a difficult and complex task. Accompanying this task is the critical question on what to transform and whether or not the subsequent transformation is positive or negative.

Conflict transformation is multi-dimensional. Process and structure are two dimensions of conflict transformation that requires careful determination of location and timing of intervention. In contemporary conflicts that are characterized by violence, asymmetry and inequality in access to power and protracted evolutions, the most prominent approach is conflict management. Often, this employs the power and resources of external actors that could bring pressure on conflict parties to settle conflicts in a constructive manner (Bloomfield & Reilly, 1998; Miall, 2004).

12

In Javier, Southern Leyte, a government irrigation project has turned portions of a barangay into a riparian zone. The new Zoning Ordinance prohibits settlements in the zone, but in the absence of a government-supported relocation program, residents insist on remaining in the zone. (Photo courtesy of Polcomar Canonce)

13

Sorting out substantive issues – such as positions and interests over an issue – while managing relationships often requires third-party facilitation. Dialogue can be an effective means of constructive handling of conflict but this requires participant skills. Thus, third parties can come in to facilitate, influence political leadership and anchor the dialogue process into administrative procedures and political processes (Ropers, 2004).

There is no singular source or cause of conflict. Some conflicts are caused by divergence of positions and interests, values, asymmetry in access or interpretation of data, imbalance in access to power and resources, or bad relationships among conflict actors. The conflict causes or sources could be clustered along the conflict frames of resources, interests and identity and, correspondingly, along the key areas of transformation, namely: structure, attitude and behavior. On the other hand, there are available legal and administrative instruments that could serve as common ground and venue for the settlement of conflicts and there are local capacities and human resources that could provide the third-party role in conflict management.

Resource use conflicts in the environment and natural resources sector Conflicts in this sector are both historical and current. This is expected in a situation where actual allocation and use have preceded planning and foresight by centuries (Quitoriano & Cabrera, 2012). The asset reform programs in the forestry, fishery, agriculture, ancestral domains and urban housing sectors embarked by the government since the late 1980s and 1990s are still uncompleted. Finite land resources and a rapidly growing population naturally induce competition over scarce resources.

The state plays a central role in regulating access and control of resources. Conflicts over resource use and allocation are exacerbated by imperfections in dispensation of laws and policies and information. It is estimated that 6 out of 14.1 million hectares of Alienable and Disposable (A&D) lands are untitled.

On the other hand, 15 million hectares of classified forests are mired in overlapping claims of indigenous communities, migrant settlers, mining investors, timber companies as well as illegal miners and loggers.

Overlapping mandates of national government agencies and local government units (LGUs) contribute to the exacerbation of tensions and conflicts.

Resource governance is complex especially from the ecosystems perspective, where the spatial integration of ecosystems management to socio-economic development management is centuries behind the actual practice of informal and fragmented governance. Rapid population growth induces competition over space for housing and livelihoods. This explains the significant function of agrarian struggles in rebellions and insurgencies or in the tendency of the landless poor to illegally occupy government and private lands, disaster zones and non-A&D zones.

Conflict map of the 1,249-hectare Industrial Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) agreed upon by the DENR and the Mosser Environment Foundation (MEF). Informal settlers and other claimants of the forest relayed their grievances to the local government of La Libertad (Negros Oriental), where the forest is located.

(Map courtesy of GIZ-EnRD, CBFM Component)

14

Figure 1. EnRD (Phase II) Program Framework Source: Diagram courtesy of Shaleh Antonio, GIZ-EnRD Program Monitor

The ConRef System as applied by the EnRD Program GIZ-EnRD Program (Figure 1: Program Framework- EnRD (Phase II)) is implemented in two regions (Regions VI and VIII) in the Visayas with a combined land area of about 2.6 million hectares and aggregate population of 11.2 million people. The 171 conflict cases identified by the program have relatively long histories, and the dynamics have viciously fluctuated from escalation, de-escalation and re-escalation. As of June 2012, the EnRD program has recorded a total of 171 conflict cases across the two regions. Respondents of the Client Satisfaction Survey (2011) cite other contributory factors to conflict such as demographic pressure on the uplands and coastal zones, lack of coordination among government agencies and lack of transparency in land acquisition and allocation.

The program focuses on two major conflict lines: resource use conflicts (specifically, over access and control of coastal, marine, freshwater, land and forest resources) and policy conflicts (specifically, conflicting policies and overlapping mandates of government institutions). To support the objective of constructively handling and mitigating these conflicts, GIZ introduced measures to build and enhance capacities of local partners through conflict sensitization workshops, creation of a provincial level Trainor’s Pool with specialized training in conflict analysis and conflict transformation, and development of relevant tools including this Conflict Referral System (ConRefSys).

The ConRefSys is a third-party intervention approach. It serves a dual purpose: (1) to help enhance chances of achieving the declared outcome of constructively handling and mitigating at least 30% of recorded conflicts; and (2) to build local capacities for peace and ensure sustainability conflict transformation initiatives at the local level.

The system veers away from a power-based third party intervention to an empowering, transcendent and indirect conflict management by facilitative and skilled third parties. Conflict parties can be assisted to explore, analyze, question and reframe their positions and interests. Unless the conflict has escalated to a level that requires power-based external intervention of security forces, facilitators and/or mediators could accompany conflict parties into non-violent processes of reframing positions and interests, and gaining access to science-based information or to relevant laws, policies and administrative and/or judicial agencies.

15

ConRefSys Policies supported by the product

The ConRefSys falls within the general intentions of donor countries to help prevent violent conflicts. The OECD DAC Guidelines on Helping Prevent Conflict makes a clear case on the need to refer to different and variable conflict settings rather than stable post-conflict environments (OECD, 2001). Reality suggests the need to recognize the simultaneous or co-existent situations of peace and conflict, and abrupt shifts in levels of conflict escalation or de-escalation (Bigdon & Korf, 2004). The Ministerial Statement accompanying the 1997 Guidelines puts forward fundamental principles that, among others, are specifically supported by the GIZ-EnRD Conflict Referral System, namely: • Recognizing the potential and limits – of the international community to take actions that favor peace and discourage violence • Use of constructive engagements and creative approaches that provide incentives to peace • Support to peacebuilding initiatives early on and continue on even when peace processes are perceived to have been achieved • Reinforcing local capacities to influence public policy and tackle social and political exclusion The new guidelines Helping Prevent Violent Conflict: Orientations for External Partners (2001) also outlines key actions to enhance responses for conflict prevention and peace building. The conflict referral system contributes to the following actions: • To recognize structural stability as foundation for sustainable development and advance public understanding of conflict prevention and peacebuilding objectives and strategies as part of cooperation programs • Strengthening agency means to analyze risks and causes of violence at an early stage and identify opportunities to help address the root causes. The overriding objective is to enhance the capacities of civil society and government, at all levels, for peace building and conflict prevention • Encourage and support initiatives of the partner country for conflict prevention and resolution, building on their critical mediation and facilitation role • Monitor and evaluate performance in the areas of assistance for conflict prevention and peace building, and refine and amplify best practices in this field of assistance The ConRefSys is also coherent with the major guideposts of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 20112016, specifically, on the aspiration for a just and lasting peace and rule of law, and empowerment of the poor and vulnerable. It directly supports the PDP in the following areas: • Peace and Security Sub-sector outcome on the creation and sustainability of a safer and more secured environment conducive to national development and intermediate outcomes on addressing the causes of all armed conflict and other issues affecting the peace process, and promotion and sustainability of internal stability. Correspondingly, it indirectly contributes to the following indicators of results, namely: (a) reduced level of armed hostilities and other forms of violence; (b) established mechanisms for the resolution of land disputes; (c) established peacebuilding structures and healing and reconciliation processes; and (d) capacity building provided to LGUs and other local partners on conflict sensitivity and peace building.

