vol1.pdf

f ramework and synthes is o f l essons lea rned

in c i v i l - soc ie ty peace bu i ld ing

volume 1

Learning Experiences Study on Civil-Society Peace Building in the Philippines

Framework and Synthes is

MiriaM Coronel Ferrer

2005

of Lessons Learnedin C iv i l -Soc iety Peace Bui ld ing

UP CIDS

Learning experiences study on civiL-society peace BuiLding in the phiLippines Volume 1: Framework and SyntheSiS oF leSSonS learned in CiVil-SoCiety PeaCe Building

Published by the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS) in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Copyright © 2005 the United Nations Development Programme Manila Office.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means including information storage and retrieval systems without permission from the UNDP and UP CIDS. Inquiries should be addressed to:

UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies, Bahay ng Alumni, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Tel/Fax: (632) 9293540 Email: [email protected]

United Nations Development Programme30/F Yuchengco Tower RCBC Plaza, 6819 Ayala Ave. cor. Sen Gil J. Puyat Ave.,Makati City 1226 PhilippinesTel: (632) 9010100 Fax (632) 9010200

The National Library of the Philippines CIP Data

Recommended entry:

Learning experiences study on civil-society peacebuilding in the Philippines.- - Diliman, Quezon City : UP-CIDS, c2005. 5v. ; cm.

CONTENTS: v.1. Framework and synthesis oflessons learned in civil-society peace building / Miriam Coronel Ferrer – v.2. National peace coalitions / Josephine C. Dionisio – v.3. Psychosocial trauma rehabilitation work / Marco Puzon, Elizabeth Protacio-De Castro – v. 4. Peace education initiatives in Metro Manila / Loreta Castro, Jasmin Nario-Galace and Kristine Lesaca – v.5. Peace building experiences of church-based organizations in the Philippines / Jovic Lobrigo and Sonia Imperial.

Published in partnership with the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP).

1. Peace-building—Philippines.2. Peace-building—Case studies.3. Civil society—Philippines. I. UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP-CIDS).

JZ5538 303.69 2005 P061000334

ISBN 978-971-742-095-0 (vol. 1)ISBN 978-971-742-096-7 (vol. 2)ISBN 978-971-742-097-4 (vol. 3)ISBN 978-971-742-098-1 (vol. 4)ISBN 978-971-742-099-8 (vol. 5)

cover design Ernesto Enriquebook design and layout East Axis Creative

The opinions expressed herein are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the UNDP.

contents

vii list of tables

ix list of acronyms

xi about the project

xiii foreword

xv acknowledgment

1 introduction

5 framework for assessing civil-society peace building 7 Main Context of Philippine Peace Movement

9 Nature of Civil-Society Peace Building

27 Methodology for the Documentation

of Civil-Society Experiences in Peace Building (1986–2004)

35 synthesis of lessons learned in civil-society peace building in the philippines

37 Overview of Philippine Peace Building

55 Facilitating and Hindering Factors in Civil-Society Peace Building

77 Evaluation and Impact Assessment of Civil-Society Peace Building

83 Lessons Learned

87 references

91 learning modules

103 list of participants

vii

tables

38 Table 1. Civil-Society Organizations Covered in the Case Studies

42 Table 2. Peace-Building Activities

51 Table 3. Range of Activities of a Comprehensive Psychosocial Trauma

Rehabilitation Work

56 Table 4. Facilitating and Hindering Factors in Civil-Society

Peace Building

58 Table 5. Elements of Facilitating Factor: Presence of Initiating,

Sustaining, and Capable Core

62 Table 6. Elements of Facilitating Factor: Availability of Resources

64 Table 7. Elements of Facilitating Factor: Appropriate and Multipronged

Strategies, Methods and Approaches

67 Table 8. Elements of Facilitating Factor: Supportive Environment

69 Table 9. Elements of Facilitating Factor: Building on Successes

71 Table 10. Elements of Hindering Factor: Lack of/Weaknesses

in Human and Material Resources

72 Table 11. Elements of Hindering Factor: Lack of Support/Cooperation

from Other Sectors

77 Table 12. Elements of Conflict/Collective Violence Transformation

80 Table 13. Impact of Civil-Society Peace Building

ix

acronyms

AFP ArmedForcesofthePhilippines

AICM AppreciativeInquiryandCommunityMobilization

AMRSP AssociationofMajorReligiousSuperiorsinthePhilippines

BEC BasicEcclesiasticalCommunities

BRSAC BicolRegionalSocialActionCommission

CARHRIHL ComprehensiveAgreementonRespectforHumanRights

andInternationalHumanitarianLaw

CBCP CatholicBishops’ConferenceofthePhilippines

CEAP CatholicEducators’AssociationofthePhilippines

CfP CoalitionforPeace

CHR CommissiononHumanRights

CODE-NGO CoalitionofDevelopmentNGOs

CRC Children’sResourceCenter

CSOs Civil-SocietyOrganizations

DepEd DepartmentofEducation

DILG DepartmentofInteriorandLocalGovernment

DND DepartmentofNationalDefense

DOJ DepartmentofJustice

DSWD DepartmentofSocialWelfareandDevelopment

FAMATODI FakasadianMangaguyangTaobuidMangyanAssociation

FGDs FocusedGroupDiscussions

GRP GovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippines

GZOPI GastonZ.OrtigasPeaceInstitute

HABANAN BuhidMangyanassociation

HAGURA AssociationofHanunuo,GubatnonandRatagnonMangyantribe

HOPE HeartsofPeace

HR HumanRights

IHL InternationalHumanitarianLaw

INGOs InternationalNon-GovernmentOrganizations

IPs IndigenousPeoples

JPAG JusticeandPeaceActionGroup

KIs KeyInformants

LES LearningExperiencesStudy

LGUs LocalGovernmentUnits

MAG MedicalActionGroup

MERN MindanaoEmergencyResponseNetwork

MILF MoroIslamicLiberationFront

MOA MemorandumofAgreement

x | a c r o n y m s

l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s s t u d y o n c i v i l - s o c i e t y p e a c e b u i l d i n g

MSPA Multi-Sectoral Peace Advocates

NAPC National Anti-Poverty Commission

NASSA National Secretariat for Social Action

NCCP National Council of Churches in the Philippines

NDF National Democratic Front

NEAs Network of Effective Actors

NGO Non-Government Organization

NIPC National Indigenous Peoples Commission

NPC National Peace Conference

NSA Non-State Actors

NUC National Unification Commission

OPAPP Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process

PAHRA Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates

PASAKAMI Federation of Mangyan Organizations

PDI Philippine Daily Inquirer

PEN Peace Education Network

Philrights Philippine Human Rights Information Center

PNP Philippine National Police

POs People’s Organizations

PRRM Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement

PRW Psychosocial Rehabilitation Work

SAC Social Action Center

SAKAMAIMO Iraya Mangyan Organization

SASSAMA Sta. Cruz, Alangan Mangyan association

TFDP Task Force Detainees of the Philippines

UCCP United Churches of Christ in the Philippines

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization

ZOPFAN Zones of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality

xi

This five-volume study on civil-society peace building is part of a larger initiative between the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Philippine national partners to document

and assess the Philippine peace process from the perspective of various stakeholders, including

the government, civil society, peace-building communities, and former combatants. It is one

of the first series of Learning Experiences Study (LES) on peace building, human security and

development initiated and supported by the Peace and Development Portfolio of the UNDP.

Another series on peace building in the Cordillera region was simultaneously undertaken. Sub-

sequent studies will review peace and development initiatives in Mindanao, government peace

initiatives, and related efforts undertaken by other segments of society.

These studies hope to contribute to the enhancement of Philippine efforts to build peace

and constructively respond to the armed conflicts in the country. They also hope to inform and

inspire peace-building initiatives in other conflict-areas in the world.

about the contributorsAgnes Camacho served as Program Officer of the Program on Psychosocial Trauma and Human

Rights of the University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies. She

is currently doing her master’s degree in The Hague, The Netherlands.

Loreta Castro is executive director of Miriam College’s Center for Peace Education and coor-

dinator of the Peace Education Network. She is a member of the International Advisory Com-

mittee of the Global Campaign for Peace Education, and of the Executive Committee of Pax

Christi International.

Miriam Coronel Ferrer is associate professor in the Department of Political Science, and con-

vener of the Program on Peace, Democratization and Human Rights of the University of the

Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies. She is also a co-convener of the

about the project

xii | a b o u t t h e p r o j e c t


Sulong CARHRIHL, a citizens’ network promoting the observance of the human rights and

international humanitarian law agreement between the government and the National Dem-

ocratic Front.

Josephine Dionisio is assistant professor in the Department of Sociology and is currently deputy

director of the University of the Philippines Third World Studies Center. She worked in various

NGOs prior to joining the academe.

Sonia Imperial is the in-house consultant for research of the Social Action Center of the Diocese

of Legazpi, Albay. She served as the research associate and co-coordinator for this project.

Kristine Lesaca is an associate of the Center for Peace Education and a member of the grade

school faculty of Miriam College.

Jovic Lobrigo is the Executive Secretary of the Social Action Center, Diocese of Legazpi, Albay,

and is in-charge of its research unit.

Jasmin Nario-Galace is professor in the Department of International Studies and associate

director of the Center for Peace Education of Miriam College. She is a co-convener of the Sulong

CARHRIHL and the Philippine Action Network on Small Arms.

Elizabeth Protacio-De Castro is professor in the Department of Psychology of the University

of the Philippines. She was co-founder of the Children’s Resource Center and convener of the

Program on Psychosocial Trauma and Human Rights of the University of the Philippines Center

for Integrative and Development Studies.

Marco Puzon was a researcher at the Program on Psychosocial Trauma and Human Rights of

the University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies. He is currently

coordinator of the Philippine Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers.

xiii

Peace building calls for setting up stabilized relations between individuals on opposing

sides of a conflict. It is a process that takes time given that it has to open channels of com-

munications and requires convincing parties to work together without discrimination or

intolerance.

Learning Experiences Study on Civil-Society Peace Building in the Philippines is the result of

the industry and commitment of several individuals and organizations and the valuable support

and cooperation provided by the UNDP. It is a synthesis of learning experiences of NGOs and

institutions as they observed and advanced peace-building strategies through psychosocial

rehabilitation work, peace education and peace coalition. The modules are especially helpful in

seeing us through this course by explaining vital peace-building concepts, activities, factors that

aid peace building as well as those that are obstacles to it. Lessons learned in three areas—Policy

and Overall Environment, the Nature of Peace, and Civil-Society Peace Building—are examined.

It sees the role of humanitarian involvement in ending conflict and the indispensable function

played by NGOs in transforming turmoil into occasions for enduring reconciliation.

A known pacifist, Howard Thurman once wrote that, “To be alive is to participate responsibly

in the experience of life.” Many of us who have worked so hard to live our lives, have tended

to find contentment in the safety and comfort of our little cocoons. Yet, we discover that it is

in reaching out and connecting to others that we foster peace, and find the “courage to dare a

deed that challenges and to kindle a hope that inspires.” This is exactly what Learning Experi-

ences Study has achieved.

As misunderstandings, wars and hostilities abound, it has become each citizen’s duty to

build peace, end violence and transform conflict. It has been our blessing to learn that we

cannot do any of these without first beginning the process of healing and kindling a hope

that inspires not just those who directly participate in peace building efforts but humanity,

as a whole.

Benedict de Spinoza said that, “Peace is not the absence of war, it is a virtue, a state

of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence and justice.” I congratulate all partici-

pants and contributors to these volumes most especially Miriam Coronel Ferrer, convener

of the UP CIDS’ Peace, Conflict Resolution and Democratization Program, for seeing in

foreword

xiv | f o r e w o r d


their mind’s eye the optimism and opportunity for extending kindness and making justice

reachable.

eLizaBeth aguiLing-pangaLangan, Ll.M.

Executive Director, Center for Integrative and Development Studies

University of the Philippines

xv

It was my pleasure and honor to lead this three-year collaborative project. I am grateful for the

full trust and cooperation extended by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),

the project team and the participants in the three validation workshops that were part of the

“framework and synthesis” process.

Ms. Alma Evangelista of the Peace and Development Portfolio of the UNDP was the moving

force behind these series of studies on Philippine peace building that was conceived way back

in the early 2000s. In October 2003, I picked up one strand of the conceptualization begun by

Alma and Maria Lorenza “Binky” Palm-Dalupan by developing the framework paper for this

component of civil-society peace building. Alma and I then narrowed down our scope to a set

of case studies that was ultimately determined by spread, priority and availability of case study

writers.

Hard work and collegiality marked our working hours as a team. Friendship and more

crisscrossing of ties in various other peace building projects grew as well, in our one-on-one

meetings. I thank, in alphabetical order, Agnes Camacho, Loreta Castro, Sonia Imperial, Josephine

Dionisio, Zosimo Lee, Jovic Lobrigo, Jasmin Nario-Galace, Beth Protacio-De Castro, and Marco

Puzon. Other people worked with them and they will be duly mentioned in the acknowledg-

ments in their respective volumes.

I have appended in this volume the list of participants in the two validation workshops by

way of thanking them for sharing their time and expertise with us, and to also serve as a resource

for readers who may want to contact other peace builders. Regrettably, I do not have a list of

participants in the first consultation held in January 2004 where the framework was presented. I

do not wish to enumerate lest I miss out on even one participant. They will remain anonymous

to the public but they know to whom this gratitude is expressed.

For the production of this five-volume study, I thank Jocelyn “Gou” de Jesus, Carina

Anasarias, Isabel Templo, and Mae Manalang-Sta. Ana for their assistance in the technical

editing and proofreading of the texts; East Axis Creative for its people’s painstaking work

as layout artists; Ernesto Enrique of the UP College of Fine Arts for the introspective cover

designs befitting a “lessons learned” project; and Grace “Gara” Tena for the coordination and

administrative support.

acknowledgment

xvi | a c k n o w l e d g m e n t


Institutional support for the production phase was provided by the UP Center for Integra-

tive and Development Studies (UP CIDS) through the Executive Director, formerly Dr. Jona-

than Salvacion and currently Prof. Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan; the UP CIDS Program on

Peace, Democratization and Human Rights where I serve as convener; and the Foundation for

Integrative and Development Studies which received and managed the funds. Joyce Dimayuga

took care of bookkeeping.

The family has also been a major source of “institutional support” throughout the decades.

Again, my love and thanks to Anthony, Lift and Kaye, Duday, and Ysabelle.

�

What are the peace-building activities of Philippine civil society? What factors support or hinder

civil-society peace building in the Philippines? What has been the impact of these initiatives?

Finally, what lessons can we draw from these experiences?

These are the questions that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-funded

Learning Experiences Study (LES) on Civil-Society Peace Building in the Philippines set out to

answer. This synthesis will now attempt to provide the answers, drawing from the findings of the

four case studies that were part of the LES. The four case studies looked at Philippine experiences

in peace education, peace coalitions, psychosocial rehabilitation work (PRW) and church-based

peace building. The first two studies focused on Metro Manila-based initiatives. The PRW study

covered Metro Manila-based NGOs and community/NGO experiences in Mindoro Occidental

and Basilan, Cotabato and Maguindanao in Mindanao. The study on churches focused on the

Bicol experience. The titles and authors of the studies on the four thematic areas are:

“Peace Education Initiatives of Selected Academic Institutions in Metro Manila” by

Loreta N. Castro, Jasmin N. Galace, and Kristine Lesaca of the Center for Peace Edu-

cation, Miriam College;

“Peace-building Experiences of Church-based Organizations in Bicol” by the Social

Action Center of Legazpi, Albay, led by Sonia Imperial and Jovic Lobrigo;

“Documentation of Peace-building Efforts by Civil Society Organizations in the Phil-

ippines to Address the Psychosocial Consequences of Armed Conflict/Violence” by

the Program on Psychosocial Trauma and Human Rights, University of the Philippine

Center for Integrative and Development Studies, led by Marco Puzon, Elizabeth Prota-

cio-de Castro and Agnes Camacho; and

“The Philippine Peace Coalitions’ Peace building from 1986-2004” by Zosimo Lee,

which served as background paper for this theme, and the “Enhanced Documentation

of Philippine Peace Coalitions” by Josephine Dionisio.

A framework paper drafted by this author provided the working definition of terms like

peace, peace building, civil society, Philippine peace organizations, third party, conflict trans-

formation, and so on. It also provided the general areas for evaluation of the impact of civil-so-

introduction

� | i n t r o d u c t i o n


ciety interventions, namely, impact on policy, the ground-level situation, and the perceptions,

attitudes, and behavior of primary stakeholders in the Philippine peace process. Specifically, it

posed the key question deemed most relevant in assessing the present context of continuing

peace efforts amid persistent armed conflict. That key question is: Even as the conflict continues,

how is the conflict being transformed by civil-society initiatives toward its eventual just and

peaceful resolution?

The synthesis that follows the framework paper was necessarily constrained by the limited

range and selective coverage of the case studies. The fairly narrow focus of the case studies was,

in any case, offset by the amount of detail they provided. Moreover, the synthesis is informed

by previous research, related literature (both foreign and local), the team’s continuing partici-

pation in peace initiatives in the country as well as abroad and, last but not least, the validation

workshop that was conducted on September 20, 2004. The workshop was attended by thirty-five

people from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. The workshop elicited helpful suggestions and new

insights on each theme as well as the overall synthesis points.

The main period covered by the research is from 1986 to 2004 (post-Marcos period). The dif-

ferent papers attempted to provide a comprehensive view of the peace efforts of their respective

sectors during the eighteen-year coverage, but necessarily emphasized key periods or activities

that best illustrated the work of their sample sector. This approach in effect allowed us to see

the significance of other factors and contexts that affected overall peace building, such as the

prevailing policy thrust of the incumbent administration, and the degree of intensification or

deescalation of actual fighting. The need to appreciate the policy environment is very much

reflected in our lessons learned.

There are obvious overlaps in the work covered by the cases. While we considered peace

coalitions a distinct study, the fact is the three other areas entailed coalition work and linking up

with the more focused networks of peace organizations relevant to each case. All four areas also

effectively undertook peace education and advocacy, organizing and, in periods of grave crisis,

rehabilitation as well. All are concerned about healing the wounds of war and reconstructing

society from the ravages brought by the conflict. Each case study had a well-defined set of re-

spondents or organizations and activities. Taken all together, they comprise a significant mass

of peace initiatives whose experiences are a wellspring of lessons that can guide present and

future peace-building work.

Assessing the impact was extremely difficult and these attempts must be viewed as very pre-

liminary. To begin with, most of the organizations covered, just like most civil-society initiatives,

do not have built-in assessment and evaluation mechanisms and systematic documentation of

their activities. They are usually caught up responding to one issue or crisis after another and

are unable to effectively document the work and its impact. Feedback mechanisms are mostly

i n t r o d u c t i o n |�

v o l u m e 1 : f r a m e w o r k a n d s y n t h e s i s o f l e s s o n s l e a r n e d

informal and assessments are also not thoroughly undertaken and recorded. Thus, the areas

defined by the project for impact evaluation remain broad, and future studies would need to

further particularize and develop more specific indicators for impact evaluation.

framework for assessingcivil-society peace building

�

framew

ork

The Philippine peace process is anchored on the main

agenda of finding a just and peaceful solution to the armed

conflicts in the Philippines. It became a paramount concern following the fall of the authori-

tarian regime in 1986 and the subsequent restoration of the basic features of a democratic

system of government.

The democratic transition brought about by “people power revolution” created conditions

for building national consensus on the need for social and political reforms that would break

down the repressive apparatus of the martial law regime and address gaping social inequities.

Recognizing that the rise and growth of the communist and Moro insurgencies are rooted in

social injustices and gross violations of human rights, the Aquino administration opened the

process of dialogue with the insurgent groups. Finding a just and peaceful settlement to the

insurgencies thus became firmly part of the post-Marcos democratic agenda and the whole

process of democratizing Philippine politics and society.

But while there was general consensus on the need for social and political change, how

these could be done and the nature and extent of the reforms became contentious among the

various key actors inside and outside of government. Moreover, there was resistance on the

part of those whose fortunes were negatively affected by the change in government, or who

felt left out in the new political equation. The end result was the slowing down of reforms amid

contention and threats to the new political order.

The peace process was similarly compromised for similar and other reasons. Sections of the

new government did not support the process or disagreed with the terms and conditions. The

Armed Force of the Philippines, for its part, advocated the renewed use of force. Dissension within

rebel organizations over the best approach to the new situation and government policy changes

did not contribute to sustaining the momentum for dialogue and peaceful settlement.

The peace process is thus one of the unfinished items on the agenda of Philippine democrat-

ization. Democratization can be construed as the process of institutionalizing both substantive

and procedural aspects of democracy, including the appropriate institutions and supportive

norms. Democracy, meanwhile, is used to encompass economic, social, and cultural dimensions

as elaborated in international human rights laws. Only with the consolidation of democracy

main context of philippine peace movement

� | f r a m e w o r k f o r a s s e s s i n g c i v i l - s o c i e t y p e a c e b u i l d i n g


through sustained reforms can

the conditions feeding armed

conflict be eradicated. The

peace process meanwhile can

provide the mechanism for the

cessation of hostilities, the just

resolution of the conflicts, and

the healing and reconstruction

of Philippine society.

While an increasing num-

ber of groups have rallied be-

hind the banner of peace,

subsequent administrations

have picked up the thread of

the stalled peace talks, and

rebel groups continued to sit around the negotiating table, the fact is armed conflict in differ-

ent parts of the country persists. Communities continue to get caught in the crossfire. Sporadic

eruptions of political violence have stalled development efforts, created more suffering and

trauma, and derailed the overall process of social and political reform. Such a situation has fed

the vicious cycle of armed conflict and sustained the war rhetoric of all sides.

Precisely because of this situation, the Philippine peace movement that was born from

earlier attempts to find a negotiated settlement to the armed conflicts has likewise persisted.

It continues to keep watch over the process. At the same time, it has broadened to include lon-

ger-term initiatives such as the building of a culture of peace that go beyond the confines and

dynamics of the present-day internal conflicts. It is also increasingly linked to other civil society

groups such as the human rights and environmental movements, and development NGOs that

pursue other aspects of the agenda for the country’s democratic consolidation.

philippine peace process The totality of structures and processes, actors, roles and rela-

tionships, strategies, programs and activities involved, created and pursued in a nonviolent manner by various sectors of Philippine society in response to armed conflicts, political violence and social unrest. (Palm-Dalupan 2000)

The multisided efforts to find long-lasting solutions to the internal war waged by the state against its armed challengers. (Coronel Ferrer 1997a)

A national historical project in which the churches are but one of the many social forces that have offered their agendas at resolving our conflict situations; a multilateral effort of the various sectors in Philippine society. (Bautista 1991)

�

framew

ork

Civil society may be defined as the public sphere where

groups and citizens interact on matters of collective con-

cern. As a whole, it is a collectivity of various groups and actors autonomous from and relat-

ing to the state in a variety of ways ranging from cooperation/partnership to confrontation.

Operationally, it can be broken down into various types of formations such as nongovernment

organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs), professional associations, social move-

ments, coalitions, and federations. Each society has its own set of dominant civil society orga-

nizational forms.

