Learning Brief

LEARNING BRIEF

“Pakada and tutya”: Gaining the Indigenous Communities’ Consent for Project Implementation

Key Messages

• IntroducingaprojecttotheICCneedsunderstanding,transparency,respectandperseverance.Theculture,traditionandbeliefsofthecommunitymustbeconsideredwhenintroducingaproject.Approvalofprojectbythecommunityisinaccordancewiththeircustomarylawsandexperiences.Theirexperiencesincludethehistoricalstrugglesofthecommunityinvolvingownershipandmanagementofnaturalresourceswithintheirancestraldomainclaims.

It is tradition in the Cordilleras or among Indigenous Peoples’ (IPs) that before entering into any territory, one must seek first the consent of the community. It is called “pakada” which means permission to enter and to leave: Pakada” in Kankana-ey (Besao, Sagada and Sadanga, Mt. Province), “pakacha” in Bontoc, Mt. Province, “pakaja” in Tubo, Abra. Although the word “pakada” is derived from the Ilocano dialect, it was practiced by the IPs of Cordillera combined with their tradition of deliberating whether to approve or deny the request to enter their community which they call as “tutya” in Kankana-ey term used in Sagada and Besao. Tutya is usually done in their dap-ays/ators/atos which refer to an indigenous open meeting place made of stone slabs where bonfire is usually set at its center. The key players to administer the agreements related to the “pakada” and “tutya” are the Council of Elders (COEs) represented by the different dap-ays (Tubo, Sagada and Besao), ators (Sadanga) and atos (Mainit, Bontoc).

This traditional approach was consciously followed by the project in gaining the consent of the indigenous communities of Abra and Mountain Province for its SIKAME-IWMP initiative. The proposed watershed protection plan was named after the three major mountains: Sisipitan, Kaman-ingel and Mengmeng (SIKAME) situated in the boundaries of Abra and Mountain Province. Objectively, the implementation of the watershed protection plan becomes the responsibility of the different tribes within the project site.

The Project has identified the provincial boundaries of Mountain Province and Abra as the appropriate areas for the establishment of model learning site because it contains the biggest area of water source that supplies the Project’s largest population/beneficiaries.

The SIKAME-IWMP specifically aims to prepare watershed plan to protect, sustain, safeguard and enhance the common natural resources in the watershed areas of Mountain Province and Abra; document the indigenous forest management practices of the IPs in the proposed inter-tribal watershed management plan, identify the common watershed areas and come up with a common plan to protect, sustain and enhance the SIKAME ecosystem.

The plan/project covers 18 barangays namely, Lacmaan, Agawa, Gueday, Ambagiw and Tamboan of Besao, Aguid, Pide, Fidelisan, Madongo, Tanulong, and Bangaan of Sagada, Mainit of Bontoc, Belwang of Sadanga for Mountain Province and Kili, Tabacda, Tiempo, Alangtin, and Tubtuba of Tubo for Abra Province. The proposed watershed plan covers a total land area of approximately 44,604.96 hectares within 9 sub-watersheds.

In the conduct of the initiative, the Project conducted the Free and Prior Information Consent or FPIC in coordination with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).

The FPIC principle generally requires that communities must be adequately informed about development projects in a timely manner and should be given the opportunity to approve or reject these projects free from undue pressure as stated in the FPIC legal framework of the RA. 8371 (IPRA Law). The consent and approval of all the tribes involved in the SIKAME watershed is important because the main objective of the proposed plan is for all the tribes to co-manage, protect, and preserve the SIKAME natural resources.

The Tribes at the very start had many reasons and fears that

blocked a unanimous consent resulting to the non-approval

of the SIKAME-IWMP. To understand their views, the

Project conducted a series of “tutya”.