16

Brg. Guinsaugon, St. Bernard, Southern Leyte. The whole village collapsed and more than 1,000 people died during a landslide in February 2006. The village was relocated and the area has since been declared as a danger zone. The local government is now at odds with surviving residents who want to go back to the area for their livelihoods. (Photo courtesy of Verwena Bibar)

17

• Good Governance and Rule of Law Sector outcome on transparent and effective governance and sub-sector outcomes on increased responsiveness of NGAs and LGUs, and rebuilding of people’s trust in government. Correspondingly, it indirectly contributes to specific indicators such as: (a) increased number of LGUs engaging CSOs; (b) enhanced voice and accountability; and (c) political stability.

By enhancing the conflict sensitivity and integration of conflict transformation in various program components, the ConRefSys directly and indirectly supports laws, policies and rules and regulations pertaining to the environment and natural resources sector, fisheries and coastal resource management, indigenous people’s rights, forest, agriculture and urban land use, climate change adaptation and disaster risk mitigation. The system, in fact, is a direct complement to the technical support and structural measures of the natural resources governance, forest, coastal and disaster risk management components of the program.

The emergence of security and disaster issues could be taken up as a policy opportunity and new referral track of the ConRefSys. The multi-level structures emerging from the 2010 National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (NDRRM) Act could play a role in the referral processes pertaining to disaster-related conflicts. The disaster-related conflicts in Javier and St. Bernard, for example, could be linked to the roles and functions of local disaster risk and management councils as well as the local housing boards (in regard to issues of housing and shelter) and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) (in regard to disaster relief and livelihood support).

On the other hand, the policies and guidelines pertaining to the functions of local peace and order councils (POCs) could be used as reference for advocacy in broadening the security framework of these bodies and possible target for referral processes. Currently, the POCs are focused on peace and order-related crimes and citizen complaints against the behavior of government (civilian and military) personnel.1 The local POCs are multi-stakeholder bodies that include representatives from the youth, religious groups, neighborhood associations, teachers, local arbitrators and the police.2 The promotion of dialogues is a core function of the POC. It could be a resource for the identification and training of facilitators and mediators in addition to its potential for Security Referral.

1 See: Office of the President (1988). EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 320, March 11, 1988, AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 309, S. 1987, ENTITLED “REORGANIZING THE PEACE AND ORDER COUNCIL,” AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 317, S. 1988.

2 See: Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) (2008). Memorandum Circular 2008-101, Reorganization and Guidelines in Monitoring the Functionality of Barangay Peace and Order Councils (BPOCs).

18

ConRefSys Conflict Referral System Framework • Specific objectives of the Referral System • Product description • Anticipated results • Technical and financial feasibility • Recommendations

19

ConRefSys Conceptual framework

Figure 2. Conflict Referral Conceptual Framework

The Conflict Referral System is a third-party intervention, and it is founded on the following prior requisites: • Identification of conflicts and proper understanding of conflict formation using the lenses of conflict formation theorists such as Johann Galtung, Edward Azar and others. This includes diagnosing this historical context, scale, dynamics, root causes and effects of the conflict. From mid-2010 until early 2011, GIZ-EnRD program components and local partners produced conflict profiles and maps pertaining to their area of operations.

• Conduct of the Do No Harm (DNH), drawing from Mary Anderson (1999), an analysis to enhance program conflict sensitivity, prevent unintended negative impacts of development interventions, identify entry points for conflict transformation and support local capacities for peace. The prevailing notion among OECD countries is that development programs could not proceed without consciousness of conflict factors (OECD, 2001:89).

• Orientating the management and handling of conflicts to the overall program goals and national and local peacebuilding needs.

• Monitoring conflict dynamics, behavior of the conflict actors, and negative and positive externalities that contribute to escalation or de-escalation of the conflict. For this purpose, GIZEnRD developed a four-level conflict escalation and de-escalation model as reference for monitoring and evaluation of processes and results, and development of the conflict monitoring tool.

The GIZ-EnRD Conflict Referral System and its framework (Figure 2) is a hybrid adaptation of the Lederach Pyramid, Fisher’s (2011) contingency model of third party intervention and the hierarchical conflict referral systems used in the management of workplace conflicts.3 Lederach (1997) posits a structure-process approach to conflict transformation illustrated through a pyramid where high level negotiations and 3 See: McCuddy (2003); Cloke and Goldsmith (2005); Thomas and Killman (2005); and Nevins (2012).

20

Figure 3. Conflict (Contingency) Escalation Model

decisions occur at the top, problem solving and training occur at the middle, social mobilization and building capacities for peace occur at the grassroots and changes are expected to occur at all levels. Fisher’s (2011) contingency model of third-party intervention proceeds from four levels of conflict escalation, namely: discussion, polarization, segregation and destruction (where the latter requires arbitration and/or peacekeeping).

At the core of the Conflict Referral System are three relevant concepts: (1) the concept of conflict contingency; (2) the concept of structure and hierarchy; and (3) the conflict frames and targets of transformation.

The Conflict Escalation Model The GIZ-EnRD contingency model also proceeds from four levels of conflict escalation but uses the language of dormancy, tensions, violence and escalated violence. To enhance accuracy of monitoring and inform appropriate security responses and procedures, each level is accompanied by descriptors and color codes for early warning (Figure 3).

The conflict escalation model is a contingency scenario that serves as guide for determining entry points for facilitating processes towards restoring communication, building or rebuilding relationships, reducing issues into mutually acceptable and workable chunks and referral to laws and policies and state administrative structures, or reducing asymmetry in information.

As illustrated in Figure 3: • Level 0 (Color Code Green), the baseline reference of all conflicts refers to latent or dormant conflicts. This also refers to what is inherent among social beings – the variances and competition in goals and interests over scarce resources accentuated by issues of identity.

21

Types of Referral • Level 0 conflicts escalate to Level 1 (Open Tension, Color Code Blue) when the following factors emerge: (a) organized assertion of interests and positions by one party or the other; (b) lip service implementation of laws and policies; (c) weakened communication between parties in conflict; and (d) weak negotiation capacity despite existence of communication lines.

• Level 1 conflict escalates to Level 2 (Overt Violence, Color Code Orange) when the following factors emerge: (a) one party gains monopoly access to power and resources; (b) local elites infuse power and resources to one party or the other; (c) high but exclusionary economic growth; (d) perceptions of failure in governance; and (e) overt violence.

• The conflict further escalates to high levels of violence (Color Code Red) when the following factors are present: (a) external power and resources are infused to escalate the violence; (b) ruptured communication and relationship between parties; (c) external elites instrumentalizing the conflict; (d) political and economic deprivation of aggrieved parties; and (e) loss of life and/or property due to violent confrontations.

Science and Information Referral Legal, Administrative and Judicial Referral Security Referral

Conflict transformation The analysis of conflict formation also aids in determining what needs are to be transformed. Rothman and Friedman (2011) provides a useful perspective by framing conflicts into three: (a) resource conflict frame; (b) identity frame; and (c) interest frame. The resource frame visualizes the struggle over claims to scarce power and resources; the identify frame pertains to individual or group needs, desires, concerns and fears; and the interest frame pertains to bargaining and competitive resource framing.

The areas of transformation that the conflict referral system tackles are: • Structural transformation It describes structure as the set of institutions, formal and informal rules, laws and policies and state administrative procedures and mechanisms that regulate allocation of power and resources.

• Actor transformation It looks at actor transformation from the identity frame, as a question of attitudinal change or a change in the general approach to conflict, including decisions to seek peace.

• Issue transformation It looks at issue transformation from the interest frame, as a question of behavior or how conflict actors reframe the substance or issue.

The ConRefSys distinguishes itself from issue-based referral that is negotiated at the top or a purely top-down structural approach based on dispensation of law and policy. It has a process and bottom-up orientation that seeks to achieve transformation of issues, relationships and structure. The accompanied processes seek to influence the actual course of the conflict and the building or rebuilding of trust among conflict parties.

The referral system is also aimed at influencing the transformation of the institutional framework conditions within which the conflict is played out and where the external factors shape the behavior of the conflict parties and dynamics of the conflict.

22

When the conflict source is traceable to lack of data, varying access to data or varying interpretations of data and where an acceptable third party source or authority (such as a government agency, academic institution, research institution, etc.) could provide commonly accessible and authoritative information.