Civil-society groups address various concerns based on their respective mandates, group

interests, orientations, programs and/or ideologies. One flank of civil-society groups is involved

in the Philippine peace process. In general, we can refer to them as “peace organizations.” In

an earlier study, I defined peace organizations as:

While the citizen and citizens’ organizations are among the basic units of civil society,

civil-society formations can also be construed in terms of institutions. We can refer to the

mass media, and the churches in the collective sense of “institutions.” As institutions, they are

very influential in society and have played a role in articulating and responding to the armed

conflicts and the peace process. The “Catholic church” and the “mass media” can of course be

broken down further into specific organizational entities like dioceses, orders, councils, and

religious associations in the case of the “Catholic church,” and corporations, press clubs, sta-

tions, newspapers, and media NGOs in the case of the mass media.

Civil-society groups are multiple and do not always agree or work together; they can have

different stands on key issues. Some mainly advocate reform, while others are apolitical, pre-

nature of civil-society peace building

philippine peace organizationA grouping of people with a proper noun as identification and an identifiable set of members or staff;

put up and run as a private initiative; based in the Philippines; and is concerned with one or more areas of the lack of peace and considers its responses to these concerns as contributory to the societal project of attaining peace. (Coronel Ferrer 1997a)

�0 | f r a m e w o r k f o r a s s e s s i n g c i v i l - s o c i e t y p e a c e b u i l d i n g


ferring to work on social concerns without directly engaging in political activities. In any case,

civil society’s role in democratic transitions and consolidation in various parts of the globe

has given it recognition as a potent agent of democratization. In particular, civil society peace

organizations can be said to be agents of peace and peace building. They are, as has been said,

“friends of the [peace] process”. Given the link between just peace and democratization, then,

peace organizations are likewise agents of democratization.

Civil-society groups are not the only actors in the peace process, as the listings of Peace

Actors, below, show. Governments, the international community through its various inter-

governmental organizations and NGOs, and the armed nonstate actors (NSAs) also involve

themselves in the Philippine peace process.

types of actorsMultisectoral initiativesGovernmentCivil societyGrassroots communitiesInternational community (Palm-Dalupan 2000)

types of actorsGovernmentsProfessional organizationsBusiness communityChurchesMediaPrivate citizensTraining and educational institutesActivistsFunding organizations (John Macdonald cited in Palm-

Dalupan 2000)

multi-actor tracksTrack 1 – governments (including intergovernmental

bodies)Track 2 – government officials operating unofficially,

retired government officials and think-tanks advising governments

Track 3 – NGOsTrack 4 – Other civil-society groups like religious,

women’s, and youth groups, etc.

types of motivational orientations of the parties to the conflict Cooperative – the party has a positive interest in the

welfare of the other as well as its own.Individualistic – the party has an interest in doing as

well as it can for itself and is unconcerned about the welfare of the other.

Competitive – the party has an interest in doing better than the other as well as doing as well as it can for itself. This type of relationship usually leads to misperceptions and misjudgment due to processes like perceiving things out of context; prevalence of self-serving biases; behaving such that prophecies become self-fulfilling; “fundamental attribution er-ror” or the tendency of observers to attribute out-comes of actions to actors rather than to situations, and of actors to blame the situation rather than themselves; and distortions arising from pressures for self-consistency and dissonance reduction. Out-siders who give feedback, internal devil’s advocates, and making one’s assumptions and evidence that underlie one’s perception explicit are ways that can reduce misjudgments. (Deutsch 1991)

n a t u r e o f c i v i l - s o c i e t y p e a c e b u i l d i n g |��


This study is limited to dominant Philippine civil-society organizations or formations in-

volved in the peace process. It will include the multisectoral initiatives, the churches, training

and educational institutes, or the Track 3 and Track 4 actors, respectively. It will exclude the

government sector, community-based peace groups, and ex-combatants since these groupings

will be covered in the other sets of studies commissioned by the UNDP. Peace building done by

the armed nonstate actors (NSAs) is also not covered.

civil-society peace organization as “third party”

In addition, this study is focused on civil-society peace organizations that consciously act

as “third party” to the armed conflicts. Civil society peace organizations can effectively act as

“third party” to the armed conflicts—that is, an entity distinct from the direct parties to the

conflict (the state and the armed NSAs), which are programmatically or ideologically antago-

nistic to each other.

“Third party” peace groups nurture non-antagonistic relations with the state and nonstate

armed group, exercise autonomy from these first parties, and play diverse and important roles

in the peace process.

The third party’s relation with the state and the armed NSAs (or the first parties) is non-

antagonistic. It seeks to build a

cooperative relationship with

the first parties in order to

jointly or collectively achieve

the goal of a lasting peace.

Likewise, it aims to transform

the relationship between the

two first parties from indi-

vidualistic or competitive to

cooperative (as defined by

Deutsch, see previous page).

Only by transforming rela-

tionships between and among

themselves can a consensus

on the peace agenda and a

negotiated political settlement

be achieved.

third party A person, group, institution or country that is not identified directly

or indirectly with any of the parties or interests to the conflict. Intervenors, voluntary or otherwise, from outside the conflict. They

usually operate in coalitions; must generally be acceptable to all sides.

Generally impartial or neutral, not truly impartial nor neutral because they carry their own agenda; can come from within the conflict or even outside it so long as there is sufficient respect for them and for their capacity to act in a neutral manner. (Harris and Reilly 1998:103-106)

Also,Outside parties that play intermediary roles to induce or coerce

the contestants to lay down their arms and talk to each other; can be insiders or outsiders to both contestants, and may be partial or impartial with regard to a party or issue; possession of powerful levers toward one or both sides can be more decisive than neutrality. (Schmid 1998)

�� | f r a m e w o r k f o r a s s e s s i n g c i v i l - s o c i e t y p e a c e b u i l d i n g


An important attribute

given to civil-society groups is

their autonomy from the state.

Similarly, the third party is au-

tonomous (in organizational

structure, actions, and goals)

from the state, and also from

the nonstate armed group.

The third party has its

own peace agenda and strate-

gies, elements of which may or

may not interface or coincide

with that of one or both armed

parties. When its positions on

issues or policies are signifi-

cantly different from one or

both parties, it may choose to

adopt a confrontational mode

with reference to the specific

policy issue. For example,

when the Estrada and Maca-

pagal-Arroyo administrations

launched large-scale offen-

sives in known Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) areas in 2000 and in 2003, respectively,

even as political negotiations were taking place, civil-society peace groups condemned and

campaigned against the policy. Peace groups have from time to time also issued statements of

concern criticizing certain rebel policies or acts that they deem contradictory to the goals of

achieving peace or the success of the peace process.

While this autonomy renders it (relatively) impartial or neutral with reference to the first

parties, the third party may have “insider-partial” constituents or allies. Inside-partial con-

stituents or allies are people or groups with close professional, personal, or other ties to the first

parties to the conflict and are willing to support the work of civil-society peace organizations

on a short-term or long-term basis. As Wehr and Lederach (1991) noted, the “insider-partial”

is an effective third-party because he/she enjoys the confianza (confidence) of one or more of

the first parties.

In an earlier study of Philippine civil society, we noted the roles civil-society groups play

third-party function Acts as a mirror, an overview, a provider of provocation and

creativity and a director of thinking; an integral part of the design thinking required for conflict resolution.

Needed because in a conflict situation, parties are unable to stand outside of their own perceptions; needed to move from the argument to the design mode (De Bono cited in Schmid 2000).

third-party characteristics impartiality influence on the parties commitment to the process an interest in a just and sustainable outcome (1993 Manila Declaration cited in Garcia 1994)

third parties should be able to Establish trust and effective working relationship with each of the

conflicting parties. Establish a cooperative problem-solving attitude among the

conflicting parties toward their conflict. Develop a creative group process and group decision making. Have substantive knowledge about the issues around which the

conflict centers. (Deutsch 1991)



in the democratization process—as watchdog or guardian, policy advocate, and service-pro-

vider (Coronel Ferrer 1997b). Civil-society peace groups acting as third party similarly play

the important roles of watchdog of the state and the NSAs, advocates of alternatives and a

sustained peace process, and provider of all forms of support services related to the process

and its peace-building agenda.

elements of civil-society peace building

“Peace building” is perhaps the most general term used to refer to the various initiatives or

activities that are part of the peace process. Peace building basically aims to transform a conflict

situation into a just and lasting peace.

In global discourse, “peace building” is sometimes used narrowly only to refer to activities

in the post-conflict phase, almost akin to conflict prevention, or measures to prevent the re-

surgence of conflict (see below).

In the Philippines and in other societies where the armed conflicts are protracted, the use

of “peace building” encompasses activities that precede conflict settlement or resolution. But

as in the narrow definitions, it has elements of both positive and negative peace.

peace building (narrow definition) Identification and creation of support structures that

would prevent the recurrence of conflict; conflict prevention. Preceded by the phases of peace mak-ing (bringing hostile parties to an agreement) and peace keeping (cessation of hostilities and creation of a demilitarized order). (Atack 1997)

Refers to long-term preventive, prehostility strat-egies, for measures to remove the internal causes of conflict and to strengthen structural stability in a country against the threat of civil war. Different interpretations emphasize pre-armed conflict and posthostilities aspects. (Schmid 2000)

The employment of measures to consolidate peace-ful relations and create an environment that deters the emergence or escalation of tensions which may lead to conflict (International Alert 1995 cited in Schmid 2000)

peace building (broad definitions) The transformation of conflict and violence in a

society through the destruction of the structures and processes of violence and construction of the structures and processes of peace, including the capacity for the nonviolent resolution of conflict (drawn from Hoffman 1997 and Bush 1996 by Palm-Dalupan 2000).

In the broadest sense, those initiatives that foster and support sustainable structures and processes which strengthen the prospects for peaceful co-ex-istence and decrease the likelihood of the outbreak, recurrence, or continuation of violent conflict. … (It) is not about the imposition of solutions, it is about the creation of opportunities (Bush 1996).

A process to change unjust structures to promote justice and peace, and create mutual trust and respect (Catholic Relief Services-Jakarta 2003).



One way the various types of peace-building activities has been categorized is based on the

activities’ objectives. Peace building can also be conceived of as made up of either short-term

or long-term activities.

peace-building types according to aims Intervening directly in conflict

• Preventing escalation of violence• Enabling a settlement (e.g., confidence

building, facilitating dialogue, negotiation, mediation)

• Maintaining a presence (e.g., unarmed protection and monitoring)

Addressing the consequences of conflict/violence

• e.g., postwar physical and social recon-struction, psychosocial counseling and trauma relief, reconciliation and rebuilding social rela-tionships, truth commissions, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants

Working on the social fabric• e.g., institutional reforms, promoting partici-

pation in decision-making, developing good governance, education for peace and justice (Fisher et al 2000 cited in Palm-Dalupan 2000).

Actor Transformation – internal changes to the par-ties in conflict or the appearance or recognition of new actors.

Issue Transformation – change in the political agen-da of the conflict, where the relative importance of issues on which antagonism exists is reduced and the issues on which commonality prevails are emphasized. May imply significant political change since the political constellation supporting the pre-vious agenda will have to change.

Rule Transformation – alteration in the rules. Re-defining the norms which the actors are expected to follow in their mutual transformation. Can alter actor behavior; such need not be dependent on the position of the actor in the structure as the structuralist approaches assumed.

Structural Transformation – more profound than lim-ited changes in the composition of actors, issues or rules. The external structure is transformed if the distribution of power between actors significantly changes or their mutual relations experience a qualitative change (e.g., increase or decrease in extent of communication and interdependence between actors). Transformation of the interest structure happens where commonality of interest is increased (Vayrynen 1991).(Note: According to the author, transformation may

be intended or unintended; is associated with everyday and broader historical changes transforming the scope, nature and functions of collective violence.)

elements of conflict / collective violence transformation

peace-building objectives Short term (e.g.., humanitarian objectives) Long term (developmental, political, economic, and social objectives) (Bush 1996 cited in Palm-Dalupan 2000)

n a t u r e o f c i v i l - s o c i e t y p e a c e b u i l d i n g |�5


Meanwhile, if peace build-

ing is conceived of as conflict

transformation, then in broad

strokes it can be disaggregated

according to elements lead-

ing to such transformation.

Vayrynen (1991) identifies four

areas of such transformation:

actor, issue, rule & structural

transformation (see previous

page). These elements can also

provide a framework for ana-

lyzing civil society’s impact on

the peace-conflict process.

Papers on the Philippine

peace process have provided

us with different organizational

frames for surveying Philippine

peace-building initiatives. One such way is based on the type of activities and concerns as

manifested in the actual activities of Philippine peace organizations (see above inset).

Broken down in terms of peace concerns, peace organizations in the Philippines were found

to be involved in the following clusters of issues:

peace-building efforts Peace-Constituency Building – includes advocacy work, campaigns,

organizing, networking, and education aimed at promoting a peace agenda and/or culture, and organizing constituencies united or mobi-lized along these goals.

Conflict-Reduction Efforts – activities aimed at deescalating the level of political violence, with the end in view of enhancing the conditions for a more permanent peace.

Conflict-Settlement Efforts – refers to activities geared toward achiev-ing a nonmilitary solution to the major armed conflicts, namely the communist, Moro and military rebellions. These efforts are focused on facilitating negotiations toward settlement.They are essentially mediation efforts addressed directly to the parties in conflict.

Peace Research and Training Programs – refers to research efforts and studies on the ongoing peace processes, and training in skills important to peace building, thereby serving as support structures to the other peace efforts (Coronel Ferrer 1994).

philippine peace concerns Comprehensive Peace Agenda Politics

• Political Negotiations• HR/Militarization/Political

Repression• D i s p u t e / C o n f l i c t

Resolution• E m p o w e r m e n t /

Governance Issues• Peace Zone Building/Peace

Pact• Electoral Reforms• Regional Autonomy• Disarmament/Anti-Nukes

• IHL Social Development

• Socioeconomic Issues• Environmental Issues• Agrarian Reform/Rural

Development• Ancestral Domain• Health• Literacy

Sectoral or Group Rights Wel-fare

• Gender• C h r i s t i a n - M u s l i m

Relations• Children• Urban Poor• Labor• Tri-peoples• Students• Media

Cultural Transformation• Values Education• Ecumenism• Internationalism• Spiritual Healing (Coronel

Ferrer 1997a)



Another study organizes

actual initiatives or efforts

based on goals (see left in-

set).

The Waging Peace in the

Philippines Conference held in

December 2003 identified four

strategies of the Philippine

peace movement. This outline

of strategies gives us a sense of

the range of peace-building

activities that are being done and perceived necessary by Philippine peace organizations. Many

of these elements reflect a continuity in terms of needs already identified earlier.

Looking in particular at women’s peace-building roles, the following categories were utilized.

While not an inclusive list, it highlights the areas of strength among women peace builders.

waging peace in the philippines 2004 conference recommendations

Strategy 1: Peace Process Get the talks back on track Citizens’ agenda for peace: participation Peace agreements: implementation and education Independent monitoring mechanism Community peace talksStrategy 2: Peace Constituency

Expand stakeholders for peaceSupport community peace action and peace

zonesInvolve other sectors, especially women and

youth

International support for peace in the Philip-pines

Strategy 3: Peace Research and Policy National Peace Policy Alternative options: grassroots peace Effective cease-fire mechanisms Concrete options for Mindanao (including refer-

endum)Strategy 4: Positive Peace (beyond cessation of hostilities) Rehabilitation and reconstruction Effective action on the roots of armed conflict

range of peace-process initiatives Efforts to end the fighting Efforts to address the sources and causes, Efforts to address the direct impacts and consequences (of armed

conflict/political violence) Efforts to deescalate or prevent the escalation of violence Efforts to build an infrastructure of peace (constituency, culture of

peace, capacities for nonviolent conflict resolution) (Palm-Dalupan 2000)

ways women can make a contribution Negotiation and conflict resolution Policy formulation Reconciliation and healing (Quintos-Deles 2000)



Drawing from lived experiences, one paper surveys the field by identifying what needs to

be done. It also gives us an indication of peace-building elements applicable to the country.

A summary of “lessons learned” in Indonesian peace building also gives us insights on

what effective peace building is.

Sustaining a commitment to a negotiated political settlement and keeping lines of communication open

Enabling citizens’ participation Recognizing domestic third-party participation in

the facilitation of dialogue and mediation in talks Preparing for formal talks Building confidence between parties in conflict Searching for acceptable processes, venues, and

timetables Defining the substantive issues Identifying possible agreements in different areas

in the negotiations Aiming for the disposition of armed forces and set-

ting out a timetable for compliance Elaborating effective monitoring mechanisms with

monitors composed of citizens and institutions with nationwide reach and credibility

Working out a long-term peace education program and harnessing media participation in creating a climate conducing to a sustainable peace

Looking for different tracks in the peace process and formulating a substantive peace package that can significantly advance the process (Garcia 1994)

reflections/tasks

Responds to the root causes, symptoms and effects of violent conflict, before and after it breaks out

Requires long-term commitment Uses a process-oriented, comprehensive approach

that works at different levels and with local com-munities while strategically engaging key decisions and policy makers

Builds upon indigenous nonviolent approaches Requires a thorough participatory analysis based

on accurate information Is driven by community defined needs Is sensitive to gender issues, and takes into con-

sideration the needs and interests of both women

peace-building guideposts drawn from initiatives in indonesiaand men

Involves a range of stakeholders who represent the diversity of the communities in which we work

Strategically includes promotion of human rights and advocacy at local, national and global levels

Strengthens and contributes to a civil society move-ment that promotes peace

Requires transparency on the part of organizations and openness to all parties involved

Acknowledges the balance between rights and responsibilities (Catholic Relief Service-Jakarta 2003)



This study will review what makes for peace building in the country. It will update, validate

and/or reformulate the findings, frameworks, categories, and analysis not only of earlier writings

but of continuing experience to be able to draw lessons and identify the tasks ahead.

In particular, the study will evaluate the impact of civil society peace organizations’ peace-

building activities, and identify effective peace-building strategies.

As start-off point, this framework paper chose to limit peace-building activities into three

categories, subject to validation in the research process. These categories are:

These three categories of activities cover elements of the structures and processes that

are necessary for peace building. They are believed to be the dominant and distinct areas of

contemporary peace-building work in the country. The peace-building categories are not to be

confused with the peace agenda itself. The latter includes both negative peace (absence of direct

conflict) and positive peace (presence of justice/absence of indirect or structural violence). Ele-

ments of such comprehensive peace agenda are addressed jointly or separately in the different

peace-building activities.

This study will exclude related initiatives for social, economic, and political reforms that

are not done consciously and deliberately within the peace process framework. Many groups

working on the environment, gender, agrarian reform and other concerns do so consciously

within the democratization framework but not necessarily within the peace process (as earlier

defined). On the other hand, we can assume (but still need to validate) that the active peace

constituency network consciously links the peace process to democratization.

In effect, in this categorization, elements of the Waging Peace 2004 Conference’s Strategy

4 (Positive Peace) is embedded in one or more of the three categories—for example, as part of

the substantive agenda being negotiated, or the content of peace education.

The outcome of the research process may, however, lead us to reexamine these starting

points.

peace-building activities to be covered in this study Building the infrastructure for peace activism Engagement of state and armed nonstate actors (NSAs) Protection/promotion of community/civilian interests in the context of continuing conflict or in moments

of relative peace.



building the infrastructure for peace activism

Building the infrastructure

for peace activism is effectively

aimed at generating a social

and political movement for

peace (or a peace movement)

that will see through the at-

tainment of the peace agenda

with its positive and negative

peace components.

Here, we utilize Palm-

Dalupan’s elaboration that

building the infrastructure

for peace (activism) includes peace-constituency building, nurturing a culture of peace, and

developing capacities (and mechanisms) for nonviolent conflict resolution. We have appended

“activism” to this category to delimit the category to those initiatives that are focused on building

the peace movement—given the focus of our study on civil society roles or contributions to the

peace process. It is this peace movement that would—given its nature and purpose—advance

the comprehensive peace agenda with its myriad components.

Activities that make up infrastructure building are peace advocacy/campaigns, education,

training, and organizing/networking. They aim to create a critical mass and a broad network of

activist organizations that would advance and sustain the peace process.

Leaders and members of

state institutions and nonstate

armed groups are also targets

of peace advocacy, education,

training, and organizing but

efforts directed at the first

parties to the conflict will

be classified under state and

armed NSA engagement.

The peace constituency

are those who support and/or

actively participate in the peace

peace constituency Leaders and citizens who favor or seek peace and support peaceful

means and measures to end armed rebellion. (Abueva 1992) The body of supporters of an agenda for peace; a numerical (has

a quantitative following) as well as a geographical (located where they can influence) constituency; a conscienticized as well as con-scienticizing constituency; mobilizable for community action; an intentional community of solidarity, advocacy, vigilance and action. While ready to advocate and agitate for peace, it should be ready to learn and absorb other perspectives and have the ability to sift through. (Bautista 1991)

peace advocacy Advocacy: proactive process of continually and responsibly facili-

tating or struggling for change, through a variety of methods and strategies, of changing policies which are not in the interest of or-dinary people into those which respect and protect their rights.

Advocacy within the process of building peace: must be based on the principles of peace-building: nonviolence, and without giving rise to or at least minimizing repercussions which strengthen the prime causes of violent acts and conflict, such as poverty, igno-rance and dependence. (Catholic Relief Service-Jakarta 2003)



process through various peace-

building initiatives. On page 19

are more elaborated definitions

of the “peace constituency.”

Peace-constituency building in

this study will refer particularly to

efforts directed at strengthening

and broadening the peace

constituency in civil society.

De ve l o p i n g a n d n u r-

turing a culture of peace and

capacities for the nonviolent

resolution of conflict are also

multifaceted endeavors but will

be examined here mainly with

reference to initiatives falling

under “peace education” and peace/conflict resolution trainings.

It can be said that coalitions and networks have played very important roles in building

the infrastructure for peace in the country. The concept of “network of effective actors” (NEAs)

(above) may be useful in understanding the roles of peace coalitions and how networks have

been tapped to advance infrastructure building.

engagement of state and nonstate actors

While engagement of state and armed nonstate actors can take place in various contexts,

the context most relevant to this study is the peace process. Such a context for engagement

operates under the big frame

of reform and democratization

(to address root causes) and

the smaller frame of political

negotiation or the peaceful

resolution of conflict (as the

alternative to militarization

and political violence, and a

complementary approach to

other reform strategies).

network of effective actors [NEAs] A collection of representative actors from the political, social and

structural fields concerned with peace building in a specific conflict, whose purposes are to enhance effectiveness through fostering a holistic approach to peace building and to foster the development of new “theories of action” that necessitate collaboration. Members share a common purpose and a common set of operating principles and value inclusiveness and diversity, are decentralized and self-organizing, malleable in form and empowering of members.