2

3

Seeking approval of the ICCs for the issuance of Certification Precondition of the proposed

project through pakada and tutya

The certification precondition states that free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) has been obtained from the concerned IPs. When the pakada was already granted or the consent of the community is obtained, the terms and conditions agreed upon shall be stated in a memorandum of agreement to be executed between and among the ICC/IPs (represented by elders who have been identified during the validation and authorized by the community to sign). A series of “tutya” were conducted in all covered barangays. In the case of Tubo, Abra and Belwang, Sadanga, the pakada and tutya was conducted once per domain, and thrice for Besao, Mountain Province for they have immediately understood the main concept, objectives and goals of the proposed project. The three ICCs immediately granted approval and consent, and Memorandum of Agreements were signed. On February 2019, the CP for the three Municipalities (per ancestral domain) were issued by the NCIP. Meanwhile, it took long for Northern Sagada and Mainit, Bontoc, to give their approval and consent even after the Project conducted series of tutya with them. Thus, requested for more tutya and information education communication (IEC) campaigns.

Formulation of Technical Working Group to help achieve project objectives

A Technical Working Group (TWG) composed A Technical Working Group (TWG) composed of project staff, provincial and municipal local government units, partner agencies from NCIP, DENR, DILG, and NEDA, and COEs from the 18 Barangays were organized to work as the team to provide technical assistance in the formulation of the SIKAME-IWMP. On the other hand, the identified COEs as tribe representatives will help in the formulation of the policies in support to the plan. COEs as representative in the TWG will also help explain the aim and purpose of the SIKAME-IWMP in their respective community.

Experiences and Reflections

Consent seeking as an iterative process: The case of Northern Sagada

The Tribes at the very start had many reasons and fears that blocked a unanimous consent resulting to the non-approval of the SIKAME-IWMP. To understand their views, the Project conducted a series of tutya. On those occasions, the team presented all possibilities, opportunities, and potentials of the watershed protection plan. It was reiterated that once approved and materialized, the Project will be implemented by all the ICCs within the SIKAME area as co-tribal management. But still, some elders were not yet satisfied with the concept of the proposed plan. Thus, they requested to have another tutya and more information education communication campaign for them to fully understand the whole concept of the proposed plan. The request was again granted by the Project. However, during the course of tutya, the elders refused consent again claiming that it will bring negative effect to the community and that they cannot afford to manage other tribes entering in their boundaries because it might cause tribal conflict in the future. Additionally, there were some negative elements affecting their consciousness that leads them to misunderstood the project concept, and experienced on past unsuccessful projects like similar research were conducted in the ili without full disclosure of the final result.Northern Sagada elders forwarded a letter of resolution stating their refusal to the proposed plan and excluding Mount Sisipitan in the SIKAME plan. As a response, the Project sought help from the MLGU and Municipal TWG Members. The Local Chief Executive then convened the barangay chairpersons of the six Barangays in northern Sagada together with the Project staff and NCIP in his office to discuss the Resolution of Rejection to the SIKAME Project. The Barangay officials were enlightened and agreed to continue the SIKAME Project after the meeting. They claimed that the Resolution was not discussed to them properly and was not even agreed upon

by majority of the community members. The Barangay Chairpersons then promised to coordinate the conduct of community consultation and to pursue for the approval of the concerned ICCs on the said project. They also suggested for more conducive venue for they believed that it might be the venue or ambiance that resulted to the previous disapprovals.The third “tutya” was then conducted at the Bangaan National High School (BNHS) grounds. After all the explanations, clarifications and discussions among the members of the TWGs and other community members, the plan was not yet been approved by the attending participants for they claimed that they still do not understand its objectives and they wanted more precise and deeper explanations on its main concepts and goals. They also claimed that it is untimely for the project to enter their community for they claimed that they can manage to conserve their watershed for it was already protected since time immemorial. They requested for another tutya. The Project staff, TWG members and service providers agreed to conduct the last and final “tutya” among community and the proponents in the pursuit of the approval of the SIKAME Project. However, it was also decided that if after the final “tutya” and the community will not give their approval, the NCIP will take action based on the FPIC procedure. The last “pakada” through a tutya was conducted in the Mission ground of Bangaan, Sagada and with the full support and participation of the Vice Mayor, he also called the attention of the high school Students of BNHS to attend and participate stating that the participation will raise awareness about the concern among the youth. This resulted to a positive response of some elders on the proposed plan.