When the conflict cause is linked to certain laws, policies and rules and regulations and where administrative structures of the state could serve as the proper venue for the settlement of issues.

When there are negative third parties instrumentalizing the conflict or causing spoilage of relationships between the direct parties to the conflict and when the violence has escalated between Levels 2 and 3. It should be noted that Security Referral is an extreme case scenario. Security forces follow their own rules and procedures. Development agencies and civil society organizations invoke security referral only as a contingency and temporary measure owing to unfavorable security conditions. Once security conditions have improved, development agents should proceed with the civilian aspects of the referral system.

Conditions required by the Conflict Referral System to work ✔

Willingness and readiness of conflict parties to accept third party intervention

✔

Willingness and readiness of conflict parties to restore communication

✔

Availability of a trained and acceptable third-party facilitator or mediator with access to intervening actors or institutions

✔

Responsiveness and transparency of intervening actors

The ConRefSys and the accompanying processes lends relevance to conflict situations and contexts that possess attributes and use the following types of referral (Table 1). For the system to work, the following conditions are listed in Table 2.

GIZ-EnRD is in a position to harness the resources necessary for the system to work: multi-level access to political resources of the State, availability of an inter-disciplinary provincial level Trainor’s Pool and Municipal Implementing Teams (MITs), and a knowledge and technical resource base derived from international best practices. The mobilization of these resources provides an impetus for actor, interest and structural transformation with greater chances of success and sustainability.

23

ConRefSys Specific objectives The ConRefSys is specifically aimed at supporting the GIZ-EnRD function in crisis prevention, conflict transformation and peace building, and the achievement of its commitment to constructively handle and mitigate at least 30% of recorded conflicts. The EnRD program has a C1 marker where peace outcomes, specifically the constructive handling and mitigation of recorded conflicts, are integral to the program’s goal formation. Specifically, it aims: • To support the constructive handling of recorded conflicts, specifically, the prevention of conflict escalation from a recorded baseline • To support the mitigation of recorded conflicts, specifically, the single or multiple level de-escalation of conflicts from a recorded baseline • Through the referral processes, to promote multi-stakeholder cooperation and empowerment of the poor and vulnerable sectors of society that are often the aggrieved parties of a conflict and to help enhance effectiveness of state administrative functions in the environment and natural resources sector • To build local capacities for peace especially in the areas of facilitation and mediation of constructive dialogues As a cross-cutting product, the ConRefSys enhances conflict sensitivity and the strategies of Natural Resources Governance (NRG), Coastal Fisheries Resources Management (CFRM), Community-based Forest Management (CBFM) and Disaster Risk Management (DRM), and goes beyond the Do No Harm minimum criteria by aiming for positive conflict transformation. Specifically: • To support NRG processes in land use and development planning especially in areas where conflicts pose constraints to plan implementation. For example, the application of the SIMPLE approach to the formulation of comprehensive land use plans (CLUPs), comprehensive development plans (CDPs) and other plans, and the subsequent implementation of local ordinances and programs could create new institutional framework conditions that may exacerbate pre-existing conflicts or induce new conflicts. The ConRefSys could be a contingency tool in cases where there are flaws in the Do No Harm checks and conflict sensitive approaches.

• To support the CFRM processes in fisheries and coastal resource management especially in areas where conflicts pose risks to environmental integrity and ecological balance; • To support CBFM processes in forest land use management especially in areas where overlapping claims and conflicts tend to exacerbate forest and watershed degradation; and • To complement PDSS initiatives and other GIZ policy initiatives at the national level, through the National Convergence Initiative (NCI), with ground level actions from communities. This is especially relevant in conflict situations where the conflict sources are linked to overlapping policies and mandates of national and local government agencies.

24

ConRefSys Product description The ConRefSys consists of the following elements:

A Conflict identification and participatory conflict analysis

B

C

Conflict referral scope clustered into referral categories

Conflict contingency model and early warning

E

F

Process model and technical and financial requirements

Definition of stakeholder roles

D Conflict monitoring system and tools

Conflict identification and participatory conflict analysis

In the experience of GIZ-EnRD, conflict identification was done in 2010, initially at the component level prior to aggregation at the program level. Subsequently, GIZ program staff, local partners and community representatives jointly conducted the conflict analysis (profiling and mapping) through a series of workshops and relevant field activities since 2010 until 2012. Although the profiles of the 171 conflicts recorded are not yet completed, most have common attributes pertaining to conflict causes and sources.

For ConRefSys practitioners such as local governments, CSO groups, academic institutions, people’s organizations and private companies, the same process could be replicated using applicable tools.4

The EnRD Program of GIZ has observed / recorded the following conflicts Community-based Forest Management Component 15 conflicts pertaining to claims over territorial boundaries, illegal occupation of areas covered by Community Forest Management Agreements (CBFMA) or conflicting boundaries between areas covered by CBFMA and A&D land tenure instruments.

Coastal Fisheries Resources Management Component 10 conflicts pertaining to municipal water boundary claims between LGUs, encroachment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), illegal entry of commercial fishers in municipal waters, illegal entry of municipal and commercial fishers from other provinces, illegal fishing and jurisdictional conflicts between national government agencies and local government units.

Natural Resources Governance Component 119 conflicts ranging from territorial disputes between barangays and municipalities, settlements in timberland and settlements in riparian zones, not to mention the parallel inventory of agrarian conflicts in the hands of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) or inventory of illegal settlements in urban areas separately recorded by local government units.

Policy Dialogue and Strategic Steering Component 15 agrarian conflicts primarily between farmer-claimants versus landowners, both claiming protection of the comprehensive agrarian reform law and accompanying comprehensive agrarian reform program. These conflicts have spilled over to quasi-judicial and judicial bodies of government as each party to the conflict tries to seek the most favorable legal recourse.

4 In July-September 2012, this Consultant used the same participatory process in identifying conflicts and risks around the Coal-Fired Power Plant Project of Aboitiz/Therma South, Inc. in Davao City and Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur, in cooperation with International Alert, Aboitiz, local authorities, NGOs and communities.

25

Conflict referral scope

Not all conflicts need to be referred to third parties (unless the conflict sources or causes require third party intervention). Based on the results of the participatory conflict analysis, the identified or observed conflicts could be clustered into typologies, classified according to level of escalation for monitoring and early warning, and further selected and classified into the following: 1. Conflicts for Science and Information Referral 2. Conflicts for Legal, Administrative and Judicial Referral 3. Conflicts for Security Referral The above classification guides local authorities, development agencies, civil society organizations and peace advocates in determining the location and timing of intervention. For all other conflicts not falling under the above classification, development agencies, civil society organizations and local authorities could provide conventional support measures in capacity development for self-help resolution of conflicts and creation of favorable environments for conflict transformation.

Science and Information Referral generally pertains to conflict sources that are linked to unequal access, varying interpretations, varying dates or mere absence of data. Land maps and other maps could be accessed from the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA), DENR-Land Management Bureau (LMB), DENR-Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB), relevant agencies of local government units or academic and research institutions. The key task is finding the information and certification based on legal mandate.

Legal, Administrative and Judicial Referral generally pertain to conflict sources that linked are to mal-administration of laws and policies, contested decisions, unregulated and competing access to resources without the benefit of law, policy and regulation, or the whole range of informal arrangements or a mix of formal and informal arrangements that require the proper dispensation of laws, policies and regulations.

Nonetheless, facilitators and mediators should be able to gauge whether the process of formalization could, in itself, lead to further conflicts. In some situations, interim arrangements are more desirable than abrupt formalization.

Security Referral pertains to a conflict where the level of escalation demands power-based intervention of the police or military especially if the urgent need is to prevent further loss of property and lives. In the ConRefSys, this type of referral is transitory. Facilitators and mediators should not be involved in security operations.

Conflict contingency model for early warning

One of the key foundations of the referral system is the contingency model for early warning. As elaborated in the OECD-DAC Guidelines for helping prevent violent conflicts, early warning is concerned with the monitoring and analysis of early signals of potential conflict, escalation of violence and impending humanitarian disasters.5 The ConRefSys is anchored on and is a calibrated and pre-emptive response to micro-level early warning methodology that is also designed to assist government in providing guided responses. The model has been described in the earlier sections of this report (Figure 3).