A primary function is to supplement the limited theory of action of any one organization by fostering opportunities for diverse or-ganizations to learn from one another, bring different information for planning and analysis, and thus expand the range of possible action that can be taken to advance peace building. (Ricigliano 2002)

conflict resolution A state of affairs wherein the contending parties voluntarily find a

satisfactory way of regulating basic disagreements so that military confrontation becomes unnatural and mutual recognition of each other’s existence ensues. (Wallensteen in Garcia and Hernandez 1989)

The process of facilitating a solution where the conflict actors no longer feel the need to indulge in conflict activity and feel that the distribution of benefits in the social system is acceptable. (Nicholson 1991)



In the Philippine context,

engaging the state and the

armed NSAs are of two tracks:

the substantive and the

process. The substantive refers

to the attainment of societal

reforms to which a working/

minimum consensus among

all parties on what these are

must be achieved, and to

which all parties must commit

to pursue and attain. Process refers to the attainment of mutually acceptable mechanisms,

procedures, and strategies leading to a peaceful settlement of the armed conflict. The process

track can be considered akin to the concept of conflict resolution, which is a narrower frame

relative to “peace” with its many substantive components. Definitions of conflict resolution are

provided in the inset on the previous page.

We find that in the Philippine context of protracted conflict and erratic peace policies of

the first parties, neither the substantive nor the process precedes the other. Rather, both are

simultaneously pursued and every gain in either front complements both tracks.

The engagement of first parties is very much tied to the concept of peace groups as “third

party” to the conflict. As third party, peace organizations help in arriving at a consensus on the

substantive agenda and the processes necessary to halt and prevent political violence.

Engagement of the state and the NSAs highlights the role of civil society groups as mediators.

In the context of official peace talks taking place between the first parties, such role has often

been described as “unofficial”—meaning outside of the state-NSA bilateral process. Thus, there

is the notion of peace groups as “unofficial supplements to negotiations” (see inset above).

While this framework paper is focused on civil society, civil-society groups are not the only

third parties playing mediation roles. A sample list can be found in the inset below.

Mediation activities are

also varied, especially if the

process has not achieved a

sustained negotiation phase.

The next page identifies

various roles played by me-

diators in the early years of

the peace process involving

unofficial supplements to negotiation Those among the broader population which comprises the civil

society in the country in conflict; normally not part of the negotiation process and yet part of the conflict and it’s potential solution; includes organizations, groups (religious institutions, business and labor in-terests, peace groups) and individuals who have their own processes, communication channels, and expertise of which negotiators can avail themselves; can function as supports for, or alternatives to, the talks process itself. (Harris and Reilly 1998)

mediation role players in the GRP-NDF process Foreign States or Governments Intergovernmental Organizations International NGOs Special Bodies Local NGOs and POs Individuals (Coronel Ferrer 1994)



the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front

(NDF).

These more general categories are similar to the kinds of activities drawn from global me-

diation experiences as consolidated by Kriesberg below.

Most of the time however, mediation is viewed more narrowly in the context of formal

negotiations, hence this narrower classification.

“Selling” Negotiations – activities aimed at mak-ing both parties agree to negotiations; includes diplomacy (“soft sell”) and campaigns (“hard sell”) aimed at redirecting the thinking/policy of the armed antagonists in favor of the desired outcome, a nego-tiated political settlement.

Facilitating Negotiations – activities aimed at pro-viding or building the infrastructure for negotiations, such as offering one’s good offices and serving as communication channels.

Helping Define Negotiation Terms – activities aimed at helping the parties define the agenda and pro-

cess of negotiations and the terms of the negotiated settlement.

Participating in Actual Negotiations – activities conducted during actual negotiations such as use of good offices, or as observer, documenter, or arbiter.

Implementing the Terms of Agreement – activities done as part of the implementation such as mon-itoring, enforcing, arbitrating, and adjudicating on conflicts that arise in the process of consultations after the agreement. (Coronel Ferrer 1994)

range of mediation activities

mediating activities Selecting Issues Selecting Parties Providing Good Offices Communicating Each Others’ Side Reframing Conflict to Problem Suggesting New Options Raising Costs of Failing to Deescalate

Adding Resources for Settlements Helping to Create Parity Building Trust and Credibility Fostering Reconciliation Legitimation and Helping to Implement Proposal or

Agreement (Kriesberg 1991)

types of third party intervention Arbitration Power Mediation Conciliation

Facilitation Pure Mediation (Harris and Reilly 1998: 112)



protection/promotion of community/civilian interests

in the context of continuing conflict or moments of relative peace

War weighs heavily on civilians, as many contemporary conflicts have shown. This is espe-

cially true for nonconventional warfare in which the enemy lines are not clear, and combatants

could not easily be distinguished from the civilian population. The use of indiscriminate weapons

and methods like air raids and landmines further make the cost on communities and human

lives and well-being high.

Other than engaging the state and NSAs to observe international humanitarian law and to

cease hostilities, civil-society groups in the Philippines have taken on the task of providing relief

and reconstruction work in affected communities. Such efforts include soliciting and distrib-

uting goods to displaced communities, providing counseling to deal with psychosocial trauma

inflicted by the war, and assistance in resettlement and reconstruction efforts.

Many activities in line with peace advocacy such as the campaign to promote and respect

international humanitarian law applicable to internal conflicts, and to forge cease-fire agree-

ments, have a bearing on the protection of community/civilian interests because they seek to

establish rules of conduct and put checks on the use of violence. Such campaigns may have

local and national elements and may include activities like monitoring the implementation of

cease-fire agreements in the community and releasing the results of such monitoring to the

larger public for corresponding action to be taken. Each affected community can have its local

momentum or dynamics.

redefining “national” civil-society peace building from component parts

In documenting national experiences in civil-society peace building we must first clarify

what we mean by national. The use of “national” can simply mean across the nation or na-

tionwide—that is, peace-building efforts across the country by civil-society groups. A narrower,

Manila-centric frame would be to view “national” as those actions being undertaken by groups

with a national network but usually based in the National Capital Region where the center of

political and economic power is likewise located.

A broader notion of national is to perceive it as the whole picture that emerges from the

various initiatives across the country. Thus, it is the sum total of the parts (local, community,

regional, sectoral, gender dimensions/levels of interaction). But because it is a picture in itself,

it is more than its parts put together. It would include actions of other institutions that may



not be constructed explicitly

as peace organizations but in

any case have played a role

in the peace process. Prime

examples of such institutions

are the religious institutions

and mass media.

This broader notion is

also akin to the idea of a “com-

prehensive” peace process as defined by Lederach (left).

Although the UNDP Peace Program envisions to undertake separate studies on peace and

conflict-resolution initiatives by government, and in the Cordillera and Mindanao regions, a

study of macro-level or center-based civil-society peace-building initiatives will necessarily

interface with such focused studies on community-based and government peace building.

This interface happens because the various actors within and outside of these territorial

delineations (the community, or bigger entities like the Cordillera and Mindanao regions) in-

teract through various formal and informal networks, and respond to similar concerns directly

relevant to the peace process. A bombing incident in a marketplace in Cotabato, or children

being hit by stray bullets in an encounter between rebel and army troops in a remote mountain

village in the Cordillera, are developments of concern to the immediately affected community

all the way to the advocacy groups based in the cities. Meanwhile, because of proximity, re-

sources and expertise, people in the cities are able to do more lobby work in the legislative and

executive branches of government, the outcome of which will also affect the local communities.

Organizationally, we are also witness to various formations that are horizontally and vertically

linked to all sorts of networks.

Lederach in fact emphasizes the need to bridge the gaps by multiplying interfaces across

levels, although in this schema

(see left inset), levels are not

to be interpreted in terms of

territorial units but leadership

position, and the scope of the

power and influence that can

be exercised (which may be

expressed—but not only in

territorial terms).

To thus delimit the scope

“national” as in national peace process Comprehensive, which points to the need for a broader and

wholistic understanding of the tasks at hand, and has a vision of both long-term transformation and short-term steps. (Lederach in Garcia 1994b)

levels of actors Top-level leadership – key political and military leaders in the

conflict. Middle-level leadership – those in leadership positions but not

necessarily connected to or controlled by the government or main opposition groups but connected through networks to the influential people.

Grassroots – people in the communities or on the ground. (Lederach 1997)

n a t u r e o f c i v i l - s o c i e t y p e a c e b u i l d i n g |�5


of this study and avoid overlaps while recognizing integral links that constitute the “national pic-

ture,” this paper will focus more on the strategies utilized to build vertical linkages with the com-

munities and the more distinct “conflict regions” such as the Cordillera and Mindanao.

��

framew

ork

actors/groups

As already discussed in the pertinent section, civil society can be disaggregated according

to type of organizations.

From a survey of different self-acknowledged peace organizations in 1996-1997, the fol-

lowing organizational categories were arrived at:

In terms of geographic scope or level of operation, they were found to be operating as

follows:

methodology for the documentation of civil-society experiences

in peace building (1986-2004)

National (nationwide) Island Grouping Multiple Provinces/Cities/”Regional” Province City/Town District

Basic Unit (barangay, sitio) School International (Coronel Ferrer 1997a)

scope of operation of philippine peace organizations

organizational types People’s Organizations Service and Development NGOs

• Institutes• Programs & Desks Of a Religious Institution Of an Academic Institution Others

Coalitions Political Parties (Coronel Ferrer 1997a)



This study focused on middle- to top-level civil-society peace organizations since, as noted,

other studies will examine peace initiatives of community-based groups, and on Cordillera and

Mindanao. The scope of operations of the selected civil-society peace organizations ranged

from nationwide down to regional level or provincial levels.

Other than peace organizations built explicitly as an organization dedicated to doing peace

work, the study also covered other segments of civil society like the academic and the religious

institutions, to see how they have contributed to peace building.

Based on availability of potential case study writers, the study was able to put together case

studies on religious institutions, peace coalitions, academic institutions with peace-education

programs, and psychosocial trauma rehabilitation programs. Under religious institutions, the

region-wide peace-building activities of the Catholic Church institutions in the region (Bicol) was

chosen. A separate study of a religious association was planned but no writer was found. The

peace coalitions and peace-education studies were limited to Metro Manila initiatives while the

study on psychosocial rehabilitation work (PRW) undertook a survey and review of initiatives

1. Religious Institutions• Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines

(CBCP)• National Council of Churches in the Philippines

(NCCP)• Bishop-Ulama Forum• Association of Major Religious Superiors in the

Philippines (AMRSP)• Province/Region-wide church institutions (e.g.,

Bicol)• Others

2. Peace Coalitions and Citizen Groups• Coalition for Peace• National Peace Conference• Pilgrims for Peace• Citizens Council for Peace• All-Out Peace Groups• Mindanao People’s Caucus• Peace Alliance Zamboanga

3. Media (Focus: how the media have reported or discussed

peace and conflict, and mainstreamed peace concerns in their institutional framework or development)

• Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI)• Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility

4. NGOs and NGO Federations • Coalition of Development NGOs (CODE-NGO)• Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute (GZOPI)• AKKAPKA

5. Academic Institutions• Colleges and universities with peace programs• Peace Educators Network

6. Human Rights Groups• Philippine Alliance of Hurman Rights Asso-

ciations (PAHRA)• Karapatan• Task Force Detainees (TFD)• Balay, Inc.

7. Political Parties 8. Women’s Groups 9. Workers’ and Peasants’ Federations 10. Psycho-Social Trauma Rehabilitation Programs

possible areas for evaluation according to actors

m e t h o d o l o g y f o r d o c u m e n t a t i o n |��


in provinces where PRW has relatively advanced.

This spread of areas of study adequately covered the different types of peace-building

activities. Among themselves, they also have different emphasis – for example, coalitions and

peace-education programs are primarily focused on building the infrastructure for peace

activism while psychosocial trauma rehabilitation programs address the problem of direct

violence in conflict areas. Religious institutions in particular play significant third-party roles.

But all of them are involved in one way or another in all three types of activities. The variations

in emphasis in peace building will provide a good spread for identifying effective strategies

and lessons learned.

The religious institutions (because of their formidable resources, social standing, and their

rootedness in affected communities and in the society at large, although the peace process is

only a secondary thrust in their institutional mandate), NGOs, and the peace coalitions (be-

cause they are, after all, focused on peace campaigns and are primarily motivated to become

“networks of effective actors”) are the most prominent peace-building actors. The NGOs and

NGO networks operate within or are part of these formations or thrusts like peace education

and PRW. Thus it was decided not to undertake a case study of specific NGOs/NGO formations

since their role will be reflected as well in all the selected areas.

Bicol was chosen as a case-study site under religious institutions because it is a relatively

high-conflict area where state and CPP-New People’s Army (NPA) forces are active. The regional

study can effectively complement the regional studies to be separately conducted in Mindanao

(where mainly Moro groups and the CPP-NPA operate) and the Cordillera (mainly an area of

operation of the CPP-NPA and splinter groups like the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army, but

the region has a distinct characteristic as inhabited by indigenous/cultural communities). At the

same time, as a study under the theme on religious institutions, it can generate insights that are

reflective of the strengths and weaknesses of the Catholic Church’s peace-building activities.

Since the human-rights groups in the Philippines are mostly focused on human-rights

campaigns and only secondarily address or link these issues to the peace process, they were

not prioritized for the study, although it would have been productive as well to examine the

relatively weak linkage of human-rights campaigns and the peace process.

Other actors like political parties, women’s groups, and sectoral organizations are generally

not primarily dedicated to the peace process, and neither do they operate under the peace-

building framework. While there are two or three “women for peace” organizations in Mindanao,

they are in any case networked with the bigger coalitions. Other sectoral organizations have

likewise joined campaigns launched by peace coalitions or are members of these peace

coalitions.



actions/activities

After short-listing the actors or groups that were to be covered, the study documented each

group or set of groups/actors, according to:

Issues Addressed

Divergences/Convergences in Issue Positioning and Actions Undertaken

Strategies Employed

• Organizing Strategies (among targeted peace constituents; among themselves)

• Engagement Strategies (directed at the parties in conflict)

• Campaign Strategies (directed at the general public or specific communities or

for specific undertakings)

This categorization of strategies were considered not necessarily applicable to all cases

since the groups may have different organizational mandates or thrusts.

evaluation of effectiveness of strategies

The documentation process went one step further than merely describing what has been

done. It also evaluated the impact of the strategies/interventions undertaken.

How to evaluate the impact? The following authors offer us some insights:

The earlier citation from Vayrynen on areas of transformation—issues, actors (are rela-

tionships changing?), rules, and structures (external structure and interest structure) also offer

us guideposts on what kind of changes we need to look into to evaluate the impact of civil-

society peace building.

peace impact – those effects that foster and support the sustainable structures and processes which strengthen

the prospects of peaceful coexistence and decrease the likelihood of the outbreak, recurrence, or continuation of violent conflict. (in Galama and Tongeren, 2002:113)

conflict impact – all social, economic and political effects that increase the likelihood that conflict will be dealt with

through violent means. (in Galama and Tongeren, 2002:113)

m e t h o d o l o g y f o r d o c u m e n t a t i o n |��


Given that the present stumbling blocks to the peace process have to do with the ambiva-

lent war/peace policies of both the state and the armed NSAs, the obtaining conditions on

the ground that sustain the conflict, and the lack of national consensus on the way to move

forward to achieve the needed social and political change as well as the peaceful settlement of

armed conflicts, this study proposed to evaluate civil-society peace building on the following

aspects:

Impact on the policy issue

Impact on the ground-level situation

Impact on the perception, attitudes, behavior, and perspective of other stakeholders

(community, other civil-society groups, elements of the state, and the armed NSAs)

In the Philippine domestic situation, the primary stakeholders are:

The three areas for assessment of impact are specific enough to be relevant in informing

present initiatives as well as the immediate future. At the same time, the findings can allow us

to reflect on the bigger aspects of peace and conflict impact, and areas of transformation as

defined by the authors cited above.

As we can see, the peaceful resolution of the armed conflict, eradication of the roots of in-

surgency, and a just and lasting peace are the long-term goals of the Philippine peace process.

The areas of impact identified allow us to measure our progress toward these goals but at the

same time, they are a tacit recognition that we still have a long way to go. It can be said, therefore,

that while we are making steps toward conflict transformation, we are not yet about to achieve

a just and lasting peaceful solution. Thus what we can measure by way of gains are incremen-

tal progress at the level of policy, at enhancing conditions on the ground, and at transforming

thinking, behavior, and perspectives.

This reflection question may thus be in order in locating current peace-building efforts:

primary stakeholders State agencies and officials Rebel organization, leadership, and members Communities in conflict areas Citizens at large

reflection questionAre we transforming the conflict even though we are not (yet) settling it?



general guide questions for documentation and evaluation of civil-society peace building

A. What “peace-building” activities have been/are being undertaken by the group/institution? Does the group/institution refer to these activities as “peace building”? How in effect does the group define peace building (or what terms do they use to refer to the work relevant to the concern of the study)?

B. Evaluation of Interventions and Impact 1. Impact on the Policy Issue

• What interventions were made in terms of policy advocacy?• What resources, structures and campaign strategies were utilized?• How did the interventions affect the course of the policy? • How did objectives match with outcome, including policy implementation? What other factors

could have affected the policy outcome and its implementation?• What lessons were learned from the experience?

2. Impact on the Ground-Level Situation• What interventions were made in terms of addressing the situation on the ground?• What resources, structures, and campaign strategies were utilized?• How did the interventions affect the situation on the ground (e.g., deescalation/prevention of

violence, creation of new structures, relationships and processes)? Were the deescalation, and new structures and processes sustained?

• How did objectives match with outcome? What other factors affected the outcome or contributed to the change?

• What lessons were learned from the experience?

3. Impact on the Perception, Attitude, and Behavior of Primary Stakeholders• What changes in perception, attitude, and behavior of primary stakeholders have taken place/

been discerned? How have these changes contributed to building positive vertical and horizontal relationships among stakeholders?

• What interventions led to the changes in the perception, attitude, and behavior of primary stake-holders?

• What resources, structures, and campaign strategies contributed to the outcome? • How did objectives match with outcome? What other factors could have led to these out-

comes?• What lessons were learned from the experience?

m e t h o d o l o g y f o r d o c u m e n t a t i o n |33


In the preceding page are the General Guide Questions for Documentation and Impact

Evaluation. Questionnaires for the interviews, focus group discussions, and workshops with the

specific sectors/groups/institutions were particularized by the individual case studies.

analysis and lessons learned

This part of the study assessed the whole picture that emerged from the sub-studies of the

selected sectors, groups, or institutions.

Tentatively, the overall analysis and assessment were organized into two categories that

mainly reflect, first, the context/externalities of peace building, and second, the actual strategies

utilized and their effectiveness, strengths, and weaknesses.

On Peace Issues and the Policy Environment

On Strategies of Civil-Society Peace Building

From the findings, a Lessons Learned summary was drawn.

research methods and output

The study combined the different methods:

Literature Review

Focused Group Discussions (FGDs)

Interviews of Key Informants (KIs)

Participant-Observation

Case Studies

Series of Validation Workshops

Trial Training Workshops utilizing the Output

Concretely, it produced the following output:

A Framework Paper

Four Published Thematic Papers (Selected Actors)

Full Paper on Lessons Learned

Training Modules

Several Validation Workshops

Trial Training Workshop



The four case studies undertaken as part of the team undertook their respective FGDs,

KI interviews, and participant-observation. The Bicol churches and peace-education studies,

respectively, chose to survey the peace initiatives in the provinces comprising the Bicol region,

and all the academic institutions in Metro Manila that have introduced peace-education pro-

grams. The PRW and peace coalition studies utilized the “case study approach” by picking out

representative initiatives from which to draw out strategies and lessons.

The draft thematic papers and synthesis were presented in the whole-day Validation

Workshop held on September 20, 2004, at the University of the Philippines. The workshop was

attended by thirty-five people, including twenty-three participants from Luzon, Visayas, and

Mindanao; the nine thematic-paper writers and their research partners/assistants; two UNDP

representatives; and myself.

The Project Consultant and the thematic-paper writers conducted three team workshops

to develop the training modules on Civil-Society Peace building. These were held on October 8

and November 15, 2004, and on January 19, 2005. Sample modules on peace education, church

peace building, and the synthesis were prepared and discussed by the team members. A whole-

day trial training workshop was held on February 19 to test and critique the modules developed.

The workshop was attended by thirty participants from Metro Manila, Bicol, and Mindanao.

The process yielded valuable suggestions for improving on the modules. The learning modules

developed by the team members are annexed in their respective volumes.

synthesis of lessons learnedin civil-society peace building

in the philippines

37

synthesis of lessons learned

overview of philippine peace building

We will now proceed to the overview of peace-building groups

and strategies as illuminated in the four case studies. This will

then be followed by the assessment and lessons learned.

actors/groups

The four cases examined or made references to various civil-society organizations. These

are enumerated in Table 1 (see next pages).

In terms of type of organizations, they were institutions, NGOs, or coalitions. Except in the

PRW study, which included people’s organizations in their focus group discussions, grassroots

organizations were not the main focus of this set of studies, since from the beginning we stated

that it would concentrate on middle-level civil-society organizations. Middle-level leadership or

actors refer to “those in leadership positions but not necessarily connected to or controlled by

the government or main opposition groups but connected through networks to the influential

people” or the top-level leaderships of the conflict parties (Lederach 1997).

