CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study aimed to document and describe the communication strategies used by two farmers’ organizations – PUMALAG and MNKKB – in organizing the rural communities of peasants in the Fourth District of Laguna to critically respond to two development projects in the province.
Specifically, it aimed to:
1. determine the effects of two government projects (the Napindan Channel Hydraulic Structure and the Pangil River Dam Project) among farmers in the Fourth District of Laguna;
2. discuss the communication strategies adopted by PUMALAG and MNKKB in organizing the communities to critically respond to the two development projects; and
3. describe the effects of these communication strategies in the communities’ responses to the two development projects.
The researcher gathered the stories of farmers and fisher folks, community organizers of PUMALAG, and municipal agriculturists in the towns of Pangil, Paete, Pakil, Kalayaan, and Pagsanjan from August 15 to September 24 in 2008, and again in March 2009. Serving as key informants were three municipal agriculturists and three leaders of PUMALAG for the Napindan case study; while two leaders of MNKKB served as key informants for the Pangil dam project.
The highlights of the study are the following:
The Two Development Projects
The Napindan Hydraulic Structure was a Laguna Lake Development Authority project built in 1983 designed to control the flow of water that goes through the Laguna de Bay. The six openings of the structure aimed to solve the occasional flooding problem in Metro Manila.
The structure did not much affect the rice fields in the fourth district of Laguna in the early years of its establishment. However, the farmers started to notice its effect in 1989 when their fields started to be submerged in water. In the latter years, they subsequently lost around 9,000 hectares of rice fields because of the flooding. This resulted in the decrease of rice production in the district, especially in the towns of Pangil, Pakil, and Paete.
On the other hand, in 1995, the Sierra Madre Water Corporation proposed a dam project which aimed to supply potable water to Metro Manila. One dam would be built in the Pangil River which would run the mini-hydro power plant of the SMWC to energize its total hydro system.
The residents of the town were apprehensive that the dam would cause local water shortage, and farming would suffer because of the lack of irrigation water. The people also feared that if the dam was not well constructed and it breaks, it would cause flooding in the low-lying areas.
Because of the protracted protest actions of peasant groups, the proponent of the dam project decided to stop pushing for it in 2005. However, the people in the community are still wary that the SMWC may continue to pursue the project in the future.
The closing of the Napindan Channel by the LLDA and the implementation of their 12.5 meter elevation jurisdiction over the shore land have decreased the area cultivated for rice.
Communication Strategies for the Napindan Channel project
The peasants condemned the NHCS and demanded the opening of the hydraulic control structure. Negotiations among the DPWH, the LLDA as the main operator of the project, and the fishpen and fishermen leaders occurred many times to allow the opening of the structure, especially when the fishery would need saltwater, and when the farm lands would be flooded to cultivate rice.
Based on the interviews with the municipal agriculturists, however, the Napindan project is out of their hands. They do not have the control on this, and they do not even have a clear understanding of the claim of 12.5 meter elevation by the LLDA. They did not have a clear data on how many farmers were affected and how much land areas were flooded when Napindan structure was closed.
The peasants went to the offices of the provincial government and DAR in Manila. The farmers alleged that both blindly turned their back on them, despite the fact that they have been paying taxes to the government for their rice lands.
In 1989, the peasants then turned to ALMAPILA (which later became the PUMALAG) who had eagerly responded to their clamor. Since then, the peasant organization started investigating the causes of the problems through community organizing activities. They went to talk to the farmers and gave educational discussions regarding the closing of the Napindan Channel and all the issues in relation to the structure. They used leaflets, educational discussion activities, radio, newspaper, and street performances to send out information, and create awareness and mobilize the citizens.
Soon after, the ALMAPILA was able to create alliances with the affected peasants, as well as with some community leaders. They were able to persuade many farmers from the communities of upper and lower Pangil, Paete, Pakil, and other towns in the Fourth District to join the mass actions that the movement was able to launch. The movement negotiated with the LLDA along with DENR, DPWH, LLDA, DAR, and the local and provincial government in 1989.
The PUMALAG asked the peasants and the entire alliance group to launch conferences and meetings in relation to the situation of the Laguna Lake and the negative effects that the government program, Laguna Lake 2000, had generated; to create mass organizations and encourage other farmers to join the Save Laguna Lake Movement; and to encourage more peoples’ community groups to support and join campaigns and mass actions.
Because of the wide protest rallies from the municipal, provincial, to the national government levels, the LLDA opened all the six openings of the structure in 1998 but stopped doing so after two months, despite more protests that occurred. The farmers continued protesting to the offices of LLDA and of the Department of Agriculture. They even marched to Mendiola, but the policy remained the same.
As of the moment, the hydraulic control structure remains closed. The PUMALAG organizing team is still determined to struggle to open the structure. They believe that someday, through more extensive and systematic community organizing and persistent mobilizations, the LLDA and the other government agencies responsible for the flooding would yield to their clamor.
Communication Strategies for the Dam Project in Pangil River
As soon as the municipal council of Pangil approved the feasibility study, Ka Peping and his allies organized a group to create an opposition – the Mamamayang Nagmamalasakit sa Kalikasan at Kaligtasan ng Buhay (MNKKB).
From 1995 when the proposed project was approved, the MNKKB went on various community organizing activities to persuade the people to struggle against the project. Later on, the movement was joined by the citizens of Pangil, especially from Barangay Balian, militant groups like Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of People's Rights) and PUMALAG, students, priests, and other concerned sectors.
