Developing a Human Security Index for the Philippines

DEVELOPING A HUMANSECURITY INDEX

FOR THE PHILIPPINES:AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

IN SELECTEDCONFLICT AREAS

Maria Ela L. AtienzaClarinda Lusterio BerjaZuraida Mae D. Cabilo

Mara Yasmin S.P. BavieraDina Marie B. Delias

2010

Published by the Third World Studies Center (TWSC), University of thePhilippines-Diliman in partnership with the Office of the PresidentialAdviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), with funding support from theGovernment of the Philippines–United Nations DevelopmentProgramme–Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building (GOP-UNDP-CPPB) Programme

© 2010 University of the Philippines and United Nations DevelopmentProgramme

Reproduction of this document is permitted, provided dueacknowledgement is given to the publishers and the authors.

The opinions expressed herein are those of the writers and participantsand do not necessarily reflect the views of the OPAPP, TWSC, or UNDP.

Edited by Maria Ela L. AtienzaCopy-editing by Rosa Concepcion LadridoProofreading by Clarinda Lusterio Berja and Elinor May K. CruzLay-out and book design by Juanito G. Berja Jr.Cover design by Juanito G. Berja Jr. and Joel F. Ariate Jr.

Image of the human hand in the cover taken from www.dreamstime.com/

Back cover photograph by Maria Ela L. Atienza

Printed and bound in the Philippines

ISBN 978-971-92146-4-1

Third World Studies CenterCollege of Social Sciences and PhilosophyLower Ground Floor, Palma HallP.O. Box 210University of the PhilippinesDiliman, Quezon City1101 PhilippinesPhones: +63-2-981-8500 ext. 2442Telefax: +63-2-920-5428E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.upd.edu.ph/~twsc/; http://uptwsc.blogspot.com/

iii

CONTENTS

List of Tables vList of Figures viAcknowledgements viiForeword 1 xi

Avelino I. Razon Jr.Foreword 2 xiii

Renaud MeyerPreface xv

Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem

Chapter 1 1Developing a Human Security Index for the Philippines:An Introduction

Maria Ela L. Atienza

Chapter 2 23Defining and Debating Human Security:A Review of Literature

Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo and Mara Yasmin S.P. Baviera

Chapter 3 89Human Security Perspectives from Above:Results of the Key Informant Interviews

Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo, Mara Yasmin S.P. Baviera,and Dina Marie B. Delias

Chapter 4 101Views from the Marginalized Groups:Findings from the Focus Group Discussions


Chapter 5 125Measuring Human Security in the Philippines

Clarinda Lusterio Berja

iv

Chapter 6 151Summary, Challenges, and Prospects in Developinga Human Security Index for the Philippines


About the Authors 159

APPENDICES

1 Directory of Project Participants 1612 Survey on Human Security 1733 Focus Group Discussion Guide 1854 Highlights of the Proceedings of the Project’s Public 187 Presentation

v

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Dimensions of traditional and human security2.2 Survey of human security measurements2.3 Comparison of indices of UNDP’s human security vs. proposed methodologies2.4 Comparison of various indices, indicators, and the proposed human security measurement methodologies2.5 Existing indicators used in development planning and project impact assessment2.6 Comparison of dimensions of human security vs. existing indicators and indices used in development planning and project impact assessment in the Philippines3.1 Key informants3.2 Summary of responses on threats and sources of threats4.1 FGD profiles4.2 Indicators of human security according to FGD participants5.1 Sociodemographic profile of survey respondents5.2 Past and current experiences of violent conflict in the community in selected provinces5.3 Perceived safety in the community in selected provinces5.4 Top three perceived potential threats to general security in selected provinces5.5 Perceived capability of preventing/mitigating security threats5.6 Inter-item correlation matrix5.7 Index of perceived threat5.8 Presence of human security based on survey data5.9 List of indicators used in measuring human security5.10 Four factors from the principal component analysis

304354

57

65

74

9197

101110

128

131

131

133

133

135136144

146

149

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Human security framework1.2 Map of survey areas5.1 Perceived level of threat on the different dimensions of human security5.2 Perceived level of poverty5.3 Access to public health services5.4 Natural disasters experienced in the area5.5 Other environmental problems5.6 Experience of crime in the past year5.7 Type of crime experienced5.8 Agency to which crime was reported5.9 Perceived safety in the community5.10 Most serious security issue5.11 Experience of armed conflict due to insurgency in the locality5.12 Political concerns of people in the community5.13 Trust in government officials5.14 Net trust rating

1222

130

136137138139139140140141142142

143143144

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book would not have been possible without theencouragement and support of many individuals andorganizations.

We are most grateful to Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem,former director of the University of the Philippines Third WorldStudies Center (UP TWSC), for her constant support, advice,and encouragement all throughout the course of this project.

We acknowledge the contributions of Josephine C. Dionisio,former deputy director of UP TWSC, who originallyconceptualized this project. We also thank a former memberof the research team, Sharon M. Quinsaat, who contributedsubstantially in conceptualizing the project proposal,framework, and research design. The project would not havebeen completed without the invaluable support of our researchassistants, namely, Alleson Villota, Ruzzel Brian Mallari,Katrina Maquilan, and Celia Abbago. The field work wouldnot have been possible without the support of our fieldcoordinators and the team of interviewers, moderators, anddocumentors they assembled.