5 See: OECD (2001:91)

26

Conflict monitoring

Conflict monitoring has multiple functions: firstly, it is based on the process and results based monitoring (PRRM) framework used by EnRD and is designed to capture both processes and results of conflict handling and mitigation; secondly, it is also based on the conflict contingency model that provides early warning of conflict escalation and informs strategies for enhancement of conflict sensitivity and transformation; and thirdly, it provides updated information for risk and security management. Conflict monitoring sample forms at Component (Figure 4) and Program Levels (Figure 5) used by GIZ-EnRD are shown below.

Overall, conflict monitoring serves the following purposes to: • Establish program indicators of outcomes in constructive handling and management of conflicts • Inform enhancements in strategies for conflict sensitivity and conflict transformation • Establish data for assessing effectiveness of strategies and tools, including the utilization of the ConRefSys • Encourage partners to appreciate and learn from the results of their actions

Figure 4. Sample conflict monitoring forms: Component Level-EnRD Program, GIZ

Figure 5. Sample of program level monitoring results (as of 01 January 2013) of the EnRD Program, GIZ that shows the aggregate number of cases constructively handled (or where conflict escalation has been prevented from a preceding baseline) and mitigated (or where the conflict status has de-escalated from the preceding baseline)

27

Local Capacity Another key feature of the ConRefSys is the building and strengthening of local capacities for peace. Seventy-six representatives of national government agencies (NGAs), provincial local government units (PLGUs), municipal local government units (MLGUs) and GIZ-EnRD program staff participated in conflict sensitization workshops conducted in Leyte, Southern Leyte and Negros Occidental in February and April 2011. In addition, 24 representatives from NGAs, PLGUs, MLGUs and academe (from Negros Occidental, Southern Leyte and Leyte) completed a four-module conflict transformation (training) course and later constituted the provincial trainors’ pools in their respective provinces. One, the Leyte Island Trainor’s Pool (LITP), has been formally organized as a non-governmental organization (NGO).

The LITP is a member of the Eastern Visayas Land Administration and Management Consortium (EVLAMC), which is composed of the Visayas State University as base institution, the League of Municipalities of the PhilippinesLeyte and Southern Leyte chapters and the provincial governments of Leyte and Southern Leyte. The EVLAM Consortium is envisioned to sustain EnRD support to LGUs in Region 8. Part of its future role is to serve as a common platform in the discussion, analysis and resolution of land-related issues and concerns in the Region.

In Leyte and Southern Leyte, Municipal and Barangay Officials readily respond to legal and administrative issues raised by members of the LITP.

28

Process model

The referral process is multi-dimensional. The core technical process (Figure 6) is complemented and accompanied by parallel political, social, legal and administrative and external support processes.

Technical procedure The technical procedure consists of four modules and 21 sub-steps, and a regular monitoring process that cuts cross the four modules.

Administrative procedures When the referral process reaches Module 3, the details and process time of administrative procedures will be mainly determined by what is prescribed in implementing rules and regulations and guidelines pertinent to specific laws and policies influencing certain types of conflict. In general, government agencies are supposed to be guided by 15-day blocks in response time for certain administrative steps. Executive Order No. 292, S. 1987 or the Administrative Code of 1987 emphasizes that public office is a public trust (Sec. 32) and that public officers will be held accountable for neglect of duty within a period prescribed by law (Sec. 38).

In addition to the Administrative Code of 1987, there are other legal safeguards in regard to expected behavior of public officials such as Republic Act No. 6713 of 1989 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees and Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of 1960.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 6713 emphasizes policy of public disclosure of transactions involving public interest, provision of information, records or documents to any requesting public (Rule IV, Sec. 3), establishment of information system and network for widest dissemination of information (Rule IV, Sec. 4) and prompt, courteous and adequate services (Rule V, Sec. 1). Moreover, there are oversight agencies such as the Ombudsman, Civil Service Commission and Commission on Audit.

The bulk of process risks are expected in Module 3. A 2004 report by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) cites a report of the Ombudsman stating that the Philippine government has lost an equivalent of US $ 48 billion over the last 20 years on account of corruption.6 The same report cites data from the Commission on Audit stating that losses due to corruption average US$44.5 million. What may appear as inefficiency and bureaucratic red tape to the marginalized sectors could be a product of rent seeking that usually favors the rich and powerful.

It is incumbent on facilitators, mediators and conflict parties to deepen their familiarity of the relevant laws, policies, implementing rules and regulations and administrative procedures and process time during the pre-negotiation stage. They also need to be aware that state agencies and local government units do not necessarily operate as well-oiled machines. Administrative performance could be influenced by human behavior. Facilitators and conflict parties need to consider process risks that could emanate from inefficiencies, inadequate or imperfect information, bureaucratic red tape and corruption.

6 See: UN-DESA (2004;15)

29

Figure 6. Referral process modules

1 Preparation

Conflict identification and

1 clustering by conflict typology Conflict Analysis 2 Participatory (PCA) 3 Do No Harm Check Development and adoption of escalation paradigm 4 conflict and conflict monitoring tool

2 Dialogues and pre-negotiations Identification of facilitating

1 agent or mediator and selection 2 Identification of initial set of participants

STEP

STEP

STEP

STEP

from direct parties to the conflict

STEP

STEP

5

STEP

Selection of cases for referral and clustering into: Science and Information Referral; Legal and Administrative Referral and Security Referral

Conduct of dialogues for

building and 3 relationship issue reduction

STEP

with links to existing 4 causes laws, policies, and rules and Identification of conflict

STEP

regulations Secure commitment of

parties to undertake 5 conflict legal and administrative

STEP

6

STEP

Initial training activities and building of local capacities for peace (e.g. creation of a Trainor’s Pool and/or pool of facilitators and mediators)

7 Conflict monitoring

STEP

30

processes Provision of training on

bargaining 6 communication, and negotiations

STEP

7 Conflict monitoring

STEP

3 Legal and / or administrative referral conflict parties and 1 between relevant government agencies Facilitated pre-negotiations

4 Evaluation and lesson learning Micro-level Participatory

Impact Assessment 1 Conflict (PCIA)

STEP

STEP

Legal research and STEP sorting out of legal and administrative issues

STEP

2

Local partners facilitate

with 2 cross-learning other conflict parties and intervening actors

3

Determination of process STEP time, costs and risks

Dissemination of knowledge

lessons learned to wider 3 and audiences

STEP

to proceed and 4 commitment nominate their negotiators; Conflict parties reaffirm

STEP

parties reaffirm consent to external facilitation Undertake referral procedures

derivation of decision 5 until or signing of agreement

STEP

sustainability of 4 Secure agreements through provision

STEP

of technical support and structural measures

5 Conflict monitoring

STEP

partners maintain 6 GIZ dialogue with relevant

STEP

government agencies

7 Conflict monitoring

STEP

31

Political Processes In the ConRefSys, political processes are about decision-making, legitimacy and authority to enforce agreements. It is not about a purely hierarchical referral that submits decision making to the topmost ladder of the conflict pyramid and hierarchy of the State. The system is about empowering the grassroots and invoking reforms in the institutional framework conditions. Facilitators and mediators need to recognize and respect political decision-making in several dimensions such as: • The political process of decision-making within each group of conflict actors, i.e. to commit to the referral process and to abide by whatever agreements that may be derived from the process • The ladderized decision making authority of intervening actors. In the forestry sector, for example, the responsiveness and decisions of the CENRO, PENRO, Regional Director and DENR Secretary are locations of authority that need to be recognized. These are human beings with administrative authority, and the interplay of personal behavior and accountability based on rank plays a role in political decision-making. Although the administrative guidelines may prescribe a decision time within 15 days, it takes a political act to put a person’s signature on the decision and this act might take more than 15 days.

