If there are any dedicated readers left, I apologize if you felt ignored since November. My final time was a whirlwind of activity. I attended the Asia Pacific Peace Research Association’s annual conference where I presented two papers (one of which came out of the work I engaged with in Mindanao), in Bangkok, Thailand. I then went for a week holiday, and returned to Mindanao for a full week of in-the-field work. I greatly appreciated this opportunity to be out in rural Mindanao again and have the opportunity to hear from those who were involved in resolving land conflicts in their communities – as facilitators, support persons, or the conflicted parties themselves. The feedback was enriching. Below are some notes of reflections from this time. After the field work, I returned to Davao for two weeks of intensive work writing up the interviews and completing my internship tasks. Since November, my final 6 weeks were beautiful but certainly also a flurry of activity.
Reflections from the interviews:
My primary output / expectation of my internship is to document resolved land conflicts in the A3B project. Due to a host of factors, mostly relating to travel bans, I was finally able to go to the field to conduct the needed interviews the last week of November. Due to Yolanda (and the way it changed plans for the entire organization to respond helpfully), we only visited 2 partners rather than 3 as originally planned. We interviewed people in Sultan Kudarat province from Monday through Wednesday and people from Maguindanao province Thursday and Friday.
The interviews were conducted with partner staff, with many TRLs (Traditional and Religious Leaders), and with conflicting parties. Some of the key insights that stand out include:
- The A3B process emphasized and made solid in people’s mind the need to dialogue with both parties separately before bringing them together for a face-to-face dialogue. This way, both sides can be heard and both are more prepared to meet the other (often already with ideas for options).
- Violence and death are often the alternatives to dialogue.
- Dialogue brought about a solution which will “probably last” and in most cases has significantly improved relationships to where the parties are “ok” with each other now and wouldn’t consider using violence toward the other.
- In some particular cases, power plays a major role. In some ways the solutions which emerge are less about the needs of each party and more about the need to avoid violence and get as best a solution as possible given the circumstances. At the same time, with IPs (especially) gaining strength to stand together as a community, they have been able to stand up for their right to land and have a collective voice against those trying to assert control over their land. Unfortunately, violence remains a ready tactic.
- In one area, a key bridging person has been vital for allowing dialogue and alternatives to violence to be considered. A TRL who has (some) trust with both sides of the issue – the “power” party and the marginalized community – has been able to go between both and bring about resolution and dialogue on the contested areas of land.
- There was a clear difference in accompaniment between the two partner organizations. One partner was a constant companion to the parties and facilitators, and was often cited in thanksgivings for their contribution and accompaniment role. They often were not up front in the facilitation, but were very much accompaniers. This seemed to be quite useful and welcome. For the other partner, the TRLs were very much on their own aside from trainings and capacity building through specific events/gatherings. While the TRLs were clearly very capable, I wonder what the impact would be if the partner staff were more closely connected to the situation. I think greater understanding of the dynamics of the situations would be known and documentation for the monitoring and evaluation officer would likely be easier. It’s a greater expense, both in money and time, but I do wonder if it’s vital for building trust and for sustaining a project due to the ability to gain greater learning, etc.
- The TRLs volunteer their time to participate in the facilitation of dialogues. They do this motivated for the importance of the task, for the importance for peace, and for their recognition of their leadership role. They do so willingly. At the same time, it is clear that this is a major sacrifice for them. For one TRL, he explained that his travels are extensive, and this means that not only is he paying out of his own pocket for the travel expenses but he’s also missing key work on his only income – his land and farm. Therefore doing this work is in many ways a “double loss” for him. I think this is seriously regrettable. While it is very good that he is motivated not by money, it’s also important we don’t burn out our key peacebuilders, or to force a choice between peace and food!! He related even that this week he went for a meeting with the mayor to allow access to an area of land. Had he not gone, there likely would have been deaths. But he didn’t get to work his farm, either.
- I was the only female in all of these encounters. In one of the communities, this was particularly noticeable as we all stayed together (partner staff and CRS staff) in one dormitory building. I realized it’s unusual for me to be the only female in such circumstances and at times it was even a bit overwhelming, especially where the partner staff numbered 4 (3 of whom were always with us), plus 2 male CRS staff, plus any conflicting parties (all of whom were male). … While there are certainly female TRLs, this also makes me wonder what the role of women is in these communities in terms of peacebuilding. In general, and also specifically through A3B. Why is it that there were no other women we interviewed, or who were present in the conversations? Was it just an odd coincidence?
justkalinaw 