We extend our gratitude to the meaningful contributionsof all the key informants, focus group discussion (FGD)participants, and survey respondents. We would not have beenable to come up with this report without the experiences andperspectives you shared with us.

For financial and logistical support, our gratitude goes tothe United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-Philippines, particularly its Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building Programme (CPPB). We are particularly grateful forthe constant support and comments of Alma Evangelista ofUNDP-Philippines. We are also grateful to the United NationsAction for Conflict Transformation (ACT) for PeaceProgramme in Mindanao for supporting the Mindanaocomponent of our field work and the public presentation.

viii

Despite the changes in structure and personnel of theUNDP-CPPB Project Management Office (PMO), we rememberwith fondness the support we received from Pio Fuentes, GraceTena, and Anna Pacete-Marundan of the original PMO, aswell as Assistant Secretary Evelyn Daplas of the Office of thePresidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP). We aregrateful for the continuing support of Director RomuloHalabaso, Carmel Pami-Ulanday, and Eric Lopez of OPAPP.

We are grateful for the support we received from differentsectors since the conceptualization of the project to the publicpresentation of our findings. We thank our expert consultants,the members of our Technical Advisory Group, as well asparticipants who attended meetings, validation workshops,consultations, and the public presentation. You havecontributed valuable insights and suggestions.

Outside the formal structures of OPAPP, UNDP, andTWSC, the project also benefitted from comments andsuggestions from organizers, reactors, and participants ofseveral conferences and other fora where the project team—either as individuals or as a group—presented the project andits findings. These venues include the InternationalDevelopment Studies Conference on Mainstreaming HumanSecurity: The Asian Contribution (Bangkok, Thailand, 4-5October 2007); the Eighth International Conference onPhilippine Studies (ICOPHIL) (Quezon City, Philippines, 23-25 July 2008); Talastasan Lecture Series of the UP College ofSocial Sciences and Philosophy (Quezon City, Philippines, 2August 2008); and the Annual Philippine Political ScienceAssociation Conference (General Santos City, Philippines, 3-4April 2009).

This published version of the project report benefitted fromthe exhaustive reviews and constructive suggestions of ourexpert consultants, Maria Lourdes G. Rebullida and HermanJoseph S. Kraft, who read the original research report. We arealso grateful for the valuable comments and clarifications madeby Nymia Pimentel Simbulan and Raymund Jose Quilop whoserved as reactors during the public presentation of the findingslast December 2008.

ix

This publication would not be completed without the ableassistance of Rosa Concepcion Ladrido who did the copy-editing, Juanito G. Berja Jr. who did the book lay-out, Joel F.Ariate Jr. who finalized the cover design, and Elinor May K.Cruz who helped in proofreading the manuscript.

We are indebted to the reliable administrative staff of theUP TWSC—Ate Caring Francisco, Ate Bien Lacsamana, KuyaErning Francisco, and Maritess Miano who supported us everystep of the way. TWSC’s University Researcher, Joel F. AriateJr., also designed the invitation for the project’s publicpresentation of findings. Research assistant Mitzi Austeropromptly prepared the highlights of the December 2008 publicpresentation of the findings.

Finally, we are grateful to our loved ones for theirunderstanding and constant support.

Maria Ela L. AtienzaClarinda Lusterio BerjaZuraida Mae D. Cabilo

Mara Yasmin S.P. BavieraDina Marie B. Delias

x

xi

Office of the Presidential Adviser

on the Peace Process

FOREWORD 1

Since the publication of the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme’s (UNDP) 1994 Human Development Report, theconcept of human security has increasingly drawn globalattention and has been the subject of a number of academicdiscourses and policy dialogues in the Philippines. TheUniversity of the Philippines Third World Studies Center, inparticular, initiated a consultative process in 2007 to definehuman security in the Philippine context and to develop aHuman Security Index. This was undertaken with the supportof the Government of the Philippines-United NationsDevelopment Programme-Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building (GOP-UNDP-CPPB) Programme and the Mindanao-based UN Action for Conflict Transformation (ACT) for PeaceProgramme.

This publication, entitled Developing a Human Security Indexfor the Philippines: An Exploratory Study in Selected Conflict Areas,describes the scope and magnitude of human security in thePhilippines and its influence in the process of conflictprevention and peace building. It explores the variousdimensions of human security as it is being experienced byindividuals and communities, major stakeholders, dutybearers,and marginalized sectors.

Though exploratory, the study contains notable resultswhich mirror how the Philippines views human security as itapplies to the individual’s everyday life. The implications ofthese results to policy making and planning, execution,monitoring and evaluation, and sustainability towards peaceand development are also being considered.

xii

We are grateful to the Third World Studies Center forcoming up with a pioneering study. It is indeed a veryimportant contribution to the growing literature on peacebuilding and national development. There are still more workto be done on this field and this publication can serve as baselineinformation for those who want to understand how humansecurity in the Philippine context operates.