• Finally, the consensual political act of conflict parties and intervening actors to go through the transformation process, fulfill commitments or enforce agreements. In many cases, consensual political acts are difficult to derive at the local level because of the close inter-personal relationships between communities and local authorities. There is always a risk that political vested interest may override science-based decisions. This is commonly found in conflicts pertaining to territorial boundary conflicts and settlements in danger zones where competition over electoral votes or share of the internal revenue allotment (IRA) prolongs the duration of the conflict.

Social processes In the ConRefSys, social processes pertain to internal negotiations within each group of conflict parties and bilateral negotiations, consensus building and relationship building between two or more groups of conflict parties. The inner group processes are often difficult due to variances of goals, interests and positions even within a family, clan or a sector. The complexity is often observed in informal settlements or illegally occupied lands where settlers and squatters do not easily find common ground among themselves and, much more, common ground with competing groups such as private landowners or local governments.

It is incumbent on facilitators and mediators to facilitate social processes within each group of conflict parties before facilitating a dialogue between two sets or competing conflict parties. It is always helpful to go back to the conflict profile and the profile of the direct and indirect parties to the conflict.

Complementary measures The state has the obligation to protect the rights and ensure the well-being of citizens. This obligation is often difficult to fulfill when the government itself becomes a party to the conflict and is positioned against the interests of its own citizens. This happens when a program or a law is perceived to be exclusionary owing to prioritization of resource flows or differential effects of the application of the law. For example, what may be perceived as a zoning ordinance for the good of all could be particularly adverse to the interests of those that will be relocated from informal settlements or danger zones. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on government to sustain complementary measures as part of its day-to-day business in governance. Countervailing measures should be provided to restore perceived imbalances. In this regard, donor agencies could invest in propping up the capacity and resources of government in providing complementary measures. This is also in line with the peace framework of government that explicitly suggests the symbiotic relationship between Track 1 processes and Complementary tracks.

32

Stakeholders’ roles

The ConRefSys is a multi-stakeholder, participatory and consensual undertaking.

The main actors are the direct and indirect parties to the conflict (or the primary stakeholders), the intervening parties (e.g. government, academic and research institutions) that have the power and resources to influence the dynamics of the conflict, and facilitating and/or mediating agents who have the power and resources to influence the behavior of conflict parties.

Table 4. Stakeholders’ roles Attributes

Primary and Key Stakeholders

Other Primary Stakeholders

Who They Are

• Direct party to the conflict

Roles

Intervening Parties

Facilitating Agents

• Secondary or indirect party to the conflict but who would be directly affected by the decisions of the primary parties

• Those with power, resources, and formal and informal mandates to influence the conflict or the conflict parties

• Professional or informally trained facilitators or mediators respected by or acceptable to the conflict parties

• To pursue goals • To protect own goals and interests and interests • To support the • To nominate direct parties and or select their agreed processes own negotiators

• To create favorable environment for nonviolent negotiations • To arbitrate based on provisions of law and policy • To guide the process based on prescribed rules and regulations • To be conscious and transparent on progress, process time and results • To provide technical support and other services to address roots of the conflict

• To facilitate communication and relationship building between conflict parties • To take lead in prenegotiations • To accompany the negotiators during the referral process • To facilitate capacity building activities in support of the conflict parties

33

Table 5. Stakeholders by location of conflict Primary and Key Stakeholders

34

Other Primary Stakeholders

Intervening Parties

Forest and mining areas and ancestral domains

• Indigenous peoples • Migrant and informal settlers • Mining investors • Timber companies • Illegal loggers and illegal miners • Poachers of non-timber products

• Families and relatives of the primary parties • Secondary investors • Timber and mineral processors and traders • Moneylenders • Suppliers of basic commodities • Suppliers of technology for mining and timber

• Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); specifically, Bureau of Forest Development (BFD), Mines and Geosciences Bureau and Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) • National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) • Local Government Units • Judiciary • Development agencies • Civil society organizations • PNP and AFP • Religious leaders • Armed non-state actors

Fisheries and coastal zones

• Municipal fishers • Commercial fishers • Illegal fishers • Tourism investors • Mangrove users (legal and illegal) • Shell gatherers

• Informal settlers in salvage zones • Fish traders and processors • Market vendors • Suppliers of fishery products

• DA- Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) • DENR • Local Government Units • National Mapping and Resource Information Agency (NAMRIA) • Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Councils (FARMCs) • PNP and AFP • Development agencies • Civil society organizations • Religious leaders

Agricultural zones

• Farmers/cultivators • Big and small owners • Land developers • Agricultural investors

• Suppliers of agricultural products • Traders and processors of agricultural produce • Moneylenders

• DA • DENR • Department of Agrarian Reform • Local Government Units • National Irrigation Authority • Civil society organizations • Development agencies • Religious leaders

Urban and peri-urban Zones

• Private landowners • Local Government Units • Illegal/informal settlers • Housing and commercial development companies • Urban-based industries

• Urban residents • Migrant and transient workers • Migrant settlers • Commercial establishments

• Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) • Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) • National Housing Authority • Local Government Units • Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) • National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) • Development agencies • Civil society organizations • PNP • Armed non-state actors

Facilitating Agents • Trained facilitators and mediators from government, NGOs, development programs, churches, civic organizations

Application The ConRefSys was originally designed as a reactive hierarchical referral system to be applied at a point when conflict is escalating from Level 2 to Level 3 and when the role of third parties are deemed necessary due to rupture of communications between the conflict parties. Based on experience, however, the referral system could be proactively applied even at Level 0 or at the stage of dormancy. Hence, it now serves a dual purpose of mitigation and prevention (of escalation).

The system can be applied based on the following minimum conditions: • Willingness of conflict parties to communicate and undertake interest and relationship-based negotiations • Readiness to accept third-party intervention • Readiness of intervening parties to especially local governments and mandated national government agencies, fairly administer laws and policies and apply prescribed rules and regulations • Availability of local capacity for facilitation and mediation

• Trained facilitators and mediators from government, NGOs, development programs, churches, civic organizations

The application of the system is highly flexible. It can be initiated by LGUs, civil society organizations or concerned citizens. With adequate provision of information and education on the use value of the system, conflict parties may take the initiative in seeking support for referral.

Flexibility is also suggested in the modular approach. In a situation where the processes and results of Modules 1 and 2 have been completed – similar to the conditions achieved across the components of EnRD – a referral may proceed immediately to Module 3. What is important is a keen appraisal of the modules and sub-steps that have been completed to avoid unnecessary repetition of processes. In fact, Module 1 is an aggregate process done by EnRD as a program. The sub-steps will appear differently at the local government or community level.

• Trained facilitators and mediators from government, NGOs, development programs, churches, civic organizations

• Trained facilitators and mediators from government, NGOs, development programs, churches, civic organizations

35

ConRefSys Anticipated results Based on the process and results based monitoring framework, the anticipated results of the ConRefSys should be appreciated at different levels, namely: (a) use of outputs; (b) outcomes; and (c) impacts. These results could be found in the component and program level reports and at the level of communities affected by the conflicts.

Currently, there are two sources of data for assessing program level and community level results: (1) the annual Client Satisfaction Survey (CSS); and (2) the quarterly and annual monitoring data that feed into the bi-annual progress reports and terminal report of GIZ-EnRD to BMZ. The baseline references at each level of escalation were set in June 2011 after agreement on the contingency model and conflict monitoring framework and tool. During the period, 120 conflicts were recorded. The total number of conflicts monitored has since increased to 171 by June 2012, of which 157 are directly within the coverage of the program.

Program level results

Figure 7 below shows the overall results of constructive handling and mitigation as of January 2013 where 56% and 36% of recorded conflicts have been constructively handled (or maintained at their baseline status) and mitigated (or de-escalated from preceding status), respectively. This is based on the new baseline reference established in June 2012 where among the recorded conflicts, 129 were on Green status, 31 in Blue status and 11 in Orange status.