The groups filed a motion and petition to stop the implementation of the project to the National Water Resources Board. A hearing was held on April 19, 2005.
Information campaign regarding the approval of the municipality to allow the feasibility study was conducted in all barangays in Pangil. The MNKKB also made petition papers to the National Water Resources Board, Mayors’ League, and to the provincial government.
Information focused more on the project’s effects on agriculture, since the town is an agricultural community. This was a big motivating factor that compelled many residents to give their sympathy and support to the MNKKB.
With the help of the church, and other group sectors, the MNKKB went on further community organizing activities. They sent out flyers and leaflets. The Bishop even went with them in their caravan protest and gave his own statement of support to the movement in 2005. They also had news publications regarding their protests.
After almost a decade since the people created ‘noise’ against the dam establishment, the people fear that the project may still be implemented – and soon. The last time that the Municipality of Pangil held a public hearing was in September 19, 2003, in which no ruling was granted. No second hearing was called because the SMWC already lost the coordination with the municipality.
Conclusion
Both the hydraulic structure and dam project have earned enormous protests from the peasants, fisher folks, and the entire residents of the Fourth District because of the damages that the structure have generated and the possible effects of the dam project. The MNKKB and PUMALAG exerted many community organizing activities to disseminate information about the effects of both cases to the residents of the entire district.
The PUMALAG, along with the various sectors, went on continued picket-dialogues with the LLDA, local and provincial government, and the Department of Agrarian Reform. They also launched educational discussions among the farmers of various towns and held meetings among the peasant leaders. For almost a decade, the peasants launched many different forms of protests like rallies and distributed leaflets to masses.
The MNKKB, on the other hand, filed petition orders to the National Water Resources Board to annul the approval order of the Pangil Municipal Council. They also had mass actions in which multi-sectoral parties joined them.
The social mobilizations launched in both cases were successful because, in the case of the Napindan, the LLDA yielded to their protest and opened the structure for a time. However, these mobilizations were not enough to persuade the authority to allow them to reclaim the land through regular opening of the structure. The PUMALAG still needs to enhance its community organizing strategies to encourage the entire sector of the peasantry to struggle for their lost farm lands.
Nevertheless, the communication strategies of the residents of Pangil against the dam project had more successful results. Through the various community organizing activities that they engaged in, the people were able to stop the project from being implemented. Although the community still the fears that the project may be continued in the future, the MNKKB is quite satisfied that it won the first round.
In all these social mobilizations, communication strategies have played a great role in raising the people’s awareness and in encouraging their involvement on issues concerning them. The peasants were able to form multi-sectoral alliances, thereby increasing their numbers and strengthening their positions. Their negotiation skills with authorities (e.g., government officials, project planner) were considerably enhanced.
Implications and Recommendations
Recommendations for the PUMALAG and MNKKB
The researcher would like to recommend the following actions to the PUMALAG and MNKKB:
1. Strengthen the ties with the peasants. This is the challenge to the community organizers. The case is not closed yet. The peasants still need their help. They should go back to the people they have already contact with, and build more contacts from various sectors like peasants, church, youth, and allied politicians thereafter that can be used as the stronghold of the movement against the structure. Once they build their contacts, they should strengthen their ties with the peasants.
2. Advance community organizing. Do more community organizing activities to encompass all the sectors mentioned above who would be willing to join the mass actions.
3. Build alliances with the media. For them to have a stronger voice, they should have a better media projection so that they can put pressure on the LLDA and on the local and national governments.
4. Multi-sectoral alliance. Aside from the media, the PUMALAG should also have a stronger multi-sectoral alliance that includes the church people and concerned local government officials, like what the MNKKB did during the highlights of its mass actions.
4. Create plans from the lessons of the past. Go back to the issue and find the lessons that can be learned from the events that took place. If they could go back to the time when they were just starting to build up their organizations, they would know how to encourage the people to join again for their future actions. From there, they could start planning in reclaiming the lost lands of the farmers, or at least ensure that the farmers be given just compensations for these lost lands.
Recommendations for Local Government Officials
1. Promote a wider involvement of citizens. They should launch consultations with the residents who would be affected. They can hold public hearings where they can disseminate information to the localities to make the communication more participatory in nature.
2. Provide information to the people as to the negative and positive effects of the project/s. The residents of Pangil were not thoroughly informed during the time when the Municipal Council of Pangil approved the conduct of feasibility study by the SMWC, hence, there was no consensus among them. This made the project even more vulnerable to protests.
3. Make an assessment as to the adverse (or would be) effect of any project to be approved. If it would be found out that more people would be greatly affected by any project, then they should find a way not to harm them. The human impact should be a priority of the government before any development project is conducted.
Recommendations for Further Study
1. Assess the relations of power and authority over the Laguna Lake. This is one of the reasons why the municipal governments and their agrarian agencies could not function to resolve the issue of the NHCS. This can be studied from a communication point of view, using political and economic dialogues.
2. Have a longer integration period in the community. When we study communication for social change, we must try to fully understand what kind of changes the oppressed sector wants to achieve. Hence, future researchers should have a longer experience being among the peasants. They should not just try to live “with” their respondents, but they should live as one of them, in order for them to learn the real core of social development.
3. Have a more extensive study of the adjoining issues in the study. For social science to present critical pedagogy on researches, they must accept multiple voices. Hence, future researchers should also visit the municipal agriculturists, local government officials, project proponents, the government agencies involved, and all the other government agencies and legislative boards that are instrumental in the project conception and implementation during their activities with the peasants. Through these, researchers can determine how they better communicate with the people in the community.
