Land reform governance and the Filipino peasant women: Policy changes, impacts and challenges Cynthia Embido Bejeno, PhD Researcher International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands Land and poverty conference, The World Bank, Washington DC, 14-18 March 2016

Outline/Introduction Land reform in the Philippines Two case studies: SAMFAI and KMPC Some findings and analysis Some conclusion

Land reform in the Philippines Status: 27 years of CARP ( >50 years since Marcos) – distributed 4,454,205 hectares out of 8 million CARP target. 8Million # 10Million Close to half remains to be redistributed = Ave. of 2 has/hh = more than 2M hh beneficiaries (ave. 5/hh = 10Million people) Inconsistent record: Recently claims 85.78% accomplishment (of the 5.43 million CARP lands). 2,303,474 total beneficiaries, 674,486 or 29.28% are women.

SAMFAI and KMPC Masbate, Luzon Iloilo, Visayas 2004 was organized 2007 land occupation 2009 SC ruling against coverage Until now not covered The organization continuously strives Violence continues Iloilo, Visayas 2003 was organized 2006 land was awarded 2007 self-installation 8 hectares, formally installed, violence continues 2014 fully installed

Some findings and analysis Significant failure of land reform implementation land-based conflict and violence peasant women leadership and land (or lack of) entitlement.

Significant failure of land reform implementation After 27 years (close to 50 years of land reform program) of CARP, more than 50% (if to based on the original target of 10Million hectares redistributable) is not yet redistributed. The control of land remains to the landowner or other parties that tend to evade the program through various strategies. Legal manipulation. Like KMPC experience - in 2006 CLOA was awarded, yet not given full access and control of the awarded land until mid-2014, after more than eight years due to landowner’s criminal charges - delay the process and intimidate the farmers. 2007, self- installation – 8 hectares. ‘Donation’. In the guise of ‘donation’ the SAMFAI petition is until now static, almost a decade after. 2006, land occupation – more or less 100 hectares. ‘Agreements’. Rampantly, landowners subjected the CARP lands through voluntary offer to sell (VOS), voluntary land transfer (VLT), and stock distribution option (SDO). DAR report (2009), 33% of the land distributed are through VLT and VOS, a total of 1,341,385 hectares. In many cases, through these schemes, the ‘beneficiaries’ were chosen by the landlords then subjected them to lease contract or contract farming, through ‘agreement’.

land-based conflict and violence Continuous various conflicts and violence: full blown (like the death of farmer leaders in the two cases – Bito Yusi and Muting, Ka Eric Cabanit amongst many others) or in everyday form through harassment and intimidation - using both non-state (company guards and or private goons) or state forces (police, military or paramilitary forces), or criminal charges against the farmers lodged in the court or in quasi-judicial bodies like DARAB and so on. Violence could either be landed elite versus the rural poor, state versus the rural poor and or even poor people versus poor people when the state or private elites maneuver and employ divide and rule tactic that enable them to recruit sections of the rural poor through intimidation, harassment, blackmail, cheating, or false promise of a better deal i.e growing contracts etc.

Peasant women leadership and land (lack of) entitlement The peasant women lead and act as ‘frontliners’. The strategy minimizes if not evade violence’. Peasants as homogenous group and not as gendered construction hence household as beneficiaries i.e. head=men=holders: remains the norm. Despite equal land rights provision (RA 9700,Sec 13) and the implementing guidelines (DAR AO1series 2009/2011). The peasant women barely know their rights, so as the local DAR officers that supposed to ensure its implementation. Result, non-implementation/lack of entitlement <<< lack of knowledge, inexplicit promotion, conflict in interpretation, lack of data segregation etc.

Conclusion Gender responsive land reform measure is in place yet do not necessarily establish rural poor and women’s effective access and control over land to get out of poverty, violence, insecurity and gender inequality. Significantly, land relations continues. The struggle is double for the peasant women. While they lead and act as frontliners in the land reform struggle, as illustrated by the two cases, however, it is not necessarily conducive to their equal land rights and gender justice. The peasant women themselves, and the agency’s staff, have yet to exploit and assert gender equality on land rights and to eliminate the continuities of certain gender norms and perceptions that remains and are not necessarily questioned in land reform processes and struggle. Fundamental reforms to land reform governance and administration is critical to have an effective and sustained success in land reform implementation, immediately and holistically including women equal entitlement. And the sustained grassroots engagement is equally crucial.