Students of the Bangaan National High School participated in the “tutya” conducted by the Project and MLGU-

Sagada regarding for the ‘pamakada’ being sought for the SIKAME-IWMP initiative.

Project Manager Cameron P. Odsey (above) and Agroforestry Watershed Management Coordinator

(below), together with MLGU-Sagada, took turns in explaining the concept of the SIKAME-IWMP for

better understanding of the community people.

4

Experiences and Reflections

Lessons Learned 5

Understanding the project and the “inayan” concept during the decision-making process

The ICCs discussed and argued on the impact of the proposed project before the project proponents. The elders deliberately discussed the importance of their decision that will be affecting all the “umili” (people living in the community) after giving their decision, so they agreed through consensus decision to give the results of their “tutya” and not to prolong the discussions since majority of them were in favor in the implementation of the SIKAME project in their communities. The elders then raised their right hand that they were ready to give their decision. It was finally a ‘yes’ for them. With their approval, the Approval of Consent and Memorandum of Agreement were signed. It was indeed a success for all the stakeholders to get the approval of the community after repetitive “pakadas” and “tutyas” were conducted. The approval of the “umili” signaled the immediate start of SIKAME activities. It can be seen that consent seeking is really not one-shot deal, hence, iterative. The “inayan” (kankana-ey word meaning to hold back or to prevent from doing something unpleasant) concept was also invoked in the context of future generations wherein it might be a shameful act for them if they decide against the interest of their children. The concept of inayan was deeply rooted in their culture for it embodies all virtues and morals of tribal members- humility, truthfulness, fidelity, honesty, and commitment, among others. Moreover, the elders realized that while others are now advancing on the SIKAME IWMP activities, they were already left behind. And, it all boils down to consensus decision, understanding towards the common goal. The “umili” understood also that the objectives of the project will bring no harm but instead, unite them towards a sustainable, progressive and successful environment/community/ili where no one can take care of it but them alone.

Consulting the concerned ICCs with understanding, perseverance, and respect

During the “tutya,” all the TWG members did not waver in explaining and contributing their insights and ideas towards the proposed SIKAME project. The Project Director and Component Coordinator also took turn in explaining the concept, goals and objectives of the SIKAME Project to get the communities’ approval. During the final moment and of indecision, the NCIP facilitated the activity where it convened the six barangays. She firmly requested all the outsiders to step aside and give a moment for the communities to decide on their own. The NCIP explained that the community can no longer ask for another consultation for the Project will be ending soon so they were required to give their final decision. She added that since there were some positive comments towards the project, they will allow the body to convene and deliberately discuss among themselves if they will approve the project or to totally reject it along with their explanation of disapproval.

5

...all the outsiders to step aside and give a moment for the

communities to decide on their own.

Pakada is not an easy process. It is an indigenous concept highlighting consensus decision among council of elders through tutya. It is a tedious process that operates under trust, respect, and perseverance. In the case of SIKAME-IWMP, it was obvious that the difficulty lies in the historical struggles of community involving ownership and management of resources situated in the boundary areas of different tribes. Introducing a project to an indigenous community is not an easy process especially on the “panagpakada” stage for it requires a lot of understanding, perseverance, time and determination before they will give their approval and consent. Furthermore, cultural sensitivity should be considered when reaching out to the community. Knowledge of their culture, values and tradition must be understood before socializing with them, for it will serve as tool in gaining their trust and confidence. Interaction with the community is a MUST.

Application

This Learning Brief is developed by the Scaling up of the Second Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project (CHARMP2 Scale-

up), a special project supported by the International Fund for Agricultural Development and is implemented by the Department of Agriculture in

partnership with Local Government Units in the six provinces of the Cordillera Administrative Region with the Department of Agriculture as executing

agency and Local Government Units as co-implementing agencies.

This document contains the Project’s collective reflection during the course of its implementation. It is intended for learning and the views expressed are

those of the implementers and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Agriculture and the Project’s implementing partners.

6

For more information and details, you may contact:

AUTHOR: Amilyn Dogui-isPOSITION: Project Planning and Development Officer B

PROJECT COMPONENT: Agroforestry Watershed Management ComponentCONTACT DETAILS: (074) 444-8329