As institutions, NGOs and coalitions, these bodies facilitate establishment of vertical link-

ages to the grassroots as well as to the top-level leaderships. They also undertake horizontal

linkages among themselves whether on a campaign- or program-specific level or more strate-

gically in terms of shared social and political goals.

peace-building strategies

This study limited the review and evaluation to three general types of peace-building ac-

tivities and the corresponding strategies adopted. These peace-building categories are:

Building the infrastructure for peace activism – includes advocacy, organizing, edu-

cation, nurturing a culture of peace, and developing capacities

Protection and promotion of community interests and welfare – includes preventing

38 | s y n t h e s i s o f l e s s o n s l e a r n e d i n c i v i l - s o c i e t y p e a c e b u i l d i n g i n t h e p h i l i p p i n e s


CASE STUDY

Bicol Churchesby the Social Action Center of Legazpi, Albay, led by Sonia Imperial and Jovic Lobrigo

Institutions/NGOs

• Dioceses of Sorsogon, Albay, Masbate, Catanduanes, Camarines Norte

• Archdiocese of Caceres• Prelature of Libamanan• Prelature of Libmanan

Development Foundation, Inc. (PLDFI)

• Caceres Social Action Center Foundation, Inc. (CASAFI)

• Bicol Regional Social Action Commission

• Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines-National Secretariat for Social Action (CBCP-NASSA)

• Other NGOs like BEMJP and • Task Force Detainees

Ecumenical Movement (of the Diocese of Camarines Norte)

• Augustinian Missionaries of the Philippines

• Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFD-P)

• Community Organizing of the Philippines Enterprise (COPE)

• Ateneo de Naga Social Integration Office/ Ateneo de Naga University

• Naga Parochial School• Colegio de Sta. Isabel • AKMA• Makabayan• Philippine Miserior

Partnership• Tri-media Organizations• Kapisan ng mga Brodkasters

sa Pilipinas• Radio Veritas

Coalitions/Networks

• Hearts of Peace (HOPE)• Bicol Peace Advocates• Masbate Principled

Peace Movement• Masbate Association of

People’s Organizations• Regional Peace Forum • Naga Popular Democrats

(NagaPopDem)• Coalition for Peace• Bishops-Businessmen

Conference

People’s Organizations

• Basic Ecclesial Communities/ Basic Christian Communities (BECs/BCCs)

Table 1. Civil-Society Organizations Covered in the Case Studies

o v e r v i e w o f p h i l i p p i n e p e a c e b u i l d i n g | 39


Psycho-Social Rehabilitation Work (PRW)by the Program on Psychosocial Trauma and Human Rights, University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies, led by Marco Puzon, Elizabeth Protacio-de Castro and Agnes Camacho

CASE STUDY Institutions/NGOs Coalitions/Networks People’s Organizations

• Federation of Mangyan Organizations or PASAKAMI (Mindoro Occidental)

• Mindanao Emergency Response Network

• Bantay Cease-fire• Mindanao People’s

Caucus• Mindanao Peoples

Peace Movement• Philippine Coalition to

Stop the Use of Child Soldiers

• Peace Educations Network

• Philippine Disaster Management Forum

• United Against Torture Coalition

• International Society for Health and Human Rights

• Children’s Rehabilitation Center (Metro Manila)

• Balay Rehabilitation Center (Metro Manila, Mindanao)

• Program on Psychosocial Trauma, University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies (Metro Manila)

• Christian Children’s Fund (Basilan)

• Nagdilaab Foundation, Inc. (Basilan)

• Institute of Peace and Development Studies, Southern Christian College (Cotabato/Maguindanao)

• Notre Dame Foundation for Charitable Activities, Inc. –Women in Enterprise Development (Cotabato/Maguindanao)

• Balik Kalipay (Maguindanao)• Consuelo Foundation

(Cotabato project)• Social Action Center,

Apostolic Vicariate San Jose Occidental Mindoro

• Mangyan Mission (Mindoro)• Bulig Foundation (Negros

Occidental)• Tabang Mindanaw (Metro

Manila with field offices)• Women and Children Internal

Refugees Assistance Center (Metro Manila)

• Initiatives for International Dialogue (Davao)

• Bangsamoro Women’s Association

• HAGURA (indigenous Mangyan organization from the Hanunuo, Gubatnon and Ratagnon tribes)

• SAKAMAIMO (Iraya Mangyan organization)

• SASSAMA (Sta. Cruz Alangan Mangyan association)

• HABANAN (Buhid Mangyan association)

• FAMATODI (Fakasadian Mangaguyang

Taobuid Mangyan association)

• Suara Kalilintad (“voice of peace,” organization of evacuees in Cotabato and Maguindanao)



CASE STUDY Institutions/NGOs Coalitions/Networks People’s Organizations

• Balay Integrated Rehabilitation Center for Total Human Development (Iligan City, Lanao del Norte)

• Philippine Human Rights Information Center (Philrights)

• Community and Family Services International (Mindanao program)

• Save the Children-US (Mindanao program)

• Immaculate Conception Parish-Pikit (North Cotabato)

• Accion Contra el Hambre• Medical Action Group (MAG)• Catholic Relief Services• Movimondo• Oxfam• Ateneo de Zamboanga

Research Center

• Miriam College• Philippine Normal University• Assumption College• Far Eastern University• Ateneo de Manila University• De La Salle Uniersity• University of the Philippines

• Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute (GZOPI)

• Program on Peace, Democratization & Human Rights, University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies

• Philippine Peace Center• Philippine Rural

Reconstruction Movement (PRRM)

• Third World Studies Center, University of the Philippines

Peace Education by Loreta N. Castro, Jasmin N. Galace and Kristine Lesaca of the Center for Peace Education, Miriam College

Peace Coalitionsby Zosimo Lee and Josephine Dionisio

• Peace Education Network (PEN)

• Coalition for Peace• Multisectoral Peace

Alliance• National Peace

Conference• Pilgrims for Peace• All-out Peace Groups• Gathering for Peace• Sulong CARHRIHL



and mitigating the violence and its consequences on the community

Engagement strategies – includes activities directed at the conflict parties such as lobby,

dialogue, facilitation, mediation, and helping define the substance and processes of

the peace negotiations needed to resolve the conflict

Table 2 identifies the strategies employed by the areas covered in the four case studies. The

next sections discuss each peace building activity.

building the infrastructure for peace activism

advocacy. Advocacy is a very important feature of peace-building work. Advocacy may be for

specific policies or laws, the elements of a comprehensive peace agenda, or a general peace

orientation that effectively weaves together what a foreign peace scholar has called, “the different

elements of peacelessness.” Advocacy strategies include issuing statements; holding exhibits,

conferences, seminars, and forums; organizing protests and all sorts of outdoor campaigns;

legislative lobby; and offering formal and informal peace education and/or conflict-resolution

courses.

“Seek Peace, Pursue It” was a powerful pastoral letter issued by the Catholic Bishops’ Con-

ference of the Philippines (CBCP) in 1990, a time that saw the harsh consequences of the rise

in vigilante groups since the breakdown of peace negotiations between the government and

the National Democratic Front (NDF) in 1987. The pastoral letter supported former President

Aquino’s declaration of 1990-2000 as the country’s “Decade of Peace.”

Consultations and discussions are also part of advocacy, particularly aimed at enhancing

understanding and achieving consensus among the stakeholders or a particular constituency.

In Bicol, for example, the Budyong Bikolnon two-day consultations held in May 2000 with the

theme “Progress and Development through Peace” discussed the regional and national situation;

issues such as mining, education, basic services, labor, indigenous peoples and environment;

and regional efforts in creating a culture of peace in the communities.

Open-air mass actions are usually issue-specific—for example, advocating the holding of a

cease-fire, highlighting the plight of evacuees in war-torn areas, supporting continuation of peace

negotiations, or demanding the resignation of the defense secretary. Marches or rallies usually

include a program made up of several speeches and songs. Marches have also taken on the form

of “prayer rallies” or street performances that highlight the theme of religious celebrations like

the Penafrancia (annual adoration of the Virgin Mary statue in Camarines Sur) or use traditional

forms such as the panunuluyan during Christmas. Besides marching with banners and placards

and the giving of speeches, activities in the past included the ceremonial burning of war toys,



Table 2. Peace-Building Activities

Building the Infrastructure for Peace Activism

Peace Advocacy, - Advocacy work, campaigns, organizing, networking, peace education, inter-faith dialogues and other activities aimed a promoting a peace agenda, and/or culture of peace, and organizing constituencies united or mobilized along these goals

Declaring schools as zones of peace

Providing formal education in schools and non-formal education to other sectors

Holding conferences, seminars, exhibits

Holding mass actions

Pushing for the implementation of reforms and the national peace agenda

Various other campaigns and activities (burning of toy guns; sister-schools in conflict areas)

Policy advocacy(e.g., participation in the formation of a national peace agenda; campaigning for/against specific policy issues; roundtable discussions)

Issuing statements, letters on related issues and developments in the peace process


Lobbying for needed legislation (peace policy, ratification and passage of national legislation to implement conventions, treaties & protocols)

Rallies, protests, and other forms of street actions

Various campaigns, forums, festivals, conferences & seminars (e.g., on psychosocial trauma, child soldiers, rights of the child and of women, children as zones of peace)


Lobbying needed legislation (e.g., humanitarian protection of internally displaced populations; ratification of conventions, treaties and protocols)

Newsletters, literary works

Interreligious activities and dialogues

Advocacy campaigns and various mobilization activities (e.g., marches, prayer rallies, street performance)

Media campaigns (radio-hopping and reporting, press releases); newspaper columns and radio program

Education, lectures, seminars and symposia on justice and peace

Pastoral letters, statements, guidelines, and exhortations on human rights, justice and peace

Community-based prayer meetings

Regional and provincial forums

PEACE- BUILDING ACTIVITIES

COMPONENTS STRATEGIESPeace Education

PeaceCoalitions

Psycho-SocialRehabilitation

BicolChurches





PeaceCoalitions


BicolChurches

Peace Organizing- Creating organizational mechanisms to undertake work, and harvest and consolidate the involvement of the constituencies

Creation of peace centers; core of associates

Institutionalizing peace and conflict resolution studies in schools as courses, seminars or short-term training

Maintaining and expanding the Peace Educa-tion Network (PEN) as facili-tative network and b a s e f o r v a r i ous partnerships.

Forging international linkages

Holding timely, efficient, and productive meetings

Organizing campaigns and corresponding mechanisms to bring together concerned civil society groups

Networking and forming linkages (issue-or campaign-based, or more long-term coalitions) locally, nationally and internationally

Complementing. cooperating and coordinating with other coalitions or groups

Providing secre-tar iat service to alliances and campaigns

Supporting peace zone-building

Putting up PRW organizations or mainstreaming it in existing programs, desks or institutes, both governmental and non-governmental

Networking with human rights and other groups in international, national, and local activities; also other schools and youth groups (e.g., Twinning of Schools Project; GO-NGO interagency cooperation)

Community-organizing

Supporting peace-zone building , youth and children development

Formation of Basic Ecclesial Community with peace orientation as main part of transforming values and attitudes

Integrating a peace-building program and/or reviving the Justice and Peace Desks in the diocesan Social Action Centers in the region, and strengthening regional coordination





PeaceCoalitions


BicolChurches

Peace Research & Train-ing Programs - Re-search efforts and studies on impact of war, peace, conflict resolution, etc, and training in skills important to peace-building, thereby support-ing and building capacities for peace action

Research, publi-cation, training, and module development on peace, human rights, conflict resolution, peer mediation

Trainings on inter-national humani-tarian law; primers on peace zone building

Research on psycho-social impact of armed conflict and political violence on vulnerable sectors and affected communities; best practices, indigenous approaches and knowledge, recovery and reintegration

Researches and publications on torture and other human rights violations of states and armed NSAs, especially against children

Training and module development on responding to psychosocial trauma, human rights, international humanitarian law, humanitarian work or emergency response, barangay rehabilitation planning, peace and conflict resolution; also leadership, life skills, and entrepreneurship as part of post-conflict reconstruction

Training programs on values orientation, leadership

Undertaking research on manifestations and impact of the armed conflict in the region





PeaceCoalitions


BicolChurches

Protection and Promotion of Community/Civilian Interests and Welfare

Activities aimed at de-escalating the level of political violence and ad-dressing the negative impact of violence on affected com-munities and individuals, with the end view of enhancing the conditions for sustainable peace, seeking respite from violence, receiving justice and reparation for human rights vio-lations, and heal-ing the wounds of war inflicted on war-torn commu-nities

Campaigning for cease-fires, observance of peace agreements, human rights and international humanitarian law

Letter-writing to children-evacuees in conflict areas to express empathy

Fund-raising for war-affected areas to support the work of other NGOs

Campaigning for cease-fires, observance of peace agreements, human rights and international humanitarian law

Supporting peace zone initiatives

Joining or organizing fact-finding missions, relief and medical missions

Psychosocial counseling and trauma relief services (utilizing creative methods like the arts and theaters, or taking into account indigenous practices and beliefs)

Reconciliation and rebuilding of social relationships (including strengthening traditional socio-political community structures weakened by the conflict) through interactive programs

Fact-finding, mercy, and cease-fire monitoring missions

Physical rehabilitation

Delivery of basic services

Peace and development projects, livelihood/income-generating projects (e.g., Recycling War Trash for Peace Project in Basilan)

Conflict prevention efforts

Promoting observance of cease-fires, human rights and international humanitarian law

Fact-finding missions

Providing various forms of assistance to affected constituents (e.g., employment and protection after reintegration) and communities

Undertaking livelihood programs to address poverty of constituents



Mediation(e.g., negotiating the release of prison-ers held by either side or of belong-ings and bodies of combatants killed in the fighting.)

Holding dialogues with the conflict parties

Writing petitions to the parties

Forming local cease-fire committees (60-day 1986-e.g. during the 1987 GRP-NDF cease-fire)

Providing resources & other support to parties in order to facilitate the peace negotiations

Providing assistance (issuance of safe conduct passes, security, shelter, medical) to rebels returning to the fold of the law



PeaceCoalitions


BicolChurches

Adoption and promotion of the “Principles of Conduct for Non-Government Humanitarian Agencies in Mindanao”

Special campaigns like “Bakwit Power” (collective action of evacuees calling for peace and cease-fire)

Submission of reports and documents to both parties.

Program for demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants

Engagement of the State and Nonstate Actors

Activities geared toward achieving a non-military so-lution to the major armed conflicts, including facilitat-ing, mediating and advocating political negotiations and meaningful recon-ciliation; reinte-gration

Campaign calls, statements, policy positions addressed to the parties

Joining dialogues with the two parties as part of civil society

Campaigning to both parties to sustain peace negotiations or to respond to certain concerns

Facilitating dialogues between civil society groups and the parties to the conflict

Back-channeling efforts /”shuttle diplomacy”

Holding dialogues with the conflict parties

Direct & indirect participation in defining the process and substance of the peace talks



the setting up of a Peace Tent that lasted for several days, and the holding of concerts.

Tapping the mass media is almost integral to these campaigns directed at the general pub-

lic and policy makers. Thus, part of advocacy strategies is the holding of press conferences,

issuance of press statements, media interviews, and radio-hopping. Partnerships with media

organizations on peace building are also in place, in Bicol, for example, through the Social Ac-

tion Center in Legazpi, Albay. NGOs also produce their own newsletters and publications to

report on their work and advance their positions on various issues.

Peace advocacy aims to get concrete results: policy change, policy implementation or

enforcement, passage of legislation, and concrete action or affirmation from whomever it

is demanded (e.g., the state or the armed NSA). Peace coalitions can be considered the most

directly oriented toward “public policy” intervention. The peace education groups have taken

on the task of influencing government to mainstream peace education in the public school

system and tertiary institutions, through their coalition, the Peace Education Network (PEN).

The Catholic Church also comes out occasionally with its own public policy statements related

to peace concerns. PRW groups also join advocacy campaigns of peace coalitions, or are key ac-

tors in specific policy campaigns like the prohibition of the use of child soldiers and protection

of internally displaced persons.

Beyond addressing the specific issues of the day and making demands on policy mak-

ers, peace advocacy as practiced in the country works for long-term norm building. It aims to

shape how people (decision makers, ordinary citizens, students, communities) view not only

certain issues but also society, the world, and the process of social change and transformation.

It influences/urges/molds people to think and respond in certain ways by changing their per-

spectives, norms, and behavior toward what is referred to as a “culture of peace”. Such a culture

of peace may be faith-based or secular in orientation. The value of peace education and the

long-term building of a culture of peace is well-articulated by NGOs and institutions doing peace

education. The Cotabato-based Institute of Peace and Development Studies, for example, hopes

to peacefully resolve conflicts and genuine people’s development “through a contextual, liber-

ating, empowering and relevant education that is faith-based and responsive to people’s needs”

(cited in PRW study). In addition, school-based peace education which targets the youth also

aims to develop (future) leaders and agents of peaceful social transformation (cited in Peace

Education study). In this way, the human resource needed to sustain peace building for the

long term are reproduced and honed. Lectures, workshops, conferences, and peace education

courses are the usual ways to achieve this strategic goal of peace advocacy.

Peace advocacy is viewed as facilitative not only of mobilization but also of empowerment,

especially of survivors of conflict or human-rights violations, who have transformed themselves

into active peace builders (PRW study). For the Catholic Church, its peace advocacy is faith-



based, meaning it sees its peace work as part of its mandate of sharing the gospel of truth, peace,

justice, and forgiveness even as it now espouses an ecumenical and interreligious orientation

and is informed by secular discourses on human rights, social movements, etc.

organizing. By organizing peace constituencies, the foundation for sustaining peace activism

is strengthened and expanded. In peace education, an important organizational form are the

peace centers with their small core of associates who conceive, develop, implement, and monitor

the programs and campaigns. This is supplemented by the Peace Education Network (PEN),

a coalition-type body that provides coordination, facilitation, and a goal- and activity-setting

forum for people and groups interested in advancing peace education in their respective com-

munities or at large.

Similarly, to start off and ensure sustained psychosocial rehabilitation work, the common

organizational form that is taken is the institution of PRW programs, desks or centers, and the

training of a core of PRW volunteers. These initiatives are networked, assisted, and monitored

by the more developed PRW centers like the Balay Rehabilitation Center and the Psycho-So-

cial Trauma Program of the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies. Partnership

between the pioneering organizations and the new programs enable technology transfer. For

specific campaigns like the those against child soldiers and the rights of the child and of women

(in situations of armed conflict), organizing takes on the form of coalitions with one or several

centers taking on the secretariat function.

In the Catholic Church, the diocesan Social Action Centers (SACs) are emerging as an im-

portant organizational body that can undertake peace-building work. Peace activists in these

SACs initiate the development of peace programs and the effective transformation of the SAC

into a peace organization. The SACs are also the diocesan bishop’s arm in the development of

Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs) within the diocese. The SACs with a purposive peace orien-

tation can transform these BECs into solid peace constituencies who see peace as integral to

the practice of their faith and the BECs’ main goal of spiritual formation.

The diocesan SACs are loosely networked into a Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao formation,

and are coordinated by a national secretariat known as the National Secretariat for Social Ac-

tion (NASSA). They can also be consolidated more effectively into a regional network such as

the Bicol Regional Social Action Commission (BRSAC) in our case study on the Bicol churches.

The BRSAC, moreover, has more comprehensively adopted a three-pronged approach to social

action, namely, poverty alleviation, good governance, and peace building. It is doing this in co-

operation with other NGOs and the Philippine Miserior Partnership, and by assigning leadership

and responsibility for each of the thrusts to the different SACs.

In Metro Manila, peace coalitions are the common organizational form for general or is-



sue-based peace campaigns. These campaign-focused coalitions draw organized groups or

institutions (NGOs, people’s organizations, academic organizations, political parties, centers,

and programs) and committed individuals into a formation that would spearhead the campaign

and draw in other members. Usually, one NGO or center provides the secretariat support (doc-

umentation, coordination, and administrative and technical support). The leadership is made

up of conveners and are fairly flat or non-hierarchical in organizational structure. Decision

making is largely by consensus. A national coalition would be made up of territorial chapters,

or simply have members from different parts of the country.

Coalitions generally tend to be temporary formations given their specific focus and loose

structure. Their level of activity often becomes contingent on the currency of the issue on which

the coalition is built. They are dependent on the initiative and resources of their most active

members, who are usually involved in many other undertakings other than the issue on hand.

But coalitions serve the purpose of bringing together people for effective campaigns during

the moments when the situation demands such a response. Coalition allows for some division

of work among members, and complements members’ needs and strengths. For example, the

experiences, gains, and needs of local members guided the national advocacy work of the Metro

Manila-based center of the Coalition for Peace (CfP). The latter in turn kept members on the ground

abreast of developments, making for mutually beneficial vertical linkages (Coalition Study).

Calling people and organizations to a meeting is integral to organizing and sustaining a

coalition. The capacity to hold these timely meetings of a good number of groups and individuals

effectively, efficiently, and productively means a lot to the growth and sustainability of the coali-

tions. These meetings are the venue to share information and developments, thresh out differ-

ences, achieve some consensus (including “agreeing to disagree”), draw up plans, put up various

mechanisms (organizational, communication, coordination, and so on), and identify respective

tasks. For the CfP and the Multisectoral Peace Advocates (MSPA) in the tumultuous late 1980s,

the weekly meetings became the venue to arrive at a common understanding (Coalition Study).

However, it should also be noted that too many meetings can be counterproductive, as it pulls

people away from their other work or may exhaust them physically and psychologically.

The value of productive, process-conscious, and healthy meetings is also true for programs

and institutions, although the latter may involve people who are less diverse (in ideology, man-

date, background, goals, and so on) than those in coalitions.

Mainstreaming of peace education and PRW programs in existing governmental and

non-governmental institutions, people’s organizations, and communities are deemed strategic

organizing goals. This is because current programs cannot respond to each and every referral

for their services. The approach therefore is to build capacities through program formation in

other organizations.



In the subsequent section on facilitating factors, the important elements of successful

organizing and program building are discussed further.

peace research and training programs. This category refers to research efforts and studies on

the impact of war, peace, conflict resolution, etc., and training in skills important to peace build-

ing. These are, in effect, initiatives that support and build capacities for peace action. They have

been undertaken by academic institutions that link up with civil society for the conduct of their

actual research, validation, and dissemination, or by sholars and researchers who themselves

are active in peace building. Or they may be programs of NGOs and coalitions to support their

own work. Peace research, as noted by the PRW study, is also a tool for advocacy, especially if

conducted in a participatory and empowering way.

Peace trainings are of course the staple of the peace education and even the PRW groups.

The latter’s greater emphasis on training and research (compared to advocacy campaigns) is

conditioned by the current dearth of institutions, programs, and trained personnel to undertake

PRW work. Training materials produced include modules on human rights and international

humanitarian law, peace-zone building, PRW, leadership, research and analysis, and introductory

courses on peace and conflict resolution.

protection and promotion of community interests and welfare

This refers to activities aimed at deescalating the level of political violence and addressing

the negative impact of violence on affected communities and individuals, with the end in view

of enhancing the conditions for sustainable peace, seeking respite from violence, receiving

justice and reparation for human rights violations, and healing the wounds of war inflicted on

war-torn communities. This category is akin to conflict reduction but goes beyond the imme-

diate task of reducing conflict to include healing and reconstruction.

Among the four areas explored in this set of studies, PRW is particularly focused on this

type of peace building. The study provides a good description of the consequences of political

violence on the ground and how PRW initiatives have addressed these outcomes of violence:

Postwar physical rehabilitation in practice involved not only rebuilding destroyed infra-

structure but putting in place basic services like piped water, classroom and books, or micro-

financing that were not available before, thus infusing hope and greater commitment to peace

building. The importance of the psychological well-being of individuals and the community is

underscored by counseling and trauma relief programs, which may come in the form of “first

aid” in evacuation centers, and long-term healing and livelihood activities to help transform

communities from victims to empowered survivors and agents of change. In indigenous com-



munities like the Mangyan tribes on Mindoro island, trauma relief interventions take into ac-

count local beliefs and practices.

Conflict creates mistrust, hatred, and prejudice; the rebuilding of social relationships is

thus needed to help the community cope with their suffering and move them closer toward a

harmonious and active community life working collectively for sustainable peace and devel-

opment. This is done through various avenues such as forums, peace camps, and peace festivals

created to enhance interaction across divides (culture/religion), and to discuss and deepen

understanding of issues.

Fact-finding and cease-fire monitoring missions serve the purpose of gathering and veri-

fying conditions and facts in order to respond to the needs; extract accountability and justice;

and contain the damage and prevent further escalation of violence and suffering. They are also

mechanisms for networking and ventilating issues and concerns. Mercy missions provide one

or several types of services such as distribution of goods and other basic needs, medical care,

and psychosocial first aid.