We are likewise grateful to the UNDP through its CPPBProgramme under the Crisis Prevention and Recovery Portfolioin which the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the PeaceProcess (OPAPP) serves as the implementing partner for theircontinued support to the peace process and for making thisstudy and publication possible.

SECRETARY AVELINO I. RAZON JR.Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process

Office of the PresidentAugust 2009

xiii

United Nations Development Programme

FOREWORD 2

The initiative to develop a Human Security Index (HSI) inthe Philippine context is a welcome addition to the publicdiscourse surrounding the concept of human security, which,while continuing to evolve, has great potential to positivelyinfluence policy making and development programs.Developing a Human Security Index for the Philippines producedby the University of the Philippines Third World Studies Center(UP TWSC) serves to enrich this concept by establishing ameasuring tool that seeks to capture it, and by promoting andclarifying its use.

At the global level, the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme’s (UNDP) first landmark contribution to the humansecurity debate was its 1994 Human Development Report (HDR)entitled New Dimensions of Security. The report depicted themany dimensions of human security as seen in the changingcontext of the times and, in doing so, put the issue at the centerof the development discourse. It challenged the traditionalconcept of security which for too long had been associatedwith conflict, arms, and war. The 1994 HDR triggered newthinking on the concept of security, measured against criticalsocial and economic conditions such as famine, unemployment,environmental hazards, disease, and political repression,among others. Today, fifteen years after the publication of theHDR, UNDP continues to help refine the human securityparadigm by supporting publications such as this one.

The development of an HSI is meant to create a planningand evaluation tool that can help inform the programs ofgovernment, civil society organizations, and other developmentactors. It is my hope that this publication will be directly

xiv

beneficial to individuals and communities who are at the coreof all that is done to promote human security and fosterdevelopment.

RENAUD MEYERCountry Director

xv

PREFACE

The 1986 People Power Revolution opened up a potentdemocratic space in the academe to not only engage thegovernment but also to challenge it to come up with solutionsconfronting Philippine society. It was within this context thatthe Third World Studies Center (TWSC) of the College of SocialSciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines-Dilimanopened up an arena for such an endeavor through its PolicyDialogue Series (PDS). The PDS sought to bring togethermembers of the academe, government officials, and civil societyto discuss and debate burning issues in light of looking forrelevant solutions to these. One such PDS was the TWSC’s“Towards a Human Security Framework” in 2006 which gavebirth to this research output on Developing a Human SecurityIndex for the Philippines: An Exploratory Study in Selected ConflictAreas. Conceptualized by Sharon M. Quinsaat and ZuraidaMae D. Cabilo, who were then with the TWSC, the HumanSecurity PDS was a five-installment series which sought toexamine the existing development and national securityframeworks vis-à-vis the human security model in pursuingnational development and peace-building goals. It envisionedto jumpstart other activities that could facilitate the formulationof a strategy to mainstream human security as a policyframework of government. The PDS, which was funded bythe United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP)Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building (CPPB) Programme,specifically sought to review the existing development andnational security frameworks, from which stems the country’spolicy responses to peace building and conflict resolution;provide a comprehensive overview of a human securityframework as an alternative framework in policy making andimplementation of initiatives on peace building, conflictprevention, and development; and develop mechanisms inadopting human security as a policy framework. The PDS 2006facilitated the process of clarifying the concept of humansecurity across different sectors such as government, academe,

xvi

non-governmental organizations, and church groups amongothers. The issues tackled then were the following: (1) humansecurity and development; (2) human security and governance;(3) human security and culture; (4) human security in violentconflict situations; and (5) defining the human securityframework in the Philippine context.

With the conclusion of the PDS, the TWSC was very pleasedto receive funding support from the Government of thePhilippines-UNDP-CPPB and the UN Action for ConflictTransformation (ACT) for Peace Programme in Mindanao topursue the research project on Developing a Human SecurityIndex for the Philippines: An Exploratory Study on Human Securityin Conflict Areas. By April 2008, under the project leadershipof Maria Ela L. Atienza, the project completed the following:(1) a revised human security framework for the Philippineswhich improves on the one developed by the TWSC PDS 2006on human security; (2) a comprehensive review of relatedliterature on human security; (3) a human security indexframework; (4) research instruments; and (5) field work in eight(8) areas (Metro Manila, Albay, Cagayan Province, NegrosOccidental, Western Samar, Sulu, North Cotabato, and Surigaodel Sur). The presentation of the research findings were madeon September 24, 2008 to the UNDP-CPPB’s SteeringCommittee at the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the PeaceProcess (OPAPP) wherein further refinements of the index weresuggested. Pleased with the findings, the Steering Committeemembers saw a huge potential for the use and furtherdevelopment of the draft Human Security Index (HSI),particularly with local governments. In another meeting withthe UNDP-CPPB Project Management Office (PMO), the PMOrepresentatives strongly suggested that the research projectreport be published, for which the TWSC is most grateful for.