Currently, however, it is difficult to establish the attribution of results to the ConRefSys

Figure. 7. Sample Results of constructive handling and mitigation Source: GIZ-EnRD, PRRM Data as of January 2013

36

especially given the multiplicity of technical and structural support measures provided

by GIZ, local authorities and other partners. Conflict parties have access to support packages such as trainings, small grants, planning tools such as SIMPLE, disaster preparedness tools such as the Local Flood Early Warning Systems (LFEWS) and relevant knowledge products.

The degree of attribution to (or contribution of ) the ConRefSys from the program level and community level results would require conscious application and tracking and reporting of progress. There is no doubt that local partners have partly utilized elements of the ConRefSys (such as conflict profiling and mapping) or may have even unconsciously embarked on referral processes. Nonetheless, a full appreciation of the effectiveness of the system requires prior and explicit use of the system.

A complementary, broader and external source of data on actual results is the annual CSS. For Phase II of EnRD, the first CSS was conducted in May 2011 with reference activities and results covering the 2009 to March 2011 period. Among others, the 2011 CSS suggests the following conflict-related results: 7 • 23% of recorded land use conflicts and 4% of policy conflicts have been resolved.

• In the CBFM areas, 26% and 43% of respondents reported that conflicts have been resolved and de-escalated, respectively.

It must be noted, however, that conflict scoping and analysis were initiated only in late 2010 and the corresponding tools were introduced only in early 2011. Although 76 representatives of NGAs and LGUs have participated in the conflict sensitization workshops and 24 other representatives of LGUs and academic institutions have participated in the training of trainors (TOT) and subsequent formation of the Trainor’s Pool, the relevant knowledge products are not yet widely disseminated. In fact, only 1% (437) of CSS respondents have participated in the trainings.

The CSS 2011 results also suggest that the mitigation of conflicts are attributed to a combination of factors such as information and education campaigns (IEC), passage of and communication of zoning ordinances through IEC and clarification of boundaries apparently using already established procedures of the program. The other factors that could be attributed to the elements of the conflict referral system are the facilitated and/ or mediated dialogues and consultations among People’s Prganizations (POs), DENR 7 The results are based on responses of 437 participants of 36 focus group discussions.

37

and the LGU and inter-agency meetings on policy issues. It is clear, however, that CSS respondents are not yet familiar with the ConRefSys. Without explicit use of output (i.e. the ConRefSys) and related processes, it would be difficult to establish attributions or contributions of the system to the results of conflict handling and mitigation. From the technical perspective and standpoint of the program, the process of constructive handling and mitigation may be deemed fulfilled by the following indicators of program and component level actions (Table 5): Table 5. Process and Use of Output Indicators of Constructive Handling and Mitigation Indicators

Must Have in Constructive Handling

Must Have in Mitigation

Conflict Analysis and Profiling

✔

✔

Do No Harm Check

✔

✔

Peace Building Needs Analysis

✔

✔

Conflict Sensitization

✔

✔

Dissemination of Relevant Tools (Conflict Analysis, Do No Harm Check and Peace Building Needs Analysis, Conflict Contingency Analysis, Conflict Monitoring, Risk Analysis, ConRefSys)

✔

✔

Capacity Development for Conflict Transformation ✔

Conflict Monitoring

✔

Training of Mediators and Facilitators

✔

Training of Negotiators

✔

Application of the ConRefSys

✔

Provision of Complementary Measures

✔

✔

Lesson Learning

✔

✔

Community level results Although GIZ looks at the results from the perspective of its goal formation, specifically, indicators of constructive handling and mitigation, affected parties and communities will appreciate results from their own perspectives. Based on the conceptual framework, the community level results of the ConRefSys could be examined by asking the following research questions: • How the system has influenced transformation of relationships between and among conflict parties • How the system, or its elements, has influenced the reduction and transformation of issues • How the system has influenced changes in the institutional framework conditions influencing the dynamics of the conflict and behaviour of conflict parties

38

Lessons shared by GIZ-EnRD scholars and officers of the LITP during an FGD on 04 January 2012 suggest the need for a more methodical approach to conflict referral especially in complex situations.8 Conflict parties and intervening actors behave differently even under similar conditions of expert facilitation. In the Municipality of Abuyog (Leyte), two barangays – Brgy. Sta. Fe and Brgy. Victory – have contested control of a border area and population since 1975 with the intention of controlling the bigger share of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA). In 2009, the Municipal Implementing Team (MIT) facilitated a Participatory Land Use and Development Planning (PLUDP) - now SIMPLE or Sustainable Integrated Management and Planning for Local Government Ecosystems - and introduced GIS-based maps as common information. In a matter of two years, the two barangays arrived at a consensus and sought the authority of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) to officially fix the boundary through a new SB Resolution.9 Correspondingly, the official addresses of 19 families affected by the conflict have been corrected in the records of the National Statistics Office (NSO) and the Community-based Monitoring System (CBMS).10 A similar boundary conflict but on a larger scale affects the relationship between the Municipalities of Abuyog and Silago (one belonging to Leyte and the other, to Southern Leyte) and the loyalties of the populations of fourteen (14) barangays whose territories are contested by the two municipalities. The conflict has persisted since the elevation of Silago from the status of a Barangay to a Municipality in 1950.11 The same conflict has, on the one hand, caused disparities in the distribution of the IRA and, on the other, confusion among affected populations on claims for delivery of basic services and payment of taxes. It has also affected the direction of revenue flows from real property and other local taxes.

The Abuyog-Silago conflict is constantly nurtured by actions and counter-actions such as contestations over posting of boundary signages or requests for electricity connection. The two municipalities each have MITs assisting the implementation of the various components of GIZ-EnRD including a similar land use planning applied in Brgy. Victory and Brgy. Sta. Fe (in Abuyog) and provision of cadastral maps, but still, the conflict has persisted.12 It appears that the hierarchical referral (up to the provincial level) is more complex and the process time is longer. It also appears that the mere availability and common access to a cadastral map do necessarily lead to a reduction of issues and transformation of relationships.

8 Twelve participants – GIZ-EnrD DLAM/MLAM scholars whose curricula include conflict, and program advisors and officers of the LITP participated in the FGD sharing of lessons learned on 04 January 2012, held at Alejandro Hotel, Tacloban City.

9 Shared by Eufemia Gacis, GIZ-EnRD Scholar during the FGD. Also see: Gacis and Beltran (2012).

10 Ibid.

11 Shared by Eutiquio Beloy and Elmer Abad during the FGD. Also see: Beloy and Abad (2012).

12 Ibid.

39

Boundary and land conflicts even become more complex when they emerge as a result of disasters. The 2009 Guinsaugon (Landslide) Tragedy has resulted not only to a globally compelling humanitarian crisis but also the displacement of the survivors. The conflict is now between the LGU that prevents the survivors from returning to their lands - on the advice from the Mines and GeoSciences Bureau (MGB) of the DENR that has declared Brgy. Guinsaugon as a disaster and no-habitation zone – and the survivors of the barangay who want to return to the land for livelihood and income.13 This conflict requires a referral process that looks at issues of disaster preparedness and response, livelihoods, income and shelter and a hierarchical referral process that should bring in science and information, and housing and livelihood programs. Correspondingly, the referral process needs to recognize the confluence of national agency and local government mandates.

A similar problem affects the relationship between the Municipal LGU of Javier (Southern Leyte) and 54 households in a riparian zone. The latter is a government-induced zone emerging from the establishment of an irrigation system by the National Irrigation Authority (NIA). As a matter of policy derived from a municipal ordinance (the formulation of which was supported by GIZ-EnRD), the 54 households are now, in the eyes of the law, illegally occupying a no-habitation zone. However, the LGU does not yet have enough means to facilitate the relocation.14 Besides, the change of status of the land was induced by the action of a national agency of government without prior policy coordination and dialogues on relocation with the local authorities and affected communities. Meanwhile, one barangay official is offering to host the 54 households on his private land with the intention of using the population increase as means of increasing the BLGU share from the IRA and private gain from the sale of land.15 The community peacebuilding objectives will take a longer time to achieve compared to the time-bound conflict management and handling objectives of the program. Other lesson learning tools or approaches could be used to determine community-level progress and results. These could include the following: (a) insertion of relevant and appropriate rider questions to the CSS; (b) purposive survey using a representative sample of actors involved in the 171 recorded conflicts; (c) case studies; and (d) collaborative lesson learning exercises.