A number of PRW agencies/programs are extending their assistance or services (education,

training, credit assistance, counseling, etc.) to former combatants, thus assisting in their de-

CONSEQUENCE OF VIOLENCE/ARMED CONFLICTCATEGORY OF ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS CONSEQUENCE*

Deprivation of, and limited or no access to basic services Social restrictions on mobility and communication Economic dislocation and disruption of livelihood sourceBreakdown of traditional sociopolitical institutions

Postwar physical and social reconstruction

The interrelated experience of loss, separation, and exploitation leading to chronic uncertainty and increased vulnerabilityTrauma

Psychosocial counseling and trauma relief

Lack of confidence, mistrust and hatred for other ethnolinguistic groups, and the destruction of social relationships

Reconciliation and rebuilding social relationships

Prolonged sense of injustice and restriction on information Fact-finding, mercy, and cease-fire monitoring missions

Recruitment into the armed group Demobilization and reintegration of former combatants

Deepening of preexisting conflicts and generation of new ones Conflict prevention efforts

Table 3. Range of Activities of a Comprehensive Psychosocial Trauma Rehabilitation Work

* The types of activities were adapted from Simon Fisher et.al., Working with Conflict, Skills and Strategies for Action (London: Zed Books, Ltd., 2000) by the PRW Study. The original entry of “truth commission” was replaced by fact-finding, mercy, and cease-fire monitoring based on actual practices.



mobilization and reintegration. For example, the literacy program of the NDFCAI-WED have

reached out even to active Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) members who invited them

and shared their facilities like their madrasahs and homes.

Conflict prevention aims to prevent the deepening of preexisting conflicts and the gen-

eration of new ones. They again involve wide-ranging interventions such as protecting ancestral

domains and transforming them into zones of peace, peace education, enhancing solidarities,

promoting a deep sense of partnership with all stakeholders and supporters, and preventing the

children/youth and the indigenous peoples (IPs) from joining armed groups. Indeed, as some

organizations interviewed argued, all their activities are part of conflict prevention.

The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the AFP and the PASAKAMI, the federation

of Mangyan tribes in Mindoro, is a good example of a conflict prevention tool, assuming the

parties, especially the AFP, will respect it. Among others, the MOA committed the AFP to respect

and desist from intimidating acts against the Mangyans while the Mangyans pledged to desist

from being influenced or recruited into any rebel group.

Religious institutions in the communities are also directly affected by and become involved

in the armed conflict and thus also play specific roles flowing from the moral and spiritual

authority they have in the communities. These include promoting observance of cease-fires,

human rights and international humanitarian law in their localities; mediating the release of

prisoners (held by either side) or of belongings and bodies of combatants killed in the fighting;

providing various forms of assistance to affected constituents (e.g., employment and protection

after reintegration) and communities (counseling, relief, and rehabilitation); and undertaking

livelihood programs to alleviate the poverty of their constituents. In Bicol, they have extended

humanitarian assistance and protection to people who are threatened or are in danger due to

harassment of one or the other armed group.

Peace coalitions and peace education bodies play less direct roles in the community. They

contribute to community peace by campaigning for cease-fires, observance of peace agreements,

human rights and international humanitarian law; supporting the peace-zone initiatives, and

joining or organizing fact-finding, cease-fire monitoring and mercy missions, and special cam-

paigns like letter-writing to children in evacuation centers. They also assist in policy analysis,

program planning, and capacity building.

engagement strategies

This category refers to activities geared toward achieving a nonmilitary solution to the major

armed conflicts. It includes facilitating, mediating, and advocating political negotiations and

meaningful reconciliation and reintegration; holding dialogues with the two parties (usually



separately); and providing all other forms of support to move the peace negotiations forward

such as organizing meetings and dialogues, framing the peace agenda, addressing conflictive

procedural and substantive issues, providing promotional and implementation support to

agreements. Another set of engagement is geared at enforcing and promoting observance of

cease-fires, human rights, and international humanitarian law.

To be effective, civil-society groups endeavor to maintain a friendly but impartial and

independent relationship with both parties. They support policies and actions that positively

contribute to the peace process, and criticize those that do not or are contrary to the goals of

peace. They utilize formal and informal channels to reach out to the negotiating parties; meet

discreetly or openly with both depending on what is advisable in a given moment; and express

support or criticism privately or publicly, again depending on the given situation. It was pointed

out that the close association of some NGOs with certain politicians made it difficult for the

NGOs to continue their work when opponents of these politicians eventually took over the

government posts (PRW study).

A humane and personalized approach to negotiation advocated by participants in the

2000 Budong Bikolnon, merits consideration: “The Regional Peace Forum acknowledges that

the people who are fighting for a cause are brothers and sisters, neighbors, and friends, and

therefore must be treated as such in any negotiation. This is perceived to bring in more palpable

effects than when negotiation is done on an impersonal level.”

Church personalities, in particular, have been involved as informal mediators or observers

in local or national negotiations. In the early 1990s for example, the Task Force Detainee Ecu-

menical Movement in Camarines Norte, a program of the Camarines Norte diocese, facilitated

successful dialogues on human rights between political detainees and the government. The

Justice and Peace Action Group in the Diocese of Legazpi was organized in 1986. It formed a

local cease-fire committee in Legazpi with Bishop Jesus Varela as chair. In Masbate, dialogues

with the NDF and government were sponsored by the Masbate Principled Peace Movement.

In Sorsogon, negotiations were facilitated by the coordinator of the Justice and Peace Action

Group (JPAG) of Sorsogon diocese.

Celebrated cases of church mediation notably by then-Sorsogon Bishop Varela involved

the release of AFP personnel captured by the NPA. These include the case of Roberto Bernal,

who was abducted in Bacon, Sorsogon and held captive for 48 days until his release at the

Poor Clare’s Monastery; and that of intelligence army officer Noel Buan who was abducted in

Tayabas, Quezon, and subsequently released in Mindoro, after long, protracted negotiations.

The Bicol study noted that military cooperation was also an important component of the suc-

cessful release of these men.

Some civil-society persons have served as consultants to both or either parties in the peace



talks. Unlike in the peace talks with the MILF, no civil-society individual/organization has sat

as an observer in a formal capacity in the peace talks between the government and the NDF.

However, coalitions like the now defunct Multisectoral Peace Advocates played key facilitation

roles in the 1990s through the dialogues and informal meetings they held with the negotiat-

ing parties which resulted in certain policies or facilitated face-to-face meetings between the

parties in conflict.

In 1998, the Hearts of Peace, a peace coalition in Bicol, proposed through an open letter

addressed to the local AFP and NPA commands, a 10-point guideline for preventing civilian

casualties. The letter came in the wake of an NPA attack on military troops in a passenger jeepney

in Caramoan, Camarines Sur, in July 1998. Twelve civilians died in the firefight that ensued.

Metro Manila-based peace coalitions have steadfastly campaigned against an “all-out war”

policy and in favor of the continuity of political negotiations and cease-fires (bilateral or uni-

lateral, permanent or temporary) between the government and the various rebel groups. The

National Peace Conference and the Coalition for Peace participated in the drafting and passage

of comprehensive and specific agenda/legislation for peace and national reform. The All-Out

Peace Groups campaigned for the ouster of the defense secretary in 2003 while the Gathering

for Peace focused on opposing government support for the US war on Iraq. The Pilgrims for

Peace supported peace negotiations and campaigned against specific issues like the inclusion

of Jose Ma. Sison and the CPP-NPA in international terrorist listings. More recent initiatives like

the Bantay Cease-fire in Mindanao (monitoring the GRP-MILF cease-fire agreement) and the

Sulong CARHRIHL (promoting the observance of the GRP-NDF Comprehensive Agreement

on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law) represent a type of “third-

party” initiative that support the formal process and the implementation of agreements that

have been produced by this process. While particularly geared at enhancing peace conditions

on the ground, they also serve as engagement mechanisms between civil society and the con-

flict parties.

Dialogue with rebels can be misunderstood by the military but there are ways and means

to address the sensitive and dangerous aspects of the work. As the Bicol study reported, “(s)ome

members of the clergy became the object of close surveillance by the military. The Church

meets this challenge by maintaining a certain degree of rapport with the military although the

relationship may not exactly be harmonious. The military reciprocates by attending dialogues

organized by the church.”

55


This section identifies the factors that have supported or

obstructed civil-society peace building in the Philippines, as

illuminated largely by the case studies. Table 4 enumerates and describes these factors.

facilitating factors

Six factors supporting effective peace building were discerned from the studies. These are:

The presence of an initiating, sustaining, and capable core that is committed to the

goals and the process,

Tapping networks and “social capital” to be able to expand reach, capability, and

effectiveness,

Availability of logistical resources,

Use of appropriate and multipronged strategies and approaches,

Supportive environment, and

Building on successes.

presence of initiating, sustaining, and capable core organizations/institutions

and individuals

initiating core organizations. An initiating, sustaining, and capable core of people and

organizations who are committed to the goals and the process stands out as the basic human

resource ingredient to start off and sustain a peace initiative.

The membership of this core is usually drawn from an institutional base, or from a group of

people with shared backgrounds who decide to band together to respond to felt needs. Sample

core organizations are:

In Bicol churches, the Social Action Centers or peace and justice desks/programs of

dioceses, ecumenical formations, and NGOs;

In peace education, the peace-education centers, desks, core groups, or associates

facilitating and hindering factorsin civil-society peace building



FACILITATING

FACTORS

Presence of initiating, sustaining and capable core – Samples of such effective cores are the various Social Action Centers in the dioceses, and the NGOs, programs, centers, and desks that serve as secretariats for the peace initiatives. Such people/offices also possess certain desirable qualities like being efficient, skilled, culture-sensitive, aware of the issues and processes, process-conscious, and are multi-cultural or diverse in composition. Their leaderships are able to mobilize and inspire. Also, the specific nature of the institution facilitates the work it is doing—e..g., the church has moral authority and has thus served as effective mediators; academe has the expertise to do peace research and peace education-module development; in general, Philippine civil-society organizations (CSOs) have legitimacy to participate and intervene in sociopolitical processes.Tapping networks and social capital – To draw in various participants or organizations to activities or networks, initiators tap their networks and use their social capital to facilitate joint, coordinative, complementary, and supplementary action.Availability of resources – Financial resources to undertake the work are usually secured from the mother organization of the organization serving as the core or secretariat (church, school), funding from local and international NGOs or governments, or through sharing or contributions from coalition members. Resources inherent in or sourced from the community are also available. Access to information and communication technology (ICT)/internet was also identified as an important resource. Use of appropriate and multipronged strategies, methods and approaches – Various strategies are employed to address different goals and needs. Approaches and methods are transparent, inclusive, consultative, and facilitative of authentic representation. While the peace agenda is broad, it must be made more concrete and realizable.Supportive environment – These include the mother organization of peace programs/desks/centers and secretariats whose vision/mission are compatible; the immediate external environment such as the local government and community leaders (elected or traditional); the openness and willingness of both combatant forces and their commanders to peace interventions in some localities; and also family and the community’s overall bayanihan (cooperative) spirit.Building on successes – Institutional track record, integrity and credibility of organizers and organizations enhance their capacity to network, mobilize and influence policy and other stakeholders—e.g., success in mediation adds to the credibility of the mediators; the growing network of people being mobilized or developing interest in peace concerns has a multiplier and deepening effect on the movement; these successes sustain hope, inspire and stimulate members to carry on. Lack of/Weaknesses in human and material resources – People: Human resources remain insufficient, there are limited or no full time staff/peace educators/etc.; people are overworked; organizations are burdened with multiple functions; there is always conflict in schedules; key people (school administrators, priests, NGO workers) are reassigned to different posts; and

Table 4. Facilitating and Hindering Factors in Civil-Society Peace Building

HINDERING FACTORS

f a c i l i t a t i n g a n d h i n d e r i n g f a c t o r s | 57


some lack knowledge and understanding of the dynamics and the diversity in cultural and religious practices, and are not adept in the local languages. Material Resources: most CSOs suffer from budgetary constraints; some donor agencies don’t want to fund projects in perceived high-conflict areas; and organizations or communities have poor or inadequate facilities.Lack of support and cooperation from other sectors of society – Level of Perception or Attitude: Leadership of key institutions may be conservative (churches, schools); people have varying perceptions of peace, the intentions of different parties, and what are morally right or wrong; the community may have traditional views on leadership selection (reflected, e.g, in their electoral behavior, which results in poor/unsupportive leadership) or may be apathetic; there are ideological and political tensions between organizations; and many biases and prejudices deter harmonious relationships, campaign or project implementation (e.g, Muslim-Christian biases). Organizational or Process Constraints: Includes lack of mandate of person from organization, protectiveness of superiors; lack of resources, and lack of resourcefulness on the part of the other sectors.Continuing Governance Problems – Disappointment over failure of government assistance to rebel returnees and continuing threats they face from both sides; implementation lags in government reform and delivery of services cause cynicism and hopelessness on the part of the people; despite passage of laws (e.g., child protection laws including ban on child soldiers), there is lack of information and government is not capable of implementing these laws; some leaders of the local government are inaccessible or apathetic; the “goons, guns and gold” phenomenon is still pervasive; lack of support from the national government.Threats posed to peace work and affected communities – Indiscriminate acts of violence on civilians by armed groups; the military continues to harbor suspicion against religious and other CSO workers; rebels may disagree with or hamper conduct of peace programs; continuing displacement of people in the uplands due to threats posed by the armed conflict; presence of armed groups and/or powerful people with vested interests intimidate the people in the communities.Difficulties in Engagement of Armed Groups – ideological barriers, historical and organizational differences among groups and vis-à-vis the armed group; the NDF does not support localization of peace negotiations thus hampering local initiatives, and it is wary of the “third party” role of civil society groups; CSOs lack knowledge of current policies, dynamics, leadership and changes in ideology inside the rebel organization; some rebel contacts are low-level and do not have enough clout or authority; CSOs are unclear on how to go about engagement; there is fear by former rebel supporters or combatants of being stigmatized or subjected to retaliation.Other Environmental Factors – These include the cyclical and /or seasonal nature of conflict which grossly disrupt the immediate “post-war” physical and psychosocial reconstruction; unstable peace and order; occurrence of natural calamities and other disasters; and the distance between the affected communities and centers making delivery of services and other undertakings difficult.



who were crucial in introducing and developing peace education programs in schools,

colleges and universities, as well as in NGOs and institutions (e.g., the Angel Palanca

Peace Program at the Far Eastern University; the Center for Peace Education at Miriam

College; the De La Salle University’s Center for Social Concerns and Action; the Center

for Peace and Human Rights and Center for Gender and Development at the Philippine

Normal University; and the Center for Integrative and Development Studies at the

University of the Philippines);

In peace coalitions, organizations like the Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute (GZOPI),

UPCIDS Program on Peace, Democratization and Human Rights, Philippine Rural

Reconstruction Movement (PRRM), Philippine Peace Center (PPC), Miriam College’s

Center for Peace Education, and other NGOs/institutions provided the function of

convening and providing secretariat and/or coordinative services for the formation

and sustenance of the various coalitions at different territorial levels; and

In the case of PRW, the pioneering programs Children’s Resource Center (CRC) and

Balay resulted from the “coming together” of professionals (in psychology, child edu-

cation, social work), and concerned citizens (former detainees, activists, and friends

and allies in different institutions). Integrated relief and rehabilitation was effectively

put in place in Pikit, Cotabato, thanks largely to the coordinative role played by the

Pikit parish church. In community-based peace initiatives, community leaders (elected

officials, heads of religious groups and congregations, traditional leaders/chieftains,

and other influential people) were usually part of the initiating core.

nature of the institution. Part of the success of peace initiatives may be attributed to certain

built-in advantages of the institution in the Philippine setting. The Catholic churches in pre-

FACILITATING FACTORPresence of initiating, sustaining and capable coreSample core organizationsNature of the Institution

SACs, Peace Education Centers, NGOs and desks

Built-in advantages such as moral authority, and institutional legitimacy

Culture-sensitive, efficient, multicultural, skilled, positive attitude, aware, diverse

Encourages, mobilizes, able to inspire

Consultative, participatory and inclusive

Good at setting goals, eliciting insights and participation, and handling conflicts

Qualified, sensitive and motivated staff/members

Strong and effective peace-building leadership

Table 5. Elements of Facilitating Factor: Presence of Initiating, Sustaining and Capable Core



dominantly Catholic communities like those in the Bicol region are looked up to by the people

for moral sustenance and spiritual guidance. The clergy has “the power to inspire and enjoin

everyone for the common good” (Bicol church study). In impoverished communities, the church

is also seen as a leader in community development. The prestige and resources enjoyed by the

Catholic churches imbue them with a strong capacity to collaborate with government and NGOs

and other religious groups in forging new ways to facilitate reconciliation and promote human

rights, should they decided to take on this role. Their presence in far-flung communities and

relative immunity from physical threats allow them to serve as avenues for contact and dialogue

with communist rebels and militarized communities.

On the role of the Catholic church in Bicol as an avenue for contact and dialogue with

communist rebels, the Bicol Study noted that “the credibility that (the Catholic church) enjoys

in the society at large, the dynamism of its top leaders, and its being closely in touch with the

grassroots through the parishes are advantages that have enabled the church to work effectively

in pursuit of both the spiritual and social transformation of its constituents.”

Among the Social Action Centers, it was also pointed out that a common commitment to

social justice and spiritual transformation of the communities as their mission and vision; and

the past history of active involvement of their Justice and Peace Desks during the martial law

years provide a foundation for effective peace-building work.

The academe as a community and schools, colleges and universities in particular enjoy

social standing that serve as a built-in advantage in peace building. Academics serve as public

intellectuals and teachers at large are respected as community leaders and molders of the

youth. Moreover, educational institutions have resources (supplies and facilities) that are useful

for peace campaigns. Their students are natural clientele for peace advocacy and organizing

work.

NGOs have earned a niche as legitimate actors in Philippine social and political processes.

They are listened to and communities generally welcome them into the fold—until and unless

their confidence is betrayed by unscrupulous practices. The language of “popular participation”

is built into the legal and governmental framework, although some government agencies and

officials may continue to resist it. But NGOs at least have a legal and popular mandate to start

with in undertaking initiatives. NGOs also have resources, staff, and capacities to undertake

projects.

qualified, sensitive, and motivated staff. Peace initiatives have prospered, thanks to the

qualified, sensitive, and motivated women and men who make up the staff (educators, caregiv-

ers, organizers, coalition workers) of these institutions, NGOs or programs. An effective core of

initiators has been described as follows:



culture- and gender-sensitive

diverse and multicultural in composition especially at the fieldwork level or grassroots

where communities are multicultural and multilingual

having a clear understanding of roles in the projects and programs

aware of the issues and processes involved

possessing a strong spirit of voluntarism

maintaining a healthy and positive attitude — “being happy to help others who are in

need”

with sufficient training, exposure, and level of efficiency and competence

good at team work, coordinating, and networking.

strong and effective peace-building leadership. The role played by leadership cannot be

underestimated. The Bicol churches study found that where religious leaders (notably bishops

and priests) exhibited leadership qualities, much work was done. To illustrate, in Camarines

Sur, a priest in charge of an archdiocese-wide peace-building program succeeded in expanding

the program to include other people from civil society, local government, and academe (includ-

ing their alumni). The group also served an advisory function to the Bishop.

Good leaders are particularly adept at program setting and mobilization of people, net-

works, and resources. They are aware of the need for integrated, participatory, and consultative

approaches. They handle meetings well, making these sessions productive in setting goals,

eliciting insights and feedback, clearing tensions and handling conflicts, and generating a sense

of ownership of the organization to its plans and programs. Good leaders are also those who

have human touch as manifested in ordinary acts like giving words of encouragement to staff

members and the community. They are respected as peace builders because of their actions,

integrity, leadership style, personality, capability, and track record. As the Peace Coalition Study

put it with reference to conveners of peace coalitions, “They are the ones who provide the vision,

the nurturing, the challenging and grounding functions to the coalition. Different persons can

offer different inputs and energies to the coalition but there must be the synthesizing, integrative,

and constant presence of the coalition’s conveners.”

tapping networks and “social capital”

From a core of initiating institutions and individuals, it is necessary to reach out to bigger

networks and audiences. To do so, peace builders tap their respective webs of social relations.

Each peace builder may be said to contribute to each initiative, his/her “social capital.”

Social capital can be briefly defined as valuable social networks that one has and which one



can tap on the basis of reciprocity. It includes social ties like family clans, former classmates,

townmates, fraternity brothers, and present or former co-members of civic, religious, sports, and

other organizations (including activist groups and rebel organizations). Social capital can be

used for good and bad practices. It can be used to perpetuate harmful practices (like patronage

or blind loyalties) but it can also serve as a network or resource base for change. For instance,

Basilan NGOs found that the use of personal channels has been more effective than official

structural channels, especially when dealing with local government officials (PRW study).

Networks can extend horizontally, across groups and sectors in a given area. Vertically, they

can include groups from the local and subnational levels (barangay, municipality, province,

island groupings, and national region divisions), to the national, regional (Southeast Asia, Asia,

etc.) and the global levels. Tapping civil-society networks at each level contributed much to the

success of the consultations conducted by the National Unification Commission (NUC) in 1992-

1993, which held fourteen regional consultations and seventy-one provincial consultations.

We may add, however, that networks need not be conceived of as always linear in formation,

whether vertical or horizontal. Webs of social relations (kinship, friendship, professional ties,

and so on) that may not be constituted in terms of formal organizations operate in real life for

the success of any plan. Undertakings can also take on bilateral, tri-lateral or other forms of

partnerships.

Peace-building initiatives have tapped into various networks to facilitate advocacy, en-

gagement and program delivery. To illustrate, an alliance of professionals called Hearts of Peace

(HOPE) in Naga City, in 1987, expanded reach and membership by linking up with friends in the

church and academic institutions, and public personalities in the city. In the 1990s, the Justice

and Peace Desk of the Socio-Pastoral Action Center Foundation in Camarines Norte worked

in partnership with various groups on peace and human rights; closely coordinated with the

Augustinian Missionaries and the NGO Task Force Detainees; and propagated their advocacy

through the media (the Bishop’s hour on radio). In all, diocesan-church peace builders worked

with a wide range of partners, including the protestant United Churches of Christ in the Philip-

pines (UCCP), the academe and other professionals in the community, government agencies

like the Department of Social Work and Development (DSWD) and local governments, and

former individuals who used to be connected with the SACs.

Through international linkages of peace-education advocates and/or projects with gov-

ernment agencies like the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP),

Commission on Human Rights (CHR), Department of Education (DepEd); and local and inter-

national agencies like the Catholic Educators and Administrators of the Philippines (CEAP) and

the UNESCO National Commission, the spread of peace-education awareness and programs was

facilitated. The ZOPFAN (Zones of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality) campaign drew wide sup-



port from schools that declared peace-zone counterparts or launched similar peace campaigns.

Through multilateral cooperation, the PEN organized the Asia Pacific Youth Conference on the

Culture of Peace in 2000, and various other youth conferences in 2003. Bilateral undertakings

with a government agency like the OPAPP, between schools, between the PEN and an NGO, al-

lowed for the hosting of peace-education trainings for teachers, and a twinning project between

two Manila- and Cotabato-based schools.

PRW advocates networked with active indigenous peoples’ organizations; credible and

respected peace, human rights, and emergency-response networks in the area; and the support

and active participation of empowered LGUs, traditional and religious leaders, and the private

sector, and funding institutions for mainstreaming PRW. Missions, in particular, required a high

level of coordination and pooling of resources to make this type of intervention effective and

credible. Providing relief and rehabilitation in conflict-affected areas in Mindanao was facilitated

by an integrated interagency network, notably the Mindanao Emergency Response Network

(MERN) made up of some forty governmental and intergovernmental agencies, church groups,

and local and international NGOs. Specific programs initiated by Tabang Mindanaw such as the

Integrated Return and Rehabilitation Program are also instituted as networks involving various

partners like the local governments, Christian and Muslim religious leaders; the AFP and the

MILF; and national government agencies and NGOs.