One of the more important aspects of the project, whichthe TWSC valued, is the process by which this was pursued.Again we would like to express our deep appreciation to theUNDP-CPPB and the UN ACT for Peace Programme inMindanao for making this possible. The proposed HSI for the

xvii

Philippines, for one, aims to serve as an indispensable planningand evaluation tool for government and nongovernment groupsalike to assess the human security situation, as well as threatsto human security in the country. This is part and parcel ofTWSC’s mandate to input in the policy-making process aproduct which combines secondary and primary data. Theformer includes available literature on the topic of concern, inthis case the available literature on human security, as well asthe Filipino people’s own perceptions of the concept,particularly in relation to their specific circumstances. Thelatter, on the other hand, involves inputs of governmentrepresentatives from the executive and legislative branches aswell as from civil-society actors, sectoral representatives,members of the academe, and private-sector representativesthrough policy dialogues, consultations, key informantinterviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and survey inselected areas around the country. One of the project’s majorfocus was conducting surveys and FGDs in areas where thereis a history of or ongoing conflict. For further feedback, theproject findings were presented in a public presentation heldon December 4, 2008 at the University of the Philippines-Diliman, bringing together once again governmentfunctionaries, academics, and members of civil society to givetheir views, insights, and criticisms on the project results, aswell as the manner in which the research was conducted.Although the short-term objective of the project was to developan HSI for the Philippines, this endeavor also seeks to organizea network of individuals and organizations to advocate themainstreaming of human security. A primary objective of thisresearch is, thus, to spawn further interest in the pursuit offurther study on the topic and feed into the teaching andadvocacy campaigns on human security.

All of these would not have been possible without theinvolvement of the following people: the project leader, MariaEla L. Atienza, and her research collaborators Clarinda LusterioBerja, Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo, Mara Yasmin S.P. Baviera, andDina Marie B. Delias, and their respective research assistantsin the field. The project would also like to thank the initial

xviii

support given to this project by Sharon M. Quinsaat andJosephine C. Dionisio.

Special thanks also go to the consultants of this project:Ma. Lourdes G. Rebullida, Herman S. Kraft, and MiriamCoronel Ferrer, as well as those who attended our round tablediscussions during the various stages of the research and forthose who participated in the presentation of the findings. Wecertainly value the inputs they have shared with us to improvethis study.

It seems only fitting that this publication comes at a timewhen there is a revival of the spirit of the 1986 People PowerRevolution with the recent passing away of the icon ofdemocracy, former President Corazon Aquino. The PeoplePower Revolution brought into the consciousness of not onlythe Filipino people but also of the peoples of the rest of theworld that nonviolent means is the most potent weapon tobring about change. Such a message holds utmost relevancein the context of the massive destruction of lives and livelihoodscaused by the United States war-on-terror, which in its coursehas threatened the very backbone of human civility and spirit.The research project on developing a human security indexthus reinforces the need to focus on a more people-orientedperspective of security, the humane side of which at the endof the day, should be the utmost priority and is non-negotiable.

TERESA S. ENCARNACION TADEMDirector

Third World Studies Center23 August 2009

Introduction/Atienza 1

Chapter One

DEVELOPING A HUMAN SECURITY INDEX FORTHE PHILIPPINES: AN INTRODUCTION1


Human security, which seeks to shift the meaning ofsecurity away from its traditional military-oriented and state-centric focus, has become one of the most important conceptssince the late twentieth century. Since the 1990s, the concepthas been the focus of debates in the United Nations (UN)system, international organizations, various governments, andthe academic and intellectual community. Various efforts havebeen made at developing dimensions and variables of humansecurity. The United Nations Development Programme’s(UNDP) Human Development Report (HDR) of 1994 was thefirst major document that acknowledged the importance ofhuman security. The HDR defined human security as “safetyfrom the constant threats of hunger, disease, crime andrepression,” as well as “protection from sudden and hurtfuldisruptions in the pattern of our daily lives” (UNDP 1994, 3).Furthermore, human security in the report incorporates sevenbroad categories of concerns, namely economic, environmental,personal, community, health, political, and food concerns. Inaddition, Nef (1999) proposed at least five dimensions of humansecurity, these are ecology, economy, society, politics, andculture. In a speech during the 2000 International Workshopon Human Security, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan(2000) placed human security at the forefront of the globalagenda. He defined human security in terms of three clustersof concerns: freedom from want, freedom from fear, andfreedom of future generations to sustain their lives in thisplanet.

Amidst various attempts to define human security anddevelop its indicators, there are some criticisms about the

2 Developing a Human Security Index for the Philippines

concept itself. Thomas and Tow (2002, 178) argued that theterm would have to be defined more narrowly if it were toacquire greater analytical and policy value. It also needs to bemore precise and clear. Goucha and Rojas Aravena (2001)noted that “human security is still under construction,considering the number of priorities and dimensions to be takeninto account in order to achieve integrated action” that wouldthen be able to respond to urgent and wide-ranging needs,especially on behalf of the most unprotected sectors of thepopulation. The specific links between the promotion of humansecurity and the prevention of conflict and action in favor ofhuman rights and democracy should also be clearly established(Goucha and Rojas Aravena 2001, 8-9).