The GIZ-EnRD progress reports to BMZ actually contain data on changes in the institutional framework conditions that could be used as reference for tracing back or examining the contributions of the ConRefSys. GIZ-EnRD Progress Report No. 8 (as of 2012), for example, cites installation of Forest Land Use Plans (FLUP) in 17 LGUs, rehabilitation of 2,097 hectares of forests and establishment of agro-forestry systems in another 2,065 hectares, formulation of 40 Coastal and Fisheries Resource Management Plans (CFRM) and establishment of seven inter-LGU alliances comprising 40 LGUs. In Negros Occidental, the inter-LGU alliances have demonstrated effectiveness of enforcing uniform fishery ordinances. The regulation of shell fishing (Angelwing and Nylon shells), for example, has been cited as instrumental in the improvement of harvest and people’s income.

13 Shared by Verwena Bibar, GIZ-EnRD scholar and case study writer, during the FGD. Also see: Bibar and Goda (2012).

14 Shared by the MPDC of Javier during the FGD. 15 Ibid.,

40

ConRefSys Technical and financial feasibility

The ConRefSys has not yet been methodically and fully tested as would have provided information on the full financial cost of system application. The direct costs will vary according to conflict typology, physical distance of conflict parties to the offices of intervening actors, number of hierarchical layers that would influence process time and process risks such as incomplete staff work, bureaucratic red tape and possible delays owing to other causes such as undue intervention of spoilers.

At the first instance, the financial feasibility should be anchored on a cost-benefit framework of analysis where the costs refer to the economic, political and social costs of unmanaged conflicts versus the benefits to investing in a methodical process that leads to greater chances in conflict resolution and/or transformation.

Essentially, it is about comparing the cost of doing nothing (and possibly more harm) and doing something toward the possibility of transforming the conflict.

The cost of unmanaged conflicts is actually amplified if withheld investments, lack of incentives to production, foregone income and psychosocial stresses are taken into account.

There are direct costs that should be borne by the conflict parties themselves. In fact, the conscious recognition of these costs should form part of their internal processes in making decisions toward agreeing to the referral process. Some of the direct costs are prescribed by administrative rules and regulations, and are born by any other citizen whether involved in conflict or not (Table 6). The other costs are borne by intervening actors such as government agencies and local government units, and these form part of programmed budgets for state administration. In areas where there are development programs, donor agencies could indirectly support the referral costs through complementary measures.

Local authorities, CSOs, people’s organizations and peace advocates could independently and jointly develop creative strategies for generating resources to cover the costs of building capacities for peace. One possible source is the Local DRRM Fund (LDRRMF), formerly the Local Calamity Fund, and the National DRRM Fund, both of which allows utilization of the fund for work and services related to human-induced disasters.16 The NDRRM Fund has an initial PHP 1 billion revolving fund that could be tapped by LGUs, in addition to their LDRRMF.17

16 See Rule 19, IRR of the NDRRM Act of 2010.

17 See Rule 20, IRR of the NDRRM Act.

41

Table 6. Cost items and coverage of costs Cost Items

Accountability and Possible Cost Sharing Scheme Conflict Parties

NGAs

Participatory conflict analysis

LGUs

CSOs and Academe

Donor Programs

Shared costs for transportation, accommodation and food

Training

Shared costs for transportation, accommodation food and facilitation

Dialogues

Transportation and food of designated representative or negotiator

Government budget for representation

Government budget for representation

Transportation and food

Financial and technical support

Facilitation and/or Mediation Services

Professional fee or honorarium of the facilitator/mediator

NA

NA

Possible coverage of facilitation and mediation cost

Indirect support for mediation and facilitation cost

Government accountability to provide information

Government accountability to provide information

Research cost

Financial and technical support for research

Government accountability to administer laws and policies

Facilitation cost

Support for facilitation cost

Paralegal and legal support

NA

Facilitation

Financial and technical support

Research (to fill data gaps) Administrative processes

Applicable fees

Government accountability to administer laws and policies

Judicial processes

Applicable legal fees

NA

Complementary measures

Cost of participation

Livelihoods and other programs

Livelihoods and other programs

Technical Feasibility Although sequential and methodical, the modular approach of the ConRefSys allows practitioners to exercise flexibility in application and avoid loss of time and resources by unnecessarily repeating actions that have been previously done. What is important is to gauge the current status of conflict handling and availability of other relevant information.

The technical feasibility of system application rests on the following assumptions: •Prior identification and analysis of conflicts and identification of conflict causes and sources that require referral •Availability of a facilitator and/or mediator acceptable to the conflict parties and who have access to identified intervening actors •Willingness of conflict parties to embark on the referral process and cover the direct costs of legal and administrative requirements •Responsiveness of intervening actors to provide the necessary support in a time bound and transparent manner based on the Administrative Code of 1987 •Facilitator and/or mediator access to other means of support or resources Development agencies, academic institutions and the CSO community play a big role in the development of local capacity and specific enhancements of the capacities of local facilitators and mediators. It will be difficult to initiate and sustain the referral process without an adequately trained facilitator or mediator.

On the other hand, the acceptability of the facilitator and/or mediator and corresponding consent of conflict parties need to be secured in a flexible manner.

42

Ideally, it would be good to secure a written consent of the two parties. Similarly, it would be desirable for conflict parties to execute written credential for the designation of their negotiators. Nonetheless, facilitators and mediators should exercise flexibility in seeking written consent. There is always a risk that the insistence on formality might derail the whole process.

The feasibility of administrative procedures could be strengthened if the concerned officials or agencies adhere to the prescriptions of the Administrative Code and implementing rules and regulations of specific laws and policies. In the forest sector, for example, a referred conflict over encroachment or illegal extraction of timber and non-timber forest products in a protected forest could be administratively settled over a period of 2-3 months inclusive of process time for appeals to upper levels of the institutional hierarchy.

In the experience of Leyte, some boundary conflicts between sets of land claimants and sets of competing LGUs have lingered for decades. Although the economic and social effects have not been examined and quantified, the general perception is that the protracted conflicts have caused disincentives to production and foregone LGU revenues and tax income. The potential costs of unmanaged conflicts tend to be higher in disaster zones, such as St. Bernard in Southern Leyte, where the protracted conflict between the LGU and communities over settlements in disaster zones could possibly lead to a major humanitarian crisis, if and when the 2009 disaster is repeated. Familiarity with applicable laws, policies and rules and regulations and the general institutional framework conditions and the costs and benefits of referral could help conflict parties to make informed decisions on how to deal with their conflicts.

Local capacity is a critical requirement for technical feasibility. In the example of Leyte and Southern Leyte, GIZ-EnRD facilitated the establishment of the Leyte Island Trainors’ Pool (LITP) that currently comprises fifty (50) trained and/or experienced facilitators and mediators. Although most are working as employees of local governments and national government agencies, they can be alternately tapped for facilitation and/or mediation services in their own locales. This human resource base could be further expanded if CSOs, people’s organizations and peace advocates tap into the resources of other local bodies such as the POCs, NDRRMCs, extension units of universities and colleges, civic organizations and others.

43

ConRefSys Recommendations The current situation suggests that it is not yet possible to fully examine and appreciate lessons learned from the application of the ConRefSys. There are emerging lessons and positive results from partial applications. However, these results could be attributed to many other influences and may not be strongly attributed to the application of the ConRefSys. The following next steps could be undertaken: • Disseminate the ConRefSys knowledge document as IEC material for local partners and social groups involved in conflicts.

• Engage local academic institutions and CSOs to examine the technical and financial feasibility of system application. Initially, GIZ-EnRD could optimize the conflict scholarship program by sustaining the partnership with VSU-LAMP and frontloading the ConRefSys into the research proposals of the scholars.