Peace coalitions tapped friends, contacts, allies in the NGO sector, churches and other

religious institutions, the academe and government, and former comrades in the revolutionary

movement to reach out, get feedback or messages across, and facilitate dialogues.

Networking, interfacing, and dialogue-led collaboration all produce complementation of

roles among the different peace builders.

availability of logistical resources

While a peace-building project starts with and is sustained by people, logistical resources

are equally important to realize plans and achieve defined goals. The bottom line is, projects

need money, people, and other support infrastructure.

A peace program lodged in a bigger institution or “mother organization” would have

FACILITATING FACTORAvailability of resourcesSupport from mother organizations Funding from NGOs, INGOs or governmentsSharing or pooling of resources Maximizing ICT/internetDrawing on community-based or indigenous resources

Table 6. Elements of Facilitating Factor: Availability of Resources



the advantage of tapping into the resources of this host institution (usually religious and/or

academic/educational institution). Resources include office space, utilities, facilities, vehicles

and supplies, and probably even paid-for technical support staff.

Funding from philanthropic families (e.g, the Palanca family supports the peace program

at the Far Eastern University), NGOs, International Non-Government Organizations (INGOs)

or governments are also secured for specific projects or for the whole program development.

Unfortunately, most peace programs are dependent on such external funding support, rather

than on internally generated sources.

Nonetheless, the communities and indigenous peoples are also a wellspring of the needed

logistical as well as human resource support, despite their own privations or incapacity brought

about by the conflict situation. Balay’s extensive psychosocial rehabilitation work in conflict

areas in Mindanao shows that the sustained reconstruction and healing of conflict areas de-

pended a lot on being able to recognize and mobilize existing community structures, networks,

and available local resources; and in incorporating local knowledge, skills, and mechanisms for

healing (cited in PRW study).

In coalitions, members share the cost of a campaign or distribute responsibilities or work

to each other, thus tapping on the logistical strengths possessed by some and compensating

for the resource scarcity of others. Relief, medical, and fact-finding missions, in particular,

require high-level coordination and massive resources to be pooled together by participating

groups and individuals. Through regional networking and interagency cooperation, resources

are combined for a coordinated and more effective delivery of services.

The presence of the Internet and advanced communication and telecommunication fa-

cilities like the SMS/cell phones have greatly facilitated networking, information dissemination,

discussion, interaction, and mobilization work of peace workers. Far-flung communities without

electricity and satellite facilities, however, are not able to avail themselves of this advantage.

The availability of existing materials from both local and foreign sources has assisted schools

in developing their own peace-education courses and programs.

utilization of appropriate

and multipronged strategies, methods, and approaches

As discussed in the previous section, civil-society peace organizations utilize different

and multipronged strategies based on the recognized necessity of an integrative approach to

respond to needs and goals.

Philippine peace building has effectively been an evolutionary process of defining thrusts,

focus, and strategies in response to the context of the times. The process, especially in its early



years, was experiential and experimental, basically responding to felt needs. PRW in the Phil-

ippines, for instance, evolved from a limited clientele (political detainees and their families,

torture victims of the martial-law regime) to encompass larger communities (internally displaced

people, children in conflict situations, “postconflict” communities). Given its appreciation of

the Philippine context, it rejected a medical practitioner-oriented, clinical- and institution-cen-

tered approach in favor of developing an indigenous psychology-based, socially and culturally

integrated, and family/community-oriented methods. Providing trauma relief is also seen as

more a facilitative rather than a directive undertaking.

On the whole, PRW is done in a holistic manner whereby the range of issues besetting

the affected population is given attention. The programs of Balay, to illustrate, have curative,

preventive, and proactive elements that create a “psychosocial continuum.” PRW strategies

were also described as “integral”, meaning utilizing rights- and community-based, gender- and

culture-sensitive approaches that work within community structures, utilize local resources

and incorporate local knowledge, skills, and mechanisms for healing (PRW study). In Mangyan

communities, practices associated with death and beliefs regarding the afterlife are respected

and considered integral to the healing process. In Basilan, male facilitators are assigned to all-

male groups, for cultural reasons, as much as possible. In Muslim areas, wearing appropriate

garb helped in gaining acceptance in the community. It was noted, however, that some cultural

practices and beliefs can hinder peace building.

Strategies used in providing psychosocial relief include the basics like healing sessions, crisis

debriefing, and play therapy. But strategies also extend to community organizing, consultations

and dialogues with all stakeholders; planning workshops; and advocacy campaigns. Traditional

and religious leaders are strategically involved. Projects for children involve the children. Existing

community structures like day-care centers, barangay halls, and schools are utilized.

FACILITATING FACTORAppropriate and Multipronged Strategies, Method and ApproachesUse of indigenous, socially and culturally integrat-ed, participatory, and non-dominating approaches

Approaches and methods are transparent, inclusive, consultative, and facilitative of authentic representation.

Strategies are diverse, complementary, and integrated, and vertical and horizontal linkages are developed

Ethical codes or principles guide action (e.g., Principles of Conduct for Humanitarian Organiza-tions in Mindanao)

Use of various forms of mobilizations and entry points

Table 7. Elements of Facilitating Factor: Appropriate and Multipronged Strategies, Methods and Approaches



Approaches in assisting former combatants include home visitations, sessions with the

individual and his/her family, coordination with concerned agencies, trainings, and credit

assistance.

To expand reach and delivery of services and go beyond responding to referrals, PRW pro-

ponents are now mainstreaming PRW in governmental and nongovernmental institutions and

programs through various forms of partnerships, and promoting and sharing their experiences

in other parts of the globe. NGOs and programs in affected communities are increasingly being

encouraged and trained to introduce a PRW dimension to their services.

The diocesan churches are also mainstreaming or integrating peace programs into existing

institutions and programs that are necessarily concerned with a “bigger” social agenda. The

Bicol SACs, for instance, have included peace as the third plank of their integrated program

orientation, along with poverty and social justice. Peace coalitions are linking up with human

rights, environmental, educational, and women’s groups to broaden their networks.

In promoting peace education in the formal school system, several entry points were

utilized. These include introducing new courses in schools, degree programs on peace and

conflict resolution, or at the minimum, workshops on related themes. For example, Miriam

College introduced such courses in grade school and high school. At the college level, a three-

unit Introduction to Peace Studies is now being offered. In addition, a short session on conflict

resolution is given to all college freshmen, along with peer mediation training. To project its

institutional peace orientation, Miriam College has also declared itself a peace zone. All these

peace initiatives are being led and coordinated by its Center for Peace Education, which is able

to expand its core of active educators through its “associates” system.

To reach out to the broader public, academic peace centers organize public forums, issue

various publications, join demonstrations, conduct fund raising to support relief efforts in war-

affected areas, and pursue other undertakings that would allow their school-based constituents

to touch base with the communities outside the campus.

Compared to other organizations, peace organizations may be said to be more conscious in

ensuring that their choice of strategies and approaches reflects their “peace and nonviolence”

orientation and values (tolerance, cooperation, solidarity, justice, and fairness). One lesson

culled from the study on peace coalitions, for instance, is the importance of membership being

inclusive—in terms of sectoral, class, gender, ethno-religious, ideological, or some other repre-

sentation. Indeed, a coalition may actually be judged by the breadth of the groups and individu-

als it is able to bring together for or against a certain cause. At the same time, it is also true that

there are limits to the principle of inclusiveness posed by ideological, historical, perhaps even

personal barriers. Most Philippine peace-coalition initiatives have not succeeded in crossing

over some of these barriers. One can argue that it may even be naïve and counterproductive to



try to bring in all disparate forces under one organizational umbrella since an unwieldy group

can paralyze decision making or create unhealthy tensions. What is probably more feasible is a

situation of multiple organizational centers who “agree to disagree” but respect each one’s right

to co-exist, engage each other in a healthy debate, and establish coordinative mechanisms to

avoid and manage potential conflict.

Participatory approaches also stand out as a basic ingredient of most effective interventions.

The Bicol study notes that all partners are important, regardless of their resources and the limited

contribution they can give to an activity. It acknowledged that discussions are slowed down by

difference in perspectives and appreciation of the relative importance of issues. But in the end,

it is important to discern the substantive issues and to reach a consensus.

Partnership-building processes with the stakeholders in the community have mobilized

community participation and ownership of PRW and peace building in general. Internally dis-

placed people (IDPs), for instance, are themselves involved in the conceptualization, planning,

and implementation of peace and development projects. Meanwhile, partnership with other

NGOs and institutions have allowed for program development and expansion.

Good research, documentation, and fact-finding undertakings were also characterized as

participatory, holistic, interdisciplinary, integrative, and policy-oriented (PRW study). Balay’s

Appreciative Inquiry and Community Mobilization (AICM) approach provides a model that was

utilized well by other initiatives like the Bantay Cease-fire (PRW study).

The document “Principles of Conduct for Non-Government Humanitarian Agencies in

Mindanao” adopted in (July 2003) highlights key principles that should guide humanitarian

work: non-discrimination; impartiality; empowering of the communities; respect for culture,

tradition, and human dignity; attention to special needs of gender and vulnerable groups; co-

operation and coordination.

To achieve spread and depth, vertical and horizontal linkages are built, such as through inter-

national, regional (Southeast Asia), national and local conferences/workshops or networks.

To track down and achieve elements of the peace agenda, the National Peace Conference

(NPC) has put its efforts in institutionalizing reforms in and interfacing with government on a

set of concrete and specific reform measures (or the so-called doables broken down into short-,

medium- and long-term measures). This involved coming up with technically supported pro-

posals and entering the institutional setup of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC)

as the civil-society representatives.

The series of Waging Peace Conferences organized by the GZOPI in coordination with

other groups have come up with updated strategies on peace building. Other conferences have

examined progress in their respective work (e.g., peace-zone building, PRW, church’s social ac-

tion) to better fine-tune strategies and define priorities appropriate for the present. Coming up



with dynamic and creative activities, mechanisms and venues remain a continuing challenge

to peace advocates.

[On strategies for engaging the state and the armed NSA, see earlier section on Engagement

Strategies.]

supportive environment

Efforts can naturally be expected to bear more fruits in a supportive environment. Among

the favorable conditions or sources of support identified in the cases are listed in Table 8.

These identified conditions were facilitative in many ways. At the minimum, they allowed

for peace-building initiatives to take place with less concern for the physical security of both

the peace builders and the community. Thus, cease-fire conditions were seen as a strong and

facilitative factor for PRW. The cease-fire in place may be a result of a bilateral agreement such

as the government-MILF cease-fire; unilateral cease-fire declarations by either the government/

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) or the rebel group like the CPP-NDF-NPA during natural

disasters like earthquakes and floods; or people-declared cease-fires as in the case of the peace

zones, sanctuaries for peace and spaces for peace communities. A halt to open hostilities or a

reduction in the level of violence effectively allowed for the safe and smooth delivery of PRW

services and community organizing.

Beyond cease-fire agreements and declarations, the openness of former combatants and

leaders or commanders of the local military or NSA units to PRW, peace coalitions, peace edu-

cation, and the churches’ peace advocacy and mediation roles is just as important in sustaining

peace building. In cases where the AFP/rebel leaderships or local units proved cooperative,

peace building was able to gain more headway with less tensions, fear and risk to life and limb.

FACILITATING FACTORSupportive environmentSupport extended by

• some LGUs/LGU officials• the community leaders (traditional/elected) • the local authorities (in schools, churches)• the communities

Openness and willingness of former combat-ants and of some commanders of the local military/armed group to the peace initiatives

Peoples’/groups’/institutions’ own desire for peace, sustained interest, and growing commit-ment to or involvement in peace building

Cease-fire conditions

Congruence of peace programs with the institu-tions’ vision-mission

Family support

Bayanihan spirit

Table 8. Elements of Facilitating Factor: Supportive Environment



Communities were able to settle down to rebuild their lives.

The support from local government units (LGUs) or officials and, in some case, collaborative

projects undertaken with them, is also deemed as positive. The community leaders—whether

traditional or elected to lead in the community organizations or local government unit—are

also distinct actors whose cooperation is a must for any community-based initiative to flour-

ish. The cooperation and active support of the school administration, the bishops and other

leading councils, and other local authorities where the peace-building initiatives take place

make a big difference in the process and outcome, compared to conditions of passive support

and outright objections from the local authorities. Support can come in terms of endorsements

and resource mobilization.

Naturally, support should be elicited and garnered from the constituents of the community

themselves, including the indigenous peoples (IPs) and other sectors in these communities; or

the youth, students, and teachers in school settings; the members of the religious community;

and also of the NGOs and other institutions being mobilized to form part of the initiative. Ef-

fective approaches and strategies are those that are able to elicit the participation and ownership

of the communities of the process.

If the institution’s vision-mission is particularly oriented to the peace-building thrust and

program of initiators, then the path is paved to move forward. When the people’s own desire for

peace is strong, then they are also more receptive to the introduction and institutionalization

of peace programs/organizations. In war-torn communities, this experience-based acceptance

and recognition of the existence of conflict and its effect lead them to desired alternatives. In

other settings, empathy to the plight of people caught in the crossfire move people to learn more

(such as through peace education) and respond (e.g., through membership in peace coalitions)

to these conditions. People’s expressed desire in turn helps push leaders and authorities to act

on and respond to these sentiment and aspirations. Once leaders share the desire and commit

themselves to this direction, then conditions are greatly enhanced to advance peace-building

work with all the stakeholders involved and committed to the process and programs.

Peace activists who take risks and time away from their families to do their work need the

understanding and support of family members. The same with community members (mothers,

fathers, the youth) who may have to devote more time outside of their homes to contribute to

community efforts. Family support was thus identified as another enabling environment for

peace building.

Traditional values like the bayanihan spirit were also identified as a supportive condition.

The bayanihan-oriented community members are committed to the task of contributing in

whatever way to collective undertakings that would be good for the whole.



building on successes

Peace building is a cumulative process, not a one-shot, short-term endeavor. It builds on

gains achieved by previous initiatives to “soften the ground” though promotion of alternative

ideas and activities; to creatively respond through innovative forms of interventions that have

effectively served as “models” or best practices; to enhance understanding and commitment

through various research, training, and dialogue and conference activities; and to broaden and

deepen reach as peace organizations themselves are born and multiply. The current generation

of peace builders is learning from the lessons of and building from the foundations (networks,

groups, good practices) established in the past. And to sustain the work, they must produce the

next generation largely through the peace building that they are doing now. This production and

reproduction of peace builders and peace building result from the multiplier and deepening

effect of earlier good peace building. The outcomes are manifested in wider networks, more

programs, and a larger and more active peace constituency.

Track record is important. Track record may best be summed up as one’s reputation based

on integrity, capacity, and output. Quality (perhaps more than quantity) of leadership, pro-

cesses employed, and membership base or effective reach, also add up to one’s reputation (as

an individual and as a collective entity). A good track record born from previous work enhances

one’s capacity to take on new challenges, expand, and broaden. New programs, initiatives, and

peace activists must thus endeavor to build a good track record.

Successes in specific initiatives contribute to more successes. As noted in the Bicol churches

study, successful mediation undertaken by religious leaders built their credibility as mediators

which, in turn, further enhanced this line of intervention. The same may be said of respective

approaches/interventions of PRW, peace education, and coalition building.

Successful undertakings—reflected in positive feedback and people expressing more interest

and actually joining the program/organizations or opening up new ones—are also good for the

morale of the peace builders. They sustain hope, inspire, and stimulate members to carry on

despite the risks, difficulties, and shortcomings.

FACILITATING FACTOR Building on successesInstitutional track record, integrity, and credibility record enhance the capacity to network, mobilize and influence policy/other stakeholders

Gains are reflected in the growing networks of people being mobilized, or having interest in peace (multiplier and deepening effect)

Successes in mediation adds to the credibility of mediators

Successes sustain hope, inspire, and stimulate members to carry on

Table 9. Elements of Facilitating Factor: Building on Successes



hindering factors

From the cases, six factors were identified as hindering or obstructing peace-building

work. These are:

Lack of/Weaknesses in Human and Material Resources

Lack of Support and Cooperation from Other Sectors of Society

Actual Threats Posed to Peace Work and Affected Communities

Continuing Problems in Governance

Difficulties in Engagement of Rebel Groups

Other Environmental Factors.

lack of/weaknesses in human and material resources

Limits to what can be done by peace builders are usually imposed by deficiencies in hu-

man and material resources. People and logistical support, as noted in the previous section on

facilitating factors, are the basic prerequisites to start off and sustain initiatives.

The problem is not only due to basic dearth in people and resources but also other con-

ditions related to or causing this situation. For example, the practice in some institutions

(churches/dioceses, schools) to rotate their people or to move them from one posting to an-

other has caused programs, campaigns, and coalition efforts to dissipate or discontinue if the

replacement is not similarly inclined.

Lack of funds may also cause a program to rely heavily on volunteers. Staffing or personnel

support may thus be discontinuous and even unreliable. A high turnover of volunteers is prob-

ably inherent in programs that tap volunteers within certain institutional settings. Volunteers

are not fulltime and neither are they lodged permanently in these institutions. They move on

unless they are incorporated in the institutional structure on a more permanent or stable basis

(e.g., as paid staff).

Full-time staff, meanwhile, may be overworked or spread out in many projects. People

in coalitions also usually wear many hats and have their jobs to attend to. Key people may be

located in distant settings. All of these may make even the basic need to meet together difficult

due to busy schedules, distance, overwork, and lack of common time. Campaign, education,

and organizing work or targets would then have to be scaled down.

Certain work like facilitation in peace trainings, psychosocial trauma therapy, proposal

writing, and research may require special skills or training. Without a wide resource pool of

trained people, the current people may be overstretched and exhausted. Other than these pro-

fessional skills, there may be lack in knowledge and understanding of different cultural and



religious heritage, or other cultural or language barriers that further delimit the pool of human

resources available to undertake specific peace-building tasks.

Depending on a program or the coalition’s composition, some aspects of the work may be left

out. There might be inability to sustain collaborative efforts or a relative weakness in connecting

to policy makers, or being heard as policy advocates, or to raise funds if a program/coalition

does not have the right people who have the needed skill and network.

Evaluation and assessment of programs and the organization, a more strategic as well as

case-specific planning, and continuing development may also be left out in the rush to respond

to exigencies.

Budgetary constraints obviously delimit implementation of programs/campaigns. External

funding may be accessed which might not be easy or could lead to dependence or unwarranted

program intervention. Funding agencies may not be particularly interested in certain under-

takings not directly related to their mandate or current interests. Difficulties in undertaking

programs in high-conflict areas may discourage funding support to communities that actually

need more assistance.

In poor communities, some basic resources that facilitate work such as electricity and

telecommunication may not be available or reliable. Facilities may be rundown or not working,

thus affecting project impact or staff morale.

HINDERING FACTORLack of/Weaknesses in human and material resourcesPeople • loss of people or their reassignment causes

programs, campaigns, and coalition efforts to dissipate or discontinue

• no full-time staff • high turnover of volunteers• limited skilled resource base• cultural and language barriers including lack

of knowledge and understanding of different cultural and religious heritage and practices

• conflict in schedules • psychosocial stress

Material Resources • budgetary constraints• donor agencies unconvinced to provide aid • technical problems such as frequent power

shortages, worn-out facilities

Table 10. Elements of Hindering Factor: Lack of/Weaknesses in Human and Material Resources



lack of support and cooperation

from other sectors of society

If support from societal sectors provides the enabling conditions for peace building to

prosper, its absence, on the other hand, hinders effective peace building. Lack of support or

cooperation from other sectors of society may be conditioned by obtaining perceptions and

attitudes in the community or organizational or process constraints that delimit participation

or interest.

HINDERING FACTORLack of support/cooperation from other sectors ObtainingPerceptions/Attitude

• conservative and traditional church leaders • lack of appreciation of PRW, peace education

or peace building in general• varying perceptions on what peace is, inten-

tions of the different parties, and what are morally right/wrong.

• traditional attitude of the community in the selection of political leadership and the changes in leadership

• low response from the community, apathy of some or few members of the local leader-ship

• unresolved biases and prejudices (e.g., suspicion that projects are aimed at religious conversion; tendency for the Muslim com-munity to be withdrawn in the presence of Christian outsiders or visitors; conflicting interests and priorities between Christian and Muslim residents; unsympathetic senti-ments of the Christian community toward the Bangsamoro struggle)

• unresolved ideological tensions and differ-ences arising from the splits within the left groups

Organizational/Process constraints • lack of mandate, protectiveness of superiors • lack of resources, and lack of resourceful-

ness from the LGUs and some sectors

Table 11. Elements of Hindering Factor: Lack of Support/Cooperation from Other Sectors



obtaining perceptions/attitudes. Examples here include church leaders and school teach-

ers who are conservative and traditional in their perceived roles and do not support or are not

interested in peace activism; or NGOs and other CSOs who lack appreciation of the value of PRW,

peace education and peace building in general. A low level of response from the community/

institutional setting has been ascribed to apathy in the ranks and the leadership.

Prevailing attitudes observed, such as the tendency for the Muslim community to be

withdrawn in the presence of Christian outsiders or visitors; the fear that participation in the

projects would ultimately mean or lead to conversion to Christianity; conflicting interests and

priorities between Christian and Muslim residents; unsympathetic sentiments of the Christian

community toward the Bangsamoro struggle; and various other unresolved biases and preju-

dices among community members or vis-à-vis the NGO/coalition/institution have hindered

peace building.

The traditional attitude of the community in the selection of those who would comprise the

political leadership was also seen as a constraint because it has led to a condition where poor

governance continues to the detriment of peace-building efforts. The PRW study thus notes that

the culture of a particular community plays a strong facilitating (e.g., the bayanihan spirit) as

well as a hindering role in the conduct of psychosocial intervention work.

Sometimes, perceptual differences within the community may be at the ideological or even

philosophical realm. For example, varying perceptions of peace, the intentions of the different

parties to the conflict, and what are morally right/wrong, have been identified as constricting

factors. The splits and animosities among the different Left groups have also affected the work,

creating turf wars and obstacles to organizing, campaigning, or delivering services in certain

areas. In the case of a regional coalition, support was withdrawn by the local church who per-

ceived some of the coalition’s activities as too radical. Differences among members, with some

perceived as too close to the rebel groups, have also created tensions.

organizational/process constraints. Lack of support from sectors in the community may

not only be due to perceptual or attitudinal differences. It can stem from constraints faced by

the organization or institution concerned due to lack of mandate; protectiveness of superiors

over their people (like the clergy); or lack of resources and of resourcefulness. The Nagdilaab

Foundation pointed to cultural barriers to providing psychosocial relief to sensitive and specific

cases such as the widows and children of arrested or killed Abu Sayyaf men, who cannot grieve

publicly and suffer from discrimination and lack of public sympathy.



actual threats posed to peace work

and affected communities

Lackluster community response may actually be due to actual or perceived clear and present

danger posed by open hostilities between or the threat of retaliatory violence from the parties

to the conflict. Indiscriminate acts of violence on civilians by armed groups, and the presence

of armed groups and/or powerful people with political/vested interests during community

consultations scare people and discourage them from participating. Priests and other peace

advocates meanwhile have to contend with military men who suspect them of being rebel sup-

porters. On the other hand, the rebels’ disagreement with the peace initiative has posed threats

to the initiators. The Bicol case study recalled, for instance, the resistance of the NPAs in the

upland areas of Camarines Norte to its BEC-organizing. Former rebels who have returned to

the fold of the law also endure continuing threats from both armed parties. All these instances

or practices intimidate people, create insecurities, and hamper peace work.