Given the current limitations of human security as aconcept as well as gaps in the existing literature cited in thenext chapter of this book, there is a need to present a moreconcrete picture of human security and the human securitysituation in the Philippines. This book is the result of the projectof the University of the Philippines Third World Studies Center(UP TWSC) to develop a human security index (HSI) for thePhilippines and to fill the gaps in the human security literature.It is supported by the UNDP-Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building Programme in the Philippines (GOP-UNDP-CPPB)and the UN Action for Conflict Transformation (ACT) forPeace Programme in Mindanao.

The Development of Human Security as a Conceptand Filipino Understandings of Human Security 2

Bajpai (2000, 4) asserted that the idea of human securitycan be traced to changes in the notions of development fromthe 1960s to the 1980s. He cited the importance of twoindependent commissions that expanded the ideas of security:the Independent Commission on International DevelopmentIssues and the Independent Commission on Disarmament andSecurity Issues. The former deals with issues of hunger,economic inequalities, and conflict while the latter advancesthe ideas of common security and common responsibility in


which the issues of environment, population growth andmigration, and undemocratic institutions are consideredsecurity threats (Bajpai 2000, 4-9). Rothschild (1995, 55; Alkire2002, 13-14) gave a historical account of the development of“extended security” and traced its roots to European politicalthought.

The term human security was first used in the 1994 HDR.Mahbub Ul Haq, an economist, is the person most closelyidentified with the concept of human security. The 1994 UNDPpublication formally defined the concept of human security. Italso explicitly made the individual the referent object of security.In 1999, the Human Security Network was formed throughthe initiatives of Norway and Canada and in 2001, theCommission on Human Security was formed.

However, a review of literature shows that human securityis essentially a contested concept. Various scholars, nations,and institutions offer several other definitions, referent objects,implementation, and proposed methods of measurement. Theseproposals range from minimalist to maximalist definitions andinclude a number of dimensions in the concept. Defininghuman security in broad or narrow terms depends largely onthe interest of groups that are engaged in the theorizing orapplication of the concept of human security. For instance,the maximalist definitions are founded on normative groundswhile criticisms of the maximalist position and the preferencefor the minimalist definitions are based on empirical andmethodological grounds. Other conceptualizations on humansecurity are either development-oriented or conflict-oriented,i.e., with an emphasis on “freedom from want” (Japan’s officialpriority before the other dimensions) or “freedom from fear”(Canadian and Norwegian bias). The individual also appearsto be the dominant referent object, though the UNDP hascommunity security as one of its dimensions of human security.

Considerable debate remains among scholars on the scopeof human security, the dimensions of the concept, and the corevalues that need to be protected. There is a lack of focus thatshould direct the substantive and systematic study of threats


under human security. Paris (2001) argued that variousdimensions and values are selected arbitrarily without anyjustification. He noted that it is futile to narrow down theconcept when it is in the interest of human security advocatesto keep the concept ambiguous. He argued that “humansecurity is powerful precisely because it lacks precision andthereby encompasses the diverse perspectives and objectivesof all the members of the coalition.” Instead, he proposes thathuman security should not be used as a concept; instead, itshould be used as a research category of military and non-military issues concerning individuals, groups and, societies(Paris 2001, 95-98).

How do Filipinos understand human security? The nationalsecurity framework in the Philippines incorporates someelements of human security. Talisayon (n.d.) enumeratedmoral/spiritual consensus, cultural cohesiveness, economicsolidarity/organicity, socio-political stability, ecologicalintegrity, territorial integrity, and external peace as theelements composing a broadened security framework. Honasanand Castillo (2002, 4) identifed social cohesion and stability,economic prosperity and stability, and political unity andstability, as pillars or foundations of national security. At firstglance, these conceptualizations of national security seem toapproximate some of the UNDP human security dimensions.

After the 1986 People Power movement, national securitywas redefined as the “security of the people” (Talisayon n.d.).Honasan and Castillo (2002) considered the people, the regimeand the state to be the referent objects of national security.However, they claim that there is an artificial divide betweenthe people and the state, and that the government and thepeople are both components of the state; the people orindividuals are thereby subsumed under the state. They alsorecognized that there may be divergent interests between thestate and the people, but this point was not elaborated. Aguirre(1998, 20) proposed the creation of an Organization forNational Security (ONS) that “refers to the structure of thedecision-making process that affect the national survival andgeneral welfare and wellbeing of our people” and will be


“mainly responsible for the management of the nationalsecurity planning process.” One of the organization’s tasks isto address nontraditional security threats. However, thelanguage of such an understanding remains framed within astate-centered view of security. The National IntelligenceCoordinating Agency, National Security Council, and NationalIntelligence Board were cited as partner agencies for the ONS.Meanwhile, Honasan and Castillo (2002) proposed traditionalinstruments for the attainment of national security—throughdiplomacy and the military.

Thus, the national security framework nominally considersnontraditional security threats as security issues, but it doesnot reflect the normative underpinnings of human security.While it accommodates non-traditional threats, institutionalcapacities are inadequate in responding to such threats. Also,the term human security is not even mentioned by the above-mentioned authors.