• Revisit the conflict scope and identify conflict cases for referral and further clustering the selected cases into three subsets: (a) Science and Information Referral; (b) Legal and Administrative Referral; and, (c) Security Referral. Correspondingly, identify and create a list of relevant intervening actors pertinent to each subset.

• Purposively test the ConRefSys across the EnRD program components and methodically document the processes and results. Each component, through local partners, could select 2-3 cases for purposive testing in various locations. The distribution by geographic location and sector would be helpful in the comparative analysis of results. When feasible, it might also be good to test system application in areas outside of the GIZEnRD scope.

• At the end of six months, conduct a lesson learning exercise to assess the results of testing and determine feasibility of replication outside the EnRD program scope. One output of this exercise would be the development of “how to” guides applicable to specific typologies of conflict in the context of a post-EnRD scenario.

• At the end of one year, conduct an evaluative and lesson learning exercise using a comparative analysis of results of application in the EnRD program scope and non-EnRD program scope.

Anderson, Mary B. (1999). Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – or War. Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner Publishers.

44

References Azar, E. (1990). The Management of Protracted Social Conflict: Theory and Cases. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

Beloy, E. and E. Abad. (2012). “The Case of Silago-Abuyog: Land Conflict due to Political Boundary Disputes,” Case study submitted to the Visayas State University – Department of Land Administration and Management, March 2012.

Bibar, Verwena.C. and Ritchel M. Goda. (2012). “Guinsaugon Case Study: Land Conflict After the Landslide, St. Bernard, Southern Leyte,” Case study submitted to the Visayas State University-Department of Land Administration and Management, March 2012.

Bigdon, C. & B. Korf. (2004). The Role of Development Aid in Conflict Transformation: Facilitating Empowerment Processes and Community Building. Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Conflict Management. http://www. berghof-handbook.net/articles/section-iv-structural-reformsinstitutionbuilding-and-violence-control

Fisher, R.J. (2011). Methods of Third Party Intervention. Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Conflict Management. http:// www.berghof-handbook.net/articles/section-iii-third-partytools-and-capacity-building Fisher, R. and Keashly, L. (1991). The potential complementarity of mediation and consultation within a contingency model of third party intervention. Journal of Peace Research, 28(1), 2942.

Gacis, Eufemia and E.C.D. Beltran. (2012). “Barangay Sta. Fe and Brgy. Victory Boundary Conflict, “ Case study submitted to the Visayas State Universtiy-Department of Land Administration and Management, 28 March 2012.

Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), 291-305.

Galtung, J. (1989). Solving Conflicts: A Peace Research Perspective. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Bloomfield, D. and Ben Reilly (1998). „The Changing Nature of Conflict and Conflict Management,“ in Harris P. and Ben Reilly (eds.) 1998. Democracy and Deep-­rooted conflict, Stockholm: Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).

GIZ-EnRD. (2012). Progress Report on the TC Measure, Report No. 8, Reporting Period 01 July 2011-30 June 2012

Bush, Robert, A. Baruch & J. P. Folger. (2005). The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict. Revised Edition. San Fracisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Buss, Helmut. (2009). Measuring and Reducing the Cost of Conflict at Work in UNCHR: The business case of conflict management. Institut Universitaire Kurt Bosch. http:// www.vdbio.ch/downloads/konfliktmanagement/Thesis_ FINAL_180209.pdf

Lara, F. and S. Schoofs. (eds). (2013). Out of the Shadows: Violent Conflict and the Real Economy of Mindanao. Manila: International Alert.

Cloke K, Goldsmith J. (2005). Resolving Conflicts at Work.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Costantiono C. A. and Sickles Merchant C, Designing Conflict Management Systems (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1996) 22.

Curle, A. (1971). Making Peace, London: Tavistock.

Dabo, A., J. Salmon, M. Venancio & P. Keuleers. Local governance, peace building and state building in post-conflict settings: A UNDP Discussion Paper. http: uncdf.org/gfld/docs/ post-conflict/pdf.

Deles, T. (2012). Reflections on the Peace Process, Metrobank Professional Chair Lecture, Ateneo de Manila University, 3 February 2012. http://opapp.gov.ph/resources/reflectionspeace-process Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).

(2008). Memorandum Circular 2008-101, Reorganization and Guidelines in Monitoring the Functionality of Barangay Peace and Order Councils (BPOCs).

GIZ-EnRD. (2011). Client Satisfaction Survey 2011, Draft Final Report

Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.

McCuddy, M.K. (2003). Organizational Behavior. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://www.uni-muenster.de/ Politikwissenschaft/Doppeldiplom/docs/Organizational.pdf.

Mercado, Elmer. 2011. Integrating Forest Land Use Planning (FLUP) and other related sectoral and resource management arrangements (i.e. Coastal Resource Management, Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, etc.) into the Comprehensive Land Use Planning Process (CLUP): Issues, Opportunities and Approaches to Sustainable and Integrated Land Use Planning in the Philippines. (Draft Report for GIZ-EnRD, as of July 2011).

Miall, H. (2004).

Conflict Transformation: A MultiDimensional Task. Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Conflict Management. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/ documents/publications/miall_handbook.pdf Moore, Christopher W. (1986). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, C. (1996). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

45

Moore, C. W. (2003). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. Third Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ssentongo, A. & J. v. Raalten. (2007). From Conflict to Co-Existence: An Intervention Model. http://www. monitor.upeace.org/printer.cfm?id_article=418

NEDA. (2011). Philippine Development Plan 20112016, Results Matrices. www.neda.gov.ph

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA). (2004). Republic of the Philippines: Public Administration Country Profile. www.unpan1. un.org/intradoc/groups/public/…/un/unpan023241.pdf.

Accessed on 17 January 2013

Obiekwe, K. (2009). “ In Search of Appropriate Peacemaking/Peacebuilding Paradigm in Dealing with Africa’s Intrastate Violent Conflicts: Considering Lederach’s Faith-based Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding Approach. “ Journal of Peace, Conflict and Development, Issue 13, February 2009. www.peacestudiesjournal.org.uk OECD. (2001). The DAC Guidelines: Helping Prevent Violent Conflict. www.oecd.org Office of the President. (1988). EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 320 March 11, 1988, AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 309, S. 1987, ENTITLED “REORGANIZING THE PEACE AND ORDER COUNCIL,” AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 317, S. 1988.

Office of the President. (1987). Executive Order No. 292, S. 1987, Instituting the Administrative Code of 1987.

OPAPP. (2011). The Philippine National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. www.opapp.gov.ph Quitoriano, E. (2012). The GIZ-EnRD Conflict Referral System, Revised Final Draft submitted to GIZ-EnRD, March 2012.

Quitoriano, E. and A. Cabrera. (2012). Ancestral Domains and Land Use Plans: Exploring Interfaces, report prepared for GIZ-COSERAM and GIZ-EnRD, November 2012.

Ropers, N. (2004). From Resolution to Transformation: The Role of Dialogue Projects. Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Conflict Management. www.berghofhandbook.net/documents/publications/ropers_handbook. pdf Rothman, J. and V. J. Friedman. (2001). “Identity, Conflict and Organizational Learning, “ in Berthoin, A. , M. Dierkes, J. Child and I. Nonaka (eds.) (2001). Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press Rothman, Jay. (1998). “Dialogue in Conflict: Past and Future,“ in Weiner, Eugene (ed.) 1998. The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence, New York, NY: Continuum, pp. 216-­235.

Rupesinghe, K. (ed.) 1995. Conflict Transformation, London: Macmillan.

Rupesinghe, K. 1998. Civil Wars, Civil Peace, London: Pluto.

Slaikeu K. A. and Hasson R. H., Controlling the Costs of Conflict: How to Design a System for Your Organization (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998) Figure 6.1 and Figure 8.1, 56 and 78.

46

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Registered offices Bonn and Eschborn, Germany 2B PDCP Bank Center, V.A. Rufino corner L.P. Leviste Sts. Salcedo Village, Makati City, Philippines Contact Dr. Walter Salzer Program Director and Principal Advisor Environment and Rural Development Program Tel. +63 2 892 9051 Fax +62 2 892 3374 Email: walter.salzer@giz.de www.enrdph.org