Disempowerment may be due not to the threat of physical violence but to the negative

impact of continuing conflict on their economic and day-to-day lives. Loss of income and

displacement strip people of capacity and time to do peace work. Thus, sustaining the cease-

fire, allowing people in evacuation centers to return to their communities, and giving them a

measure of peace to reconstruct their lives as free and autonomous individuals and collectivities

are important for peace building.

Recurrence of conflict does not only abruptly stop people on their tracks. Moreover, as

noted by the PWR study, it triggers the resurrection of biases and prejudices (e.g., between the

Christian and Muslim residents) that may again take time to heal.

continuing problems in governance

Peace building requires an integrated approach where all parts deliver on their roles and

functions. Government is and should be part of this effort. But when it fails to deliver and

continues to disappoint the people, the full potential of building peace by peaceful means is

eroded.

Continuing governance problems have thus been identified as one major hindering fac-

tor. Implementation lags in government reforms and delivery of services cause cynicism and

hopelessness. The pervasive phenomena of “goons, guns, and gold” and patronage politics not

only threaten people empowerment, they also make people skeptical of new initiatives. In spite

of this, effective civil-society lobbying has supported the passage of good laws, for example,

on child protection. But they still need to be forcefully and effectively implemented through a



well-coordinated approach. “Rebel returnee programs” may convince rebels to return to the

fold of the law, only to be disappointed by government failure to render assistance.

Other governance issues that have been found to impede peace building were the apathetic

attitude of some local government officials and, where local government officials are cooperative,

the lack of support from the national government. Other bad practices like absenteeism of local

town officials and the practice of living outside their barangay or municipality cause practical

difficulties in coordinating and obtaining effective government cooperation.

difficulties in engagement of rebel groups

The most basic aspects of engagement of the armed nonstate actor or rebel group are being

able to establish good contacts that will facilitate dialogue, and creating mechanisms for con-

tinuing exchange. Also, peace builders must be equipped with understanding and knowledge

of the phenomenon of insurgency, their leaders and strategies. In this regard, difficulties in

engagement may be due to the fact that contacts or channels for engagement are low-level or

do not have the clout or authority. Engagers may lack knowledge of current policies, dynamics,

leadership, and changes in ideology inside the rebel organization.

There are obvious constraints and sensitivities in engaging armed NSAs. Lack of clarity on

how to go about engagement is problematic. Rebel policy on civil-society facilitation or en-

gagement also affects the process. For example, it was noted in the coalition and Bicol churches

studies that the NDF is wary of the “third-party” role of peace groups. It also does not support

localization of peace negotiations, thus hampering the effectiveness of local initiatives.

Ideological, historical, and organizational differences among civil-society organizations

vis-à-vis the armed groups are important contexts that make engagement difficult. Many peace

workers and program initiators were previously associated with the national democratic move-

ments led by the CPP. Although active and even leading members of the movement during

the martial law years, they have left the movement for various reasons such as disagreements

over strategies and tactics and organizational processes. This ideological and organizational

distancing has created barriers to effective interaction, engagement, and program delivery, if

not outright antagonism and hostilities.

other environmental factors

Just as certain conditions support peace building, other conditions do the opposite. Unstable

peace and order and the cyclical and/or “seasonal” nature of the conflict hinder and disrupt

physical, psychological, and social reconstruction work. Natural calamities also disrupt ongoing



work. But it should also be noted that conditions of high violence and disasters also catalyze

peace action precisely because of their gross impact, which mobilizes people to respond.

Other environmental factors were cited for the practical difficulties they cause peace work-

ers. Distance between the affected communities and the centers, poor roads, and telecommun-

ication facilities slow down delivery and require more resources and time.

77


In defining areas for evaluation, this study was guided by the

framework provided by Vayrynen (1991) on conflict transforma-

tion. Vayrynen provided four areas that are part and parcel of conflict transformation (see

Table 12).

The framework illuminated areas where the impact of civil-society peace building may be

discerned. The framework, however, appears to be focused on the conflict parties (state and

rebel forces) as the main actors, and the changes in the terms and nature of their relationship.

The study on Philippine peace building, however, encompasses all actors and stakeholders, and

evaluation and impact assessmentof civil-society peace building

Table 12. Elements of Conflict/Collective Violence Transformation

Elements of Conflict/Collective Violence Transformation Actor Transformation Internal changes to the parties in conflict or the appearance or

recognition of new actors.Issue Transformation Change in the political agenda of the conflict, where the relative

importance of issues on which antagonism exists is reduced and the issues on which commonality prevails are emphasized. May imply significant political change since the political constellation supporting the previous agenda will have to change.

Rule Transformation Alteration in the rules. Redefining the norms which the actors are expected to follow in their mutual transformation. Can alter actor behavior; such need not be dependent on the position of the actor in the structure as the structuralist approaches assumed.

Structural Transformation More profound than limited changes in the composition of ac-tors, issues, or rules. The external structure is transformed if the distribution of power between actors significantly changes or their mutual relations experience a qualitative change (e.g., increase or decrease in extent of communication and interdependence between actors). Transformation of the interest structure happens where commonality of interest is increased.

Source: Vayrynen,1991:1-25. Note: transformation may be intended or unintended; is associated with everyday and broader historical changes transforming the scope, nature, and functions of collective violence.



puts equal emphasis on civil society and society at large as the key targets of peace-constituency

building, alongside engagement of the parties to the conflict. In addition, its society-centered

approach gives premium to addressing the situation on the ground—how the conditions in the

communities where people live actually change and respond to the presence of conflict, and

peace-building initiatives.

While it can be presumed that an end to the armed conflicts and political violence is the

best indicator of the success of peace building, the fact that armed violence persists does not

necessarily mean failure or lack of impact of civil society efforts. Clearly, there are factors for

the nonresolution of these conflicts that are largely dependent on the policies, action, and

responses of the main parties, as the last section on Lessons Learned will show. Other external

factors may also contribute to the persistence of conflict.

Impact and gains can nonetheless be discerned in bits and pieces of transformation taking

place along the four areas identified by Vayrynen (with actor taken to mean all stakeholders

including the community/people/civil society, issue, rule, and structure). To more clearly de-

lineate the areas where such changes are taking or can take place, and define certain tangibles

than can indicate impact, this study then chose to narrow down and simplify its scope to the

following categories for assessment:

Impact on the Policy Issue – adoption by either parties (government or armed NSA)

of the policy positions advocated by civil society as reflected in policy declarations,

legislations adopted, programs and mechanisms instituted, and other acts.

Impact on the Ground-level Situation – deescalation of the conflict and reduction in

the level of violence in the community; positive changes in the well-being and living

conditions of the people on the ground.

Impact on the Perception, Behavior, Attitude, and Perception of Primary Stakeholders – chang-

es in the understanding of and response to the conflict supportive of peace-building

goals or compatible with a peace orientation; growing interest and participation in

peace activism.

Each of these areas may embody elements of actor, issue, rule, and structural

transformation.

The different studies utilized various methods to evaluate these impacts. The Peace Ed-

ucation study issued a questionnaire/survey to measure the impact of the peace education

courses in one college, and dug into previous course evaluations done by participants. In general,

results were positive, especially in terms of changes in perceptions and attitudes of students

supportive of a culture of peace.

Except for the questionnaire as evaluation tool issued by the Peace Education study team,

e v a l u a t i o n a n d i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t | 79


the studies for most parts relied on qualitative methods (focus group discussions, interviews,

document review) to identify gains. As mentioned, the organizations themselves have not

undertaken systematic impact evaluation of their work. The data gathered are thus mostly

anecdotal and illustrative. At best, they illuminate areas where elements of transformation are

taking place. They point to how a more systematic evaluation can be done in the future.

Civil society’s input to government policy making has brought about laudable policy

frameworks such as the “Six Paths to Peace” and the “Social Reform Agenda”; noteworthy leg-

islation such as those creating the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) and the National

Indigenous Peoples Commission (NIPC); and the other examples cited in the studies and listed

in Table 13. With pressure put to bear from the peace coalitions, the negotiation track between

the government and the different rebel groups has been pursued. However, continuing gov-

ernance problems cited in the previous section have not brought about the thorough reforms

demanded by a comprehensive peace agenda. Also, policy making remains the domain of the

powerful; it is a process that is affected or determined not only by inputs or interventions com-

ing from civil society, which may in fact be the weakest factor in some cases.

Different administrations have different strengths (including political will) and priorities,

and the lack of unanimity within government on a peace policy as against the more orthodox

anti-insurgency approach has not provided the needed continuity.

In terms of representation, lobby work undertaken by peace advocates has placed women

and indigenous peoples in the government negotiating panels. Specific concerns like the release

of political prisoners (held by both sides) were also effected with pressure from civil society.

Peace groups continue to exert pressure to sustain the peace process by exacting support-

ive policies from the parties and pushing for the implementation of reforms and agreements.

However, government priorities change from time to time and peace negotiations have been

marred by suspensions and long periods of recess. At the least, peace groups have sustained

the high visibility of the peace process in the national consciousness, including at the level of

government policy and the mass media.

Even as national policy and reform implementation remain problematic, peace-building

efforts directed at addressing the needs of the people on the ground where the conflict takes

place have been significant and essential. Campaigns have supported the holding and main-

tenance of cease-fires. Human-rights violations were mitigated and addressed through fact-

finding and relief missions. NGO and church intervention along the lines of PRW have helped

restore a measure of peace needed to start the rebuilding of lives and communities. Gains in

specific communities include improvements in health, sanitation, and housing conditions;

educational services and facilities, and the healing of wounds and the bridging of divides (e.g.,

Christian-Muslim-lumad relations in Pikit, Cotabato). Consequently, the empowered commu-



• Declaration of 1990-2000 as the “Decade of Peace” by the Aquino Administration

• Adoption by the National Government of the Six Paths to Peace, Social Reform Agenda in 1993

• Passage of related laws (e.g., Anti-rape law, creation of NAPC and NIPC laws)• Influenced resumption of PTs and end to military operations; put pressure

on two parties to sustain political negotiations and move on to substantial agenda. Examples: the MILF’s unilateral suspension of military offensives after the series of violence in February 2003 was partly a response to the civil-society calls including the Catholic Bishops Conference in the Philippines (CBCP) and the Bishop-Ulama League of the Philippines. Also, GMA’s resumption of talks in 2001 was a response to public outcry on the 2000 AFP offensives and resultant humanitarian disaster

• Heightened visibility of women, children, Moro, lumad, and civil society in general in the peace agenda, processes, and structures (e.g, women and lumad representatives were included in the GRP panel and technical working committee; civll society representatives sit in panels and other committees in the formal bodies)

• Influenced how the media report on peace and conflict and helped generate greater awareness among the media

• Support for the annual celebration of Mindanao Week of Peace, and formal recognition of Muslim holidays

• Creation of the National Unification Commission, the National Anti-Poverty Commission and National Indigenous Peoples Commission (the latter preceded by exposes which pushed government to act on cases and outbreak of violence, e.g., it put up Task Force 63 to deal with conflicts arising from development projects in IP communities. The task force’s responsibilities were later transferred to the (NCIP).

• Interagency Memorandum on the Handling and Treatment of Children Involved in Armed Conflicts signed in 2000 by then VP and DSWD Secretary Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and the heads of various government agencies including the AFP, PNP, DND, DOJ, DILG, and the OPAPP

• Operationalization of the GRP-MILF Joint Cease-fire Monitoring Committee and Local Monitoring Teams, and a parallel third party monitoring (Bantay Cease-fire)

• Institution of more realistic community disaster response plans at the barangay and municipal levels

• Various consultative mechanisms• Release of detained suspects, bodies and personal belongings of rebels killed

in operations; release of AFP soldiers taken by the NPA; withdrawal of troops in certain areas

• Acceptance of peace-zone declarations in communities

Agenda, Legislation or Policy

Creation of Mechanisms and Programs

Specific Peace/Conflict Concern

Areas of ImpactOn the Policy Issue/ Environment

Illustrative Outcome

• Human rights violations were mitigated and addressed through fact-finding missions and relief missions

• Less cases of illegal detention in some areas• Reduction in direct violence through local cease-fires

Impact on the Ground Level Situation

Table 13. Impact of Civil-Society Peace Building

e v a l u a t i o n a n d i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t | 81


• Continuing dialogues• Delivery of integrated programs to alleviate the impact of violence and assist in

societal reconstruction gave empowerment/enabled people to regain control over their lives through peace-building programs like spaces for peace/peace zones, housing and livelihood programs.

• Helped enhance or revived community solidarity, resiliency and peaceful coexistence of different ethno-linggusitic or religious groups

• Helped people resume economic activities, schooling, and build unity and develop mutual trust.

• Helped people to have options/alternatives to joining either armed group, or from becoming victims to becoming actors, thus lessening fears and insecurities, enhancing well-being.

Impact on the Ground Level Situation

Impact on the Attitudes, Behavior, Perceptions of Primary StakeholdersOn the State/Rebel Group

On the Community and Citizens

• Both parties were convinced to engage in dialogues and are developing receptiveness to campaigns for cease-fires and settlement

• Military more careful/conscious re behavior in communities and with political detainees

• More respect for and less suspicion over church people doing justice and peace work; stronger credibility of the church

• Have become more open to citizen pressure, mediation and initiatives such as facilitating release of captured/killed combatants and community peace declarations.

• Helped broaden people’s social consciousness and understanding of the conflict and its impact, and the different conflict issues (competing land claims, the right to self-determination)

• Psychosocial relief has eased the pain and helped the community enhance their coping mechanisms

• Children traumatized by the war eventually became more participative, trusting, and able to release and process their thoughts and feelings about the conflict.

• More peace organizations and peace advocates on the ground; established a wide and deep network of peace advocates that can mobilize and influence ground-level situation and top-level policy

• More human rights advocates • More awareness of people of their human rights and justice and peace issues • Growing interest in peace studies in the academe • More attendance in peace activities• Independent and voluntary replication of peace education initiatives in other

schools and communities• Less young people are joining the rebels • More respect for and less suspicion over church people doing justice and peace

work; stronger credibility of church • Youth, children and students have greater awareness, understanding of, and

positive attitude toward peace and human rights issues • More learned mediation skills. • People have better understanding of other people’s or groups’ perspectives. • Growing preference for nonviolent conflict-settlement practices in communities

(based on reflections on peace zone in Bual)



nities themselves are taking a proactive role in conflict prevention and peace building, and have

enhanced their own capacity to respond to human-rights violations and emergencies.

Peace building is long-term norm transformation and norm building. Indicators of positive

changes in norms (as reflected in perceptions, attitudes, behaviors) on the part of government

and armed groups include a perceived greater consciousness on the part of the conflict parties

of the need to respect and observe human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL) over

and above their military objectives. However, these are just incremental changes in some areas

and instances, but on the whole, human rights/IHL violations persist.

While still an uphill climb, there is a growing active peace constituency. Indicators are the

increasing number of peace organizations being formed; the conduct of more trainings; the

generation of more human-rights advocates and more awareness of people of their human rights

and concern for justice and peace issues; growing interest in peace studies in the academe; and

more attendance in peace activities.

In all, as already mentioned, more thorough studies including the use of quantitative

methods would need to be undertaken to measure successes and impact. One bone of con-

tention in the workshops conducted, for example, is whether or not fewer children are joining

the armed groups as a result of the campaign against child soldiers. The absence of statistics

and the impact of other factors like continuing poverty and injustice make definite statements

difficult. At the least, peace and human-rights organizations have advanced the recognition of

the problem, pushed for a stricter ban, and helped create special mechanisms to aid arrested

and/or wounded child-soldiers.

83


In this section, we attempt to capture the Lessons Learned in a set

of simple guideposts, organized in three categories:

On the Policy Environment

On Peace Issues

On Civil-Society Peace building

Peace builders are asked to reflect on the following concluding statements that were culled

from the insights provided by the different case studies and the validation and trial training

workshops. The strength of their veracity may vary across time and cases, but they can be taken

as starting points or lessons learned from previous experience.

lessons learned

policy and overall environment

Peace initiatives are negatively affected by policy inconsistency and shifts in priorities,

close-mindedness and ideological thinking of first parties, institutions, leaderships,

and authorities. Participatory mechanisms and processes instituted by the parties,

and respect and support for civil-society groups, on the other hand, support peace

building.

Militarization and human rights violations continue to impede initiatives in commu-

nities. On the other hand, reduction of conflict such as during cease-fire facilitates

peace building.

Policy change is effected through changes in perspectives, priorities, and behavior of

primary stakeholders. Peace builders are there to sustain the process of transformation

in parties and institutions and build capacities for peace building.

lessons learned



lessons learned

peace issues

Peace issues are interrelated and wide-ranging; thus, peace advocates have tried to

pursue integrated developmental, human rights, and social-justice programs and

frameworks in their campaigns, education programs and services. Initiatives and

groups are linking up for an integrated response.

During periods of hostilities, human rights protection, IHL concerns, and the needs

of people (including women and children) getting caught in the crossfire, stand out.

Actual social, economic and political reforms are the more important goals, not the

peace agreement/official peace agenda/legislation nor the creation of special bodies,

although the latter are important in forging commitments/contracts and defining the

terms and mechanisms for the realization of reform goals.

Hot and cold issues of the day also affect the currency of peace campaigns/programs

and the interest of key groups and individuals in peace work; peace campaigns/

programs need and try to respond to hot issues but also sustain visibility of “cold”

issues and peace building.

While there is common understanding as to the important issues and the needed

reforms, there are still differences in perception as to the alternatives, solutions, and

process to achieve change among the parties to the conflict, civil-society organizations,

and the common people. Peace education thus serves as a strategic intervention ap-

proach for the transformation of values, behaviors, attitudes, and perspectives. Peace

education should be mainstreamed in all institutions.

While domestic conflicts remain the main agenda of peace groups, international is-

sues and developments such as the war on Iraq, international “terrorism,” landmines,

use of child soldiers, proliferation of small arms, are also addressed from the frame of

“peace” and their implications on the domestic conflicts.

lessons learned

civil-society peace building

core people and institutions. A basic ingredient to peace building, particularly for the peace or-

l e s s o n s l e a r n e d | 85


ganizations and programs to materialize and be sustainable, is a core of initiators with capability,

institutional support/backing, and organizational resources. These requirements include:

secretariat support

facilities and logistics provided by NGOs, desks, and institutions

leadership

orientation, commitment, and ethical principles

skills (language, organizing, networking, and other specific skills like training, coun-

seling and so on)

cumulative wealth of experience on which to build gains, social capital, and expertise

or capacity

credibility which may include impartiality/nonpartisanship

sustenance and well-being of members.

capacity to network and mobilize. Effective peace building requires the capacity for critical

collaboration and networking with all parties and sectors to achieve depth and reach of cam-

paigns and programs (sometimes referred to as vertical and horizontal linkages). Elements of

this capacity include:

organizational and personal qualities such as legitimacy, moral authority, impartiality,

credibility, track record, institutional or individual prestige, autonomy/independence

a wide range of contacts, networks, and local, national, and international volunteers

employment of good entry points, mechanisms and partners to build the peace

infrastructure

effective use of the mass media

availability of support infrastructure

being process-conscious (e.g., through consultations with and involvement of part-

ners, members, target beneficiaries, communities; use of participatory approaches

to campaign/program planning and implementation/delivery; sustained interface/

interaction with and among all stakeholders) and sensitive in many ways (e.g., culture- ,

gender-, language-sensitive).

capacity for critical reflection. Peace builders must learn to step back and examine their

work and the environment in which they are working so as to be able to read the signs of the times,

and be attuned and responsive to the moment. Peace builders must thus also invest in:

reflection activities (e.g., on ethical, analytical, situational, organizational concerns)

research

analysis



documentation and monitoring of programs, events and developments/situation for

assessment, planning, sustenance, and articulation of alternatives

Capacity building of staff and members

Guidelines, codes of conduct, documentations of strategies and approaches produced

by CSOs involved in peace building are a good reflection of this capacity for critical thinking,

despite the constraints in time, personnel, and resources most of them face.

use of multiple strategies. Effective peace building employs diverse, appropriate, creative,

and complementary range of activities addressing different components of the work (advocacy,

organizational, service delivery, research, training, grassroots community peace building, and

engagement of the state and the armed nonstate actors). Three major guidelines are:

Activities must be empowering and not mere dole-outs nor utilitarian to achieve certain

goals.

Programs must be holistic, dynamic, and creative.

There are many considerations and approaches in the effective engagement of state

and nonstate actors. Autonomy, integrity, and sensitivity are very important for groups

and individuals playing third-party roles.

responsiveness to the environment. Just as certain conditions like the lack of cooperation

of key sectors or a hostile policy environment can impede effective peace building, there are

moments or periods that must be maximized to advance peace building. These favorable condi-

tions include mechanisms and processes put in place by government and other actors that can

facilitate civil-society peace building such as the national consultations conducted by the NUC.

Cease-fires (which reduce the level of violence and allow a measure of physical security), shifts

in policies/policy frameworks, supportive leaderships in important sectors (local government,

institutions, communities), and even disasters or conflicts whose impact create a momentum

for united action or indignation in favor of peace. Being able to identify and maximize such

favorable conditions is important.

87


Atack Iain. 1997. “Peace Processes and Internal Conflicts,” Kasarinlan, A Philippine Quarterly of Third

World Studies, 12:4/113:1 (2nd-3rd Quarter), 113-130.

Bautista, Liberato C. 1991. “War, Peace and the Ecumenical Movement in the Philippines,” Tugon,

An Ecumenical Journal of Discussion and Opinion, 11:3, 443-466.

Bernardo, Allan B.I. and Carmela D. Ortigas. 2000. Building Peace, Essays on Psychology and the Culture

of Peace. Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Catholic Relief Services. 2003. The Peacebuilding Toolkit, Learning from Good Practice: The Experience

of Indonesian Peacebuilding Practitioners. Jakarta, Indonesia: CRS.

Coronel Ferrer, Miriam. 1994. Peace-building and Mediation in the Philippines, Peace, Conflict Reso-

lution and Human Rights Occasional Papers, Series No. 94-3. Quezon City: University of the

Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies.

Coronel Ferrer, Miriam. 1997a. Peace Matters: A Philippine Peace Compendium. Quezon City: Uni-

versity of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies and University of the

Philippines Press.

Coronel Ferrer, Miriam. 1997b. “Civil Society: An Operational Definition” in Ma. Serena Diokno (ed.),

Filipino Citizenship and Democracy (Philippine Democracy Agenda, Volume 1). Quezon City:

Third World Studies Center, University of the Philippines.