Beyond the national security framework, various attemptshave been made by government agencies, civil societyorganizations, and other development actors to contribute tothe human security discourse in the Philippines. The conceptof human security was first introduced in the publicconsciousness through “The Gathering for Human andEcological Security,” which was convened in 1995 by keygovernment agencies like the Commission on Population,Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), andthe Department of Justice (DOJ), and attended byrepresentatives of different sectors. The result of the conferencewas the commitment to place the protection of people and theenvironment at the forefront of the national agenda. This wasmerged with former President Fidel Ramos’s Social ReformAgenda to make up the people-empowerment pillar ofPhilippines 2000, President Ramos’s socioeconomic programthat envisioned the Philippines achieving newly industrializedstatus by year 2000. This development came a year after theterm human security gained currency in development circleswith the publication of the 1994 HDR. Subsequent efforts toinclude human security as a framework came in mid-2004. A


multi-agency effort was undertaken to reintroduce the conceptof human security in public policy making. This resulted inthe creation of the National Task Force on Convergence (NTFC)whose mandate was to reconcile the viewpoints of the militaryand civilian agencies in defining and making operational acommon framework for national security.

In 2005, when the NTFC was reworking the nationalsecurity framework, the Philippine Human Development Report(PHDR) (De Dios, Santos, and Piza 2005) was released. Itdefined human security as freedom from fear, want, andhumiliation. The report focused only on “ideology-based armedconflict.” It also distinguished human security and humandevelopment. While “human development is the process thatwidens the range of people’s choices, human security meansthat people can make those choices safely and freely. [H]umansecurity is the external pre-condition for human development”(De Dios, et al. 2005, 1-2). The PHDR also provided concreteindices to measure the costs and causes of armed conflict.

There have been two nongovernment attempts to develop ahuman security framework appropriate to Philippine realities.Tabang Mindanaw, a multisectoral development group launchedby former Ambassador Howard Dee in 1998, to improve thequality of life and overcome underdevelopment of marginalizedgroups in Mindanao, developed what it calls the “justice-basedhuman security framework” as a response to the 2005 PHDR. Itconsiders injustice, and not poverty, as the cause of armed conflict(Dee and Garilao 2005). This framework, based on justice, equity,and people-centered governance, is used by Tabang Mindanawin working with indigenous peoples and various communities inMindanao. It basically responds to the root causes of armedconflict. For the framework to be adopted, three things areimperative: (1) acknowledging that inequalities indeed exist; (2)asking the important question of why such inequities persist; and(3) transforming institutions to be more responsive in combatinginjustice. The thin line that divides human development andhuman security is best described by Dee and Garilao (2005):“Human security complements state security, enhances humanrights, and strengthens human development.”


In 2006, the Third World Studies Center (TWSC) gatheredvarious perspectives from multi-sectoral actors withdevelopment, governance, culture, and violent conflictsituations as key themes. The project entitled Policy DialogueSeries 2006: “Towards a Human Security Framework” wassupported by the UNDP-Philippines’s Conflict Prevention andPeace-Building (CPPB) Programme. Notably, the communityand not the individual is the referent object in the Philippinecontext. The proposed framework is based on four basicprinciples. These include “the interconnectedness of the variousdimensions of human security, the centrality of land ownershipand stewardship as part of human security, the emphasisplaced on community security rather than the individual, andthe plurality of understanding human security” based on localrealities (Cabilo and Quinsaat 2007).

There have also been efforts to indirectly incorporatehuman security through the development of indicators thatmay be useful in development planning and governance. Forexample, the Institute for Strategic and Development Studies(ISDS) developed a security sector reform index (SSRI) thatwould help in the “informed analyses on the state ofgovernance of the security sector, as well as its reform programsand initiatives” (ISDS 2007). Human security is used as one ofthe frameworks in the performance of the security sector’smandate.

The Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process(OPAPP) is also developing tools to integrate peace buildingand conflict prevention in the local planning process. It seeksto incorporate human security and use conflict-sensitive lensin local governance to ensure that plans and programs areresponsive to the needs of the people. The draft document,entitled “Conflict Sensitive and Peace Promoting LocalDevelopment Planning” (2007), adapts the dimensions ofhuman security as defined by the UNDP. Human security atthe local level is achieved when the following conditions aremet: (1) a deeper awareness and appreciation of humansecurity and conflict-sensitive approaches vis-à-vis localgovernance; (2) integration of human security and conflict-


sensitive approaches in local government processes by installingappropriate mechanisms (legislation, local ordinances, localbodies, etc.); and (3) a legislation-resource match for local plans.OPAPP (2007) defined human security as the protection ofpeople’s “physical safety, socioeconomic wellbeing, dignity andworth, and human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Itargues that human development is achieved only when peoplelive in a secure and safe environment, thus ensuring theirhuman security. It also acknowledged that the elements ofhuman security as defined by the UNDP cut across thedevelopmental concerns in local governance; thus, it is not atotally new concept in local governance.