Deutsch, Morton. 1991. “Subjective Features of Conflict Resolution:Pyschological, Social and Cultural

Influences” in Raimo Vayrynen (ed.). New Directions in Conflict Theory, Conflict Resolution and

Conflict Transformation. London, California, New Delhi: Sage Publications and the International

Social Science Council, pp. 26-56.

Galama, Anneke and Paul van Tongeren (eds.). 2002. Toward Better Peacebuilding Practice, On Lessons

Learned, Evaluation Practices and Aid and Conflict. Utrecht, the Netherlands: European Centre

for Conflict Prevention.

Garcia, Ed. 1994. Reflections on the Peace Process, Peace, Conflict Resolution and Human Rights Oc-

casional Papers, Series No. 94-1. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Center for Integrative

and Development Studies.

Garcia, Ed (ed.). 1994b. War and Peace Making, Essays on Conflict and Change. Quezon City: Claretian

Publications.

Garcia, Ed and Carolina Hernandez. 1989. Waging Peace in the Philippines, Proceedings of the 1988

International Conference on Conflict Resolution. Quezon City: Ateneo Center for Social Policy

and University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies.

references

88 | r e f e r e n c e s


Harris, Peter and Ben Reilly. 1998. Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict: Options for Negotiators.

Stockholm, Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

Lederach, John Paul. 1994. “On Process, Participants and Roles: A Dialogue with Filipino Peacemakers”

in Garcia, Ed (ed.). War and Peace Making, Essays on Conflict and Change. Quezon City: Claretian

Publications.

Nicholson, Michael. 1991. “Negotiation, Agreement and Conflict Resolution: The Role of Rational Ap-

proaches and their Criticism” in Raimo Vayrynen (ed.). New Directions in Conflict Theory, Conflict

Resolution and Conflict Transformation. London, California, New Delhi: Sage Publications and

the International Social Science Council, pp. 57-78.

Palm-Dalupan, Maria Lorenza. 2000. “A Proposed Framework for Documentation and Assessment

of the Peace Process in the Philippines”. Working Paper prepared for the United Nations Devel-

opment Program (20 February).

Quintos-Deles, Teresita. 1995. “Peace Initiatives of the National NGO Community.” Paper read at the

Second International forum on the Culture of Peace, 26 November 1995, Philippine International

Convention Center.

Ricigliano, Robert. 2002. “The Need for Networks of Effective Action to Promote More Effective

Peace-building. In Galama Anneke and Paul van Tongeren (eds.). Toward Better Peacebuilding

Practice, On Lessons Learned, Evaluation Practices and Aid and Conflict. Utrecht, the Netherlands:

European Centre for Conflict Prevention, pp. 213-219.

Schmid, Alex P. 2000. Thesaurus and Glossary of early warning and conflict prevention terms. London,

UK: Forum on Early Warning and Early Response.

Vayrynen, Raimo. 1991. “To Settle or to Transform? Perspectives on the Resolution of National and

International Conflicts” in Raimo Vayrynen (ed.). New Directions in Conflict Theory, Conflict

Resolution and Conflict Transformation. London, California, New Delhi: Sage Publications and

the International Social Science Council, pp. 1-25.

Wallensteen, Peter. 1989. “Theory and Practice of Conflict Resolution: An International Perspective”

in Ed Garcia and Carolina Hernandez. Waging Peace in the Philippines, Proceedings of the 1988

International Conference on Conflict Resolution. Quezon City: Ateneo Center for Social Policy

and University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies.

Wehr, Paul and John Paul Lederach. 1991. “Mediating Conflict in Central America,” Journal of Peace

Research, 28:1 (February).

UNDP LES Draft Papers:

Castro, Loreta N., Jasmin N. Galace and Kristine Lesaca, “Peace Education Initiatives of Selected

Academic Institutions in Metro Manila”

Dionisio, Josephine, “Enhanced Documentation of Philippine Peace Coalition, 1986-2004.”

Lee, Zosimo, “The Philippine Peace Coalitions’ Peacebuilding from 1986-2004.”

Marco Puzon, Elizabeth Protacio-de Castro and Agnes Camacho, “Documentation of Peacebuilding

Efforts by Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines to Address the Psycho-social Conse-

quences of Armed Conflict/Violence.”

r e f e r e n c e s | 89


Sonia Imperial and Jovic Lobrigo, “Peacebuilding Experiences of Church-based Organizations in

Bicol.”

learning modules

93

learning modules

learning modules

The complete set of these learning modules on “Lessons Learned

in Civil Society Peace-building Frameworks and Synthesis” is de-

signed for 1.5 to 2.0 days. Trainers, however, can choose to select only several modules from

this set depending on training objectives.

The main reference for this training package is this volume. Trainers are encouraged to

review the other volumes for reference. These modules can also be combined with modules

from the other volumes. We leave the task of selection to the wisdom, creativity, and goals of

the trainers.

While the modules are written in English, we suggest that facilitators use the local language

as medium of discussion. Copies of the introductory outline and the guide questions for each

module should also be provided to the participants, and translated in the local language if

deemed helpful.

peace-building concepts

The framework paper introduced several key concepts:

Peace building (pp. 13-25)

Peace movement (pp. 7-8)

Peace process/national peace process (p. 23-25)

Civil society & peace organizations (pp. 9-11)

Third-party (pp. 11-12)

Network of effective actors (p. 20)

Conflict resolution (pp. 20-21)

Mediation (pp. 21-22)

Peace impact/conflict impact (pp. 30-31)

94 | l e a r n i n g m o d u l e s


guide questions

1. Discuss your understanding of the words/concepts above.

2. What words or terms in the local language best reflect the different concepts?

3. Think of proverbs, “words of wisdom,” or images that illustrate or are related to these

concepts.

This activity can be done in pairs or groups of three people, depending on the number of

training participants. It would help if the Framework Paper were given as advanced reading

assignment.

Give out blank cartolina cut-outs and pens on which participants can write their responses

to the questions. Assign one concept to each pair/trio to discuss for ten minutes. Preferably, pairs

or trios should be mixed (male-female, new-old acquaintance, old-young). A reporting session

will follow and participants are encouraged to raise questions or give their comments to each

report. Ask participants to post their responses on the wall. This wall can now serve as a living

thesaurus for participants. They may add or change their answers throughout the workshop.

Estimated duration: 1.5 hours

types of peace-building activities

The study discussed peace-building activities according to three types:

Building the infrastructure for peace activism (pp. 41-50)

• Peace Advocacy

• Peace Organizing

• Peace Research and Training Programs

Protection and Promotion of Community/Civilian Interests and Welfare (pp. 50-52)

Engagement of the State and Nonstate Actors (pp. 52-54)

guide questions

1. Can you distinguish the three types of peace-building activities according to objectives

and target audience or beneficiaries?

2. Compare your activities with other organizations. In what ways are your activities

similar or different? Is your group more focused on one type of peace-building activity?

l e a r n i n g m o d u l e s | 95


In what ways do your work and that of the other groups complement each other?

3. What approaches or methods are used to achieve the aims of peace building? Provide

examples of approaches or methods from your own experience. Why did you choose

to utilize these methods?

The discussion can be done in small groups of approximately six persons for about thirty

minutes. A reporting session on Questions 2 and 3 can follow the small-group discussions. If

there are too many groups, reporting can be done in two simultaneous plenaries to save time.

Estimated duration: 1.5-2.0 hours

factors that facilitate and hinder peace building

The study identified the following factors that facilitate and hinder peace building:

Facilitating Factors (pp. 55-69)

Presence of initiating, sustaining, and capable core

Tapping networks and social capital

Availability of resources

Use of appropriate and multipronged strategies, methods, and approaches

Supportive environment

Building on success

Hindering Factors (pp. 70-76)

Lack of/Weaknesses in human and material resources

Lack of support and cooperation from other sectors of society

Continuing governance problems

Threats posed to peace work and affected communities

Difficulties in engagement of armed groups

Other environmental factors

activity guide

This module consists of thirty-minute sharing, thirty-minute lecture using the power point

or other forms of visual aid, and a fifteen-minute open forum (for a total of one hour and fifteen



minutes). Before the lecture, large cut-out pieces of all the factors are prepared and put up on

the wall/board.

Some participants are then asked to share an experience that they will never forget, or one

that entailed a lot of planning or consequently led to either difficulties or positive results. The

experience may be related to advocacy, training, mediation, or providing relief/other services

to affected community.

The participant sharing the experience is then asked to:

1. Reflect on his/her experience and identify a possible explanation for the difficulties/

success encountered.

2. Identify among the factors tacked on the wall, which are relevant to his/her experience.

The facilitator will then proceed to the discussion of the different factors based on the

study. The open forum can be started off with the question by the facilitator if there are items

they want clarified or if there are other factors that they think are important but not identified

in the study.

Estimated duration: 1.25 hour.

impact of peace-building activities

In examining the impact of our peace-building activities, the study posed the question: “How

are we transforming the conflict even though we are not yet resolving it?” Although it saw the

changes in the relationship of the conflict parties as important, it was equally concerned with

changes at the level of society. Three areas of impact were considered important to examine:

Impact on the policy directions of the parties in conflict

Impact on the situation on the ground, especially at the community level

Impact on the perceptions, attitudes, and behavior of all stakeholders—the parties in

conflict, the affected communities, the citizenry (pp. 77-82)

However, the study was not able to undertake a systematic impact evaluation.

guide questions

1. What would you consider the most significant impact of your work? What areas were

of minimal impact?



2. Think of ways that would allow you/your organization to measure or keep track of the

impact of your work? Why would such an impact assessment be important?

This short session can be conducted using a combination of lecture and discussion. How-

ever, if the objective of the workshop is to undertake an impact evaluation of their work, or to

develop methodologies for such an undertaking, the discussion can be expanded.

Estimated duration: 1 hour

lessons learned in civil-society peace building

This volume tried to synthesize the “lessons learned” from the four case studies (see Volumes

2 to 5) into several “learning principles”. Three areas of learning were drawn up:

Lessons learned regarding Policy and the Overall Environment (pp. 83)

Lessons learned regarding the Nature of Peace Issues (pp. 84)

Lessons learned regarding Civil-Society Peace building (pp. 84-86)

• Core People and Institutions

• Capacity to Network and Mobilize

• Capacity for Critical Reflection

• Use of Multiple Strategies

• Responsiveness to the Environment

guide questions

1. What difficulties do peace builders face with regard to the policy environment?

2. How are the different elements of peace and working for peace interrelated? What are

the emerging consensus on how to view the armed conflict and the best way to achieve

peace? In what areas of peace and peace building are there wide disagreements? How

does shared understanding or lack of consensus affect the work of peace building?

3. Examine the five elements making up the lessons learned in civil-society peace build-

ing. In what areas is your organization strong/weak? How can you take these strengths

and weaknesses into account in your organizational assessment and planning?

This session can be in the form of lecture-discussion. Question No. 3 can, however, be

addressed through small-group discussions. The results of the group discussions can serve as



preliminary evaluation of their work. Such an assessment can be very useful for both organiz-

ational and campaign planning.

Estimated duration: 1.5- 2.0 hours

further applications: problem solving/role-play exercises

These situations can provide stimuli to think about how peace building can be done. They

can be utilized as subject matter for simulated problem solving. If time permits, they can also

be material for role-playing. Participants will be presented with the situation. Then they will

identify who will take on the different roles, and do a spontaneous dramatization, acting and

reacting to each other without a script. In the processing, they can be asked why they acted or

not acted in a certain way.

The discussion should allow for the surfacing of all interpretations and ideas, which are to be

synthesized by the facilitator using portions of the “Lessons Learned” or elements of the sample

modules as a guide where appropriate. Participants may or may not achieve a consensus on

how they perceive the problems and the steps that they think would be useful and effective. The

discussion may also examine the reasons for consensus and nonconsensus in order to identify

the similarities/differences in perceptions or thinking, or further allow for the articulation of

reasons, motivations, values, goals, interests, etc.

A big group can be divided into subgroups, with each subgroup assigned a case. Subgroups

can report their responses during the plenary. One or more situations can be chosen for a role-

play. An open-ended role-playing session for one case can last for thirty minutes to 1.0 hour,

followed by processing of about another half-hour.

simulated situations

1. Your barangay used to be a typical crowded community where people were busy with

their livelihood. The people only occasionally got together when the barangay council

called for a meeting. Even then, very few people attended, except during election time

when some people expected freebies to be given out by campaigners. But something

happened recently. Two months ago, there were reports that armed groups were sited

in the area. In response, the police conducted pursuit operations. One night, a run-

ning gun battle took place on several adjoining streets. Two children buying rice in the



neighborhood store were killed by stray bullets. The storekeeper was injured. Since then,

no other armed encounter has taken place but people remained fearful. The parents

of the two boys were grief-stricken. The younger sister of one of the boys stopped go-

ing to school. The storekeeper had to close her shop for two weeks while she stayed

in the hospital. All her family’s savings were wiped out by her medical expenses. As

members of the barangay, you are concerned about the bad effects of the shoot-out

on the victims and the whole community. What would you do and how would you do

it?

Identify the negative developments that have taken place after the shooting

incident.

Outline/Dramatize the steps you can take.

What resources do you have to start with?

What potential difficulties do you think you will encounter in taking these

steps?

How can you overcome these difficulties?

Note: To learn more about responding to the impact of the conflict on community people, see the

volume on Psychosocial Trauma Rehabilitation Work.

2. You and your best friend are grade-school teachers in the local public school. Often,

during recess, you see many children shouting and using cuss words when they argue

with other children. You have also noticed how the bigger pupils always hit smaller

pupils with loud slaps behind their necks or backs. One time, two warring gangs of

grade 5 students engaged in pitch battles in the school compound, throwing water

bombs filled with urine and even stones. Another time, you saw a grade 6 girl throw her

book at her classmate in anger. You and your friend talked to the guidance counselor

about your observations of violent behavior among the pupils but the counselor was

too busy with paper work to feel what you felt was a serious problem. What else can

you and your best friend do?

What could possibly explain the violent behavior manifested by many of the

pupils?



What potential difficulties do you think you will encounter in taking these steps?




Note: To learn more about what other schools have done to institutionalize peace education in

their education program, see the volume on Peace Education.

3. You work as a program director in your diocesan Social Action Center (SAC). Your

center has been successful in promoting alternative livelihood programs for nearby

impoverished communities. Last year, your SAC decided it will expand its outreach

to remote sitios where people have expressed the need for training and assistance in

building cooperatives. But recently, it has been very difficult to continue with your

work. Government soldiers, local “bosses”, and the armed groups that operate in the

area have sent feelers that they are not very happy with your project in the sitio. One

staff worker has received a death threat from an unknown source. As program director,

you want to protect your staff. At the same time, you have to respond to the needs of

the people who themselves have asked your assistance. What would you do?

What could possibly explain the resistance to your cooperative project from dif-

ferent sectors?




steps?


Note: To learn more about the experiences in peace building of diocesan Social Action Centers in

Bicol, see the volume on Church peace building.

4. You are one of the conveners of a multisectoral coalition that is campaigning for peace,

human rights, and development in your region. Recently, you noticed that less and

less people are attending the meetings of the coalition. Also, it has been very difficult

to mobilize people and resources for the activities that you have lined up. Since your

organization also houses the coalition’s secretariat, your group has taken on most of

the tasks, from calling for meetings, following up on each organization, coordinating

and implementing activities, and providing almost all the logistical needs. But your

organization is also understaffed and has meager resources. You are afraid that very

soon the coalition will collapse or simply fade away. What would you do?



What could possibly explain the dwindling attendance and support from the other

organizations?




steps?


Note: To learn more about initiatives in building peace coalitions see the volume on Peace

Coalitions.

5. You are a peace advocate. You are concerned about the recent spate of human-rights

violations and growing fear in the community of more violence to come. For example,

a staff member of a human-rights organization with which you have worked on some

peace campaigns, was recently arrested on suspicion of being a subversive. He is now

in jail and the human-rights organization is asking you to support its campaign for

the person’s release. Also recently, both the government and the rebel group have

threatened to pull out of the peace negotiations. They are accusing each other of bad

faith. Last week, the police outpost in a remote town in your province was raided by

armed men, and their weapons were taken. One policeman died in the attack. You feel

increasingly helpless and fearful about the situation. What can you do?




steps?


visioning exercise

Close your eyes and think about your organization/community. Think of the people

that are part of it—their strengths and weaknesses, the events you’ve gone through together.

Think of your office/community, and your own place in this office/community. Think of your

organization’s/community’s projects—those that are going well, those that are somewhat prob-



lematic right now; those that have failed, those that have succeeded. Think of your friends,

your partners—your own and that of your organization. Think of those who have lately been

causing you problems.

(Draw on the left side of a piece of paper symbols to represent all of these—the people, the

office, your resources, what you’ve done or are still doing, your partners and sources of your

current problems.)

Then close your eyes again. Think of where you want your organization/community to be

five years from now. Think of the people or the kind of people who would be there. Imagine

how your office/community would look. Where would you like to be in this place? Think of all

the projects you would have done and the next ones you can embark on. Imagine a circle of

friends, supporters, and partners around you. Who would they be?

(Draw on the right side of the paper symbols to represent all these images and people who

would be there five years from now in your desired future.)

Go back to where you are. Now that you want to know what you want or where you want

to be five years from now, think of the ways and means that will get you there.

What steps would you need to undertake?

What human, material, and other resources would you need?

What other supporting conditions would be necessary?

How do you generate the needed resources?

How can you achieve the needed supporting conditions?

(Draw in-between the left and right side of the paper the symbols representing the steps,

resources, and supporting conditions to reach your goal on the right.)

Note: This can be done individually, in pairs, or as a team. A bigger roll of paper may be used if

being done as pairs or as teams. Or it can be done individually first, then the team will process

the inputs and consolidate into their own team visioning exercise.

Estimated duration: 1.5-2.0 hours

103

participants

Validation Workshop on Civil-Society Peace Building Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines Diliman

20 September 2004

Participant AffiliationJane McGrory Catholic Institute for International Relations

[email protected]

Rexal Kailam Initiatives for International Dialogue (Central Mindanao)

[email protected]

Karen Tañada Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute

[email protected]; [email protected]

Lorena dela Cruz Balay

[email protected]

Josephine Perez Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute/Ateneo de Manila University

[email protected]

Rene Romero Philippine Normal University

[email protected]

Noel Sto. Domingo National Secretariat for Social Action-Catholic Bishops

Conference of the Philippines

[email protected]

Norman Novio Social Services Commission, St. Joseph’s Seminary

Occidental Mindoro

(043) 4914973

Madeleine Sta. Maria Southeast Asia Conflict Studies Network-Phil

[email protected]

Rey Casambre Philippine Peace Center

[email protected]

Franz Clavecillas Hearts for Peace, Naga, Camarines Norte

Esperancita Hupida Nagdilaab Foundation,Bishop Querexeta Formation Center,

Isabela City Basilan

[email protected]

Delia “Dudy” Locsin Paghiliusa sa Paghidaet, Negros

[email protected]

Rene Carbayas Philippine Information Agency, Basilan

[email protected]

104 | p a r t i c i p a n t s


Imelda Castillon St. Theresa’s College, Cebu City

(032) 2533432

Ofelia “Bing” Durante Ateneo de Zamboanga

[email protected]

Marco Gutang Far Eastern University/Peace Education Network

[email protected]

Sr. Sol Perpinan Asia-Pacific Peace Research Association

[email protected]

Ed Garcia International Alert, London

[email protected]

Fr. Leo Doloiras Social Action Center, Sorsogon

(056) 211-1104; (056) 211-5368 (fax)

Jovy Reyes Social Action Center, Sorosogon

[email protected]

Soliman Santos Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines

[email protected]

Fr. Jerry Sabado Order of the Carmelite, Isabela Province

0927-3154115

Project Team Members

Miriam Coronel Ferrer UPCIDS Program on Peace, Democratization & Human

Rights

[email protected], [email protected]

Jovic Lobrigo & Sonia Imperial Bicol Regional Social Action

[email protected], [email protected],

[email protected]

Marco Puzon, Elisabeth Protacio-de Castro

& Agnes Camacho UPCIDS Program on Psychosocial Trauma

9293540

[email protected]

Zosimo Lee & Kathryn Pauso UP College of Social Sciences and Philosophy


Loreta Castro & Jasmin Galace Center for Peace Education, Miriam College


Alma Evangelista UNDP-Manila Office

[email protected]

p a r t i c i p a n t s | 105


Trial Training Workshop UNDP Learning Experiences Study on Civil-Society Peace Building in the Philippines

Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines

19 February 2005

Participant AffiliationEmmanuel Amancio Catholic Relief Services-Davao

[email protected]

fax (082) 2992447

Marites Guingona-Africa Peacemakers’ Circle

[email protected]

fax 7211379

Helen Amante Peace Education Network

[email protected]

Ramil Andag PHILRIGHTS

[email protected]

4331714

Kaloy Anasarias Balay, Inc.

[email protected]

Sr. Marita Cedeno Peace Education Network

[email protected]

Lorena dela Cruz Balay Inc.

[email protected]

Madett Virola-Gardiola CO-Multiversity

[email protected]

Cris Gonzales PETA

[email protected]

Marco Gutang Peace Education Network

[email protected]

Bambi Magdamo Office of the Presidential Adviser for the Peace Process

Becky D.E. Lozada Coalition for the International Criminal Court-Asia

tel 456-6196, fax 9267882

Ruth Lusterio-Rico Department of Political Science

University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City

[email protected]

Raymund Narag Humanitarian Assistance Foundation

[email protected]

Norman Novio Apostolic Vicariate of San Jose

San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

(043) 4914973

Jepie Papa Amnesty International-Philippines

fax 9276008

106 | p a r t i c i p a n t s


Josephine Perez Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute

[email protected];

Dennis Quilala Sulong CARHRIHL

c/o Department of Political Science, UP Diliman

[email protected]

Jovy Reyes Social Action Center, Sorsogon


Haruko Uchida Fellow, Third World Studies Center, UP Diliman

[email protected]

Daisy Valerio Nilo Valerio Foundation

[email protected]

Ildefonso Enguerra Faculty Association

Roxas High School, Metro Manila

tel/fax 5632403

Noel Valencia Popular Education for Popular Empowerment

[email protected]

tel 4264473

Pete Batangan Popular Education for Popular Empowerment

[email protected]

tel 4264473

Cherry Minero Bicol Regional Social Action

[email protected]

Imee V. Bertillo Social Action Center-Legazpi

[email protected]

Project Team Members

Miriam Coronel Ferrer UPCIDS Program on Peace, Democratization & Human

Rights


Jovic Lobrigo & Sonia Imperial Bicol Regional Social Action

[email protected], [email protected],

[email protected]

Marco Puzon, Elisabeth Protacio-de Castro

& Agnes Camacho UPCIDS Program on Psychosocial Trauma

tel/fax 9293540

[email protected]

Zosimo Lee UP College of Social Sciences and Philosophy

[email protected]

Loreta Castro & Jasmin Galace Center for Peace Education, Miriam College


Alma Evangelista UNDP-Manila Office

[email protected]

vol1.pdf

Documents