Other tools, which do not necessarily have explicit bias forthe integration of human security, have been developed tomeasure the promotion and protection of the variousdimensions of human security. For instance, the PhilippineHuman Rights Information Center (PhilRights) developed theeconomic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) indicators. Theseindicators were generated through focus group discussions(FGDs) with grassroots organizations and individuals in severalmunicipalities nationwide (PhilRights 2002). The indicatorswere categorized into five rights (health, food, housing, work,and education) to cover more than a hundred indicators. As amonitoring tool, it deals with the presence or absence of goods,services, or structures to address people’s economic, social, andcultural rights.

Another tool developed to measure the presence or absenceof people’s capabilities is the Capability Poverty Measure ofManasan, Gonzalez, and Gaffud (1999). It assesses threedimensions of capability: quality of life, reproduction, andliteracy and knowledge. The weights of the three variables maybe determined by the value placed by the respondentsthemselves on each indicator.

The Maguindanao Working Group of the MindanaoEconomic Development Council (MEDCo) also developedhuman security indicators using the data of the LocalGovernment Performance Monitoring System (LGPMS) and


other data at the municipal level. Pilot tested in Maguindanao,the index covers all of UNDP’s seven dimensions of humansecurity.

Thus, there are government and nongovernment initiativesin the Philippines to include human security and developindicators sensitive to individual, local/community, andnational/state levels. However, there has been nocomprehensive integration of all these different efforts.Moreover, no comprehensive participatory research has beenundertaken so far to generate conceptualizations of humansecurity. This is where the efforts of the TWSC of the Universityof the Philippines come in.

The Third World Studies Center’s Attempts toDevelop a Human Security Index

Project Background and Goals

The TWSC is an academic research center based in theCollege of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of thePhilippines, Diliman. It is committed to develop critical,alternative paradigms to promote progressive scholarship andaction for change by creating spaces for discussion anddialogue; undertaking pioneering research; publishing original,empirically grounded and innovative research; and building acommunity of activist-scholars and public intellectuals.

Through the 2006 Policy Dialogue Series (PDS), the TWSCexamined several dimensions of human security in thePhilippine context and facilitated the formulation of a proposedhuman security framework for the Philippines (Cabilo andQuinsaat 2007). The project was also instrumental inorganizing a loose network of individuals and organizationsthat are willing and able to promote the adoption of a policyframework anchored on human security.

It is necessary to present a more accurate picture of thehuman security situation and its various threats in the


Philippines. An accurate picture would promote a humansecurity-based plan, as well as understand further thedimensions of human security in the Philippine context. Thus,the UNDP-CPPB encouraged the TWSC to do a follow-upproject entitled Developing a Human Security Index for thePhilippines and convinced the UN Action for ConflictTransformation (ACT) for Peace Programme in Mindanao tosupport the Mindanao component of the project. The drafthuman security index (HSI) is intended to be the standard inmeasuring the human security situation in the country. Itdescribes the scope and intensity of human security in thePhilippine context as it incorporates dimensions that arerelevant in conflict prevention and peace building. It is alsointended to be a planning and evaluation tool to strengthenthe capacities of national agencies in peace building andmainstream human security.

The project started in June 2007 and field work wascompleted by February 2008. The draft project report waspublicly presented in December 2008. The first half of 2009was spent revising the report based on the comments andreviews of academics, some government representatives, andcivil society groups.

Human Security Framework

The project team revised the original framework developedin 2006 and did a comprehensive review of literature andgenerated additional comments on the proposed frameworkfrom various sectors, through e-mail exchanges andconsultation meetings in 2007.

In developing a human security index for the Philippines,the TWSC restored the focus on the individual as the referentobject. Following the language of the Commission on HumanSecurity’s report entitled Human Security Now (2003), humansecurity is defined by the project as a condition whereby theindividual is protected from critical, immediate, and pervasivethreats to life, liberty, property, and community. While humansecurity takes the individual as its referent object, the individual


is not separated from the community from which the individualderives freedom, rights, and identity. Furthermore, threat hasvarious dimensions. It is an undesirable, deliberate, oraccidental event that may result in harm. It is often theexploitation of an identified vulnerability. The projectprovisionally used the human security dimensions identifiedby the UNDP to formulate indicators. Human security is alsoa relational concept and therefore conceived vis-à-vis a knownand established direct threat against a person, property, andcommunity.

Due to time and budget constraints, the initial project focusis on critical threats to human security, involving the presenceof armed conflict as its environment. Conflict, in this case, isnarrowed down to where one of the parties involved is thestate. In sum, human security takes the individual andcommunity as its referent objects, applies a threat-basedapproach, and operates in the context of armed conflictinvolving the state. It is hoped that the next phase of the projectwill involve research in nonconflict areas so that comparativedata could be generated.

Based on the above definition, the framework (see Figure1.1) indicates the centrality of the individual who is deeplyembedded in the community. Threats to the individual’spersonal wellbeing may include death and injuries,displacement, destruction of property and livelihood, outbreakof communicable diseases in refugee camps, etc.—urgentproblems that should be addressed in the short term. In thelong term, however, difficulties may arise involving not onlythe individual but also the community. These would includedistrust, competition over available resources, etc. which breedinsecurity. Processes to ensure that human security is upheldshould start, first at the level of the individual and thecommunity, and then at the national level. In addition, everycommunity has some unique characteristics, in the same waythat individuals are differentiated by class, gender, age, etc.

The recognition and identification of threat is fundamentalto human security. When threats are not identified properly,


it would be almost impossible to respond based on the principlesof human security. Situations, interests, lives, and values varywidely even among communities that have the samesociodemographic characteristics. Thus, what may be a threatto some communities may not be considered a threat for others.

When people are caught in complex and precarioussituations with diverse problems involving multiple actors,there is a tendency to strike at numerous fronts in order toaddress the crisis. Determining what should be the priority isimportant, especially when resources and time are limited.Human security is best applied when a concern is given a senseof urgency and made a priority. Various groups that canaddress these human security threats include state actors, civilsociety groups, and the business sector. Transnational actorsalso have a role to play.

Figure 1.1 Human security framework

Critical, Pervasive and Urgent Threats to Individuals &

Communities: Environmental, Economic,

Food, Health, Personal, Community, and Political

Dimensions

Focusing on Conflict-Affected Areas

Business (responsible

business groups)

State (national

government agencies and

LGUs)

CSOs (academe,

NGOs, POs, media)


Research Design and Methodology for IndexDevelopment

Building from its previous engagement with scholar-activists, public intellectuals, and development workers, theTWSC once again tapped its network from government, civilsociety, private sector, and the academe in the Philippines toactively take part as resource persons or participants inconsultation meetings and interviews, and to act as fieldcoordinators. This study used a participatory researchapproach which involved dutybearers and stakeholders toensure that data generated are reliable and valid, and that itsusers will assume ownership of the draft HSI. The studygathered multi-level data from various sectors using bothquantitative and qualitative techniques:

1. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). Informants weretwenty-three representatives of nationalgovernment agencies, military personnel,academics, representatives of nongovernmentorganizations (NGOs), members of the legislature,and journalists.

2. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Eight FGDs wereconducted in eight case sites, namely CagayanProvince and Albay in Luzon; Negros Occidentaland Western Samar in Visayas; Surigao del Sur,North Cotabato, and Sulu in Mindanao; and MetroManila or the National Capitol Region (NCR).Participants in each FGD came from a specificsector, mostly from the marginalized groups(indigenous people, women, farmers, fisherfolks,urban poor, youth, etc.).

3. Household Survey. The survey covered 800individuals from selected barangays (basic localcommunities or village-level local government units)in the eight case sites.

The research team also attempted to send out self-administered questionnaires to the participants of the 2006policy dialogues and other human security advocates. Initially,


the team targeted 200 respondents for the questionnaire survey.The team wanted to compare the responses of human securityadvocates with the respondents in the household survey. Thesurvey of human security advocates was also meant to becompared with the qualitative data from the KIIs. Due to thelow response rate, the results of the questionnaire survey weredisregarded.

The review of literature and the KIIs served as thefoundation of the baseline survey that generated the indicatorsused to create the draft index. The survey measures thedimensions of human security and depicts the context in whichhuman security exists and the individual’s susceptibility,exposure, and coping/adaptive capacity to threats. Physical,social, economic, environmental, and institutional features thateither ensue or prevent threats were also examined.

Specifically, the survey initially measures thirty-oneindicators of (1) economic security threatened by unstableemployment opportunities and absence of publicly financedsafety nets; (2) food security threatened by insufficient accessto assets, work, and assured incomes; (3) health securitythreatened by lack of access to health facilities and safe water;(4) environmental security threatened by natural disasters,pollution, and poor waste management; (5) personal securitythreatened by violent crime, violence and abuse of familymembers, and displacement; (6) political security threatenedby government repression, systematic human rights violations,and militarization; and (7) community security threatened bybreakdown of family, collapse of traditional languages andcultures, ethnic discrimination and strife, and ethnic cleansing.Although the UNDP definition and dimensions of humansecurity are broad, the survey is inclusive but separates itscomponents into different types of security in order to addresscausality and sets a threshold demarcating the vital core inorder to distinguish itself from human development. Thethreshold for a human security threat is set by the terms “vitalcore” and “critical and pervasive threats.” The vital coreconstitutes the minimum level of survival. Reference to criticaland pervasive threats establishes both the severity and


immediacy of threats. In the face of an unlimited number ofpossible threats, only the most serious threats are included.

The population targeted by the baseline survey includedindividuals age 18 years old and above in seven provinces inLuzon, Visayas, and Mindanao that are considered as conflictareas, and in two cities in the NCR. The sample size iscomposed of 800 respondents distributed equally by samplesite and proportionately by gender. The sample hasapproximately 50 percent females and 50 percent males.

To select the conflict areas as the sample sites, the studyadapts the 2005 PHDR definition of intensity of conflictdetermined by the number of armed encounters. Areas forresearch were randomly selected based on intensity of conflict.Two areas (Albay and Cagayan), categorized by the 2005PHDR as part of provinces with high levels of armedencounters from 1986 to 2004 (De Dios et al. 2005, 2; Bautista2005, 11), were selected for Luzon. Encounters in these twoareas are between the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)and the New People’s Army (NPA). Two provinces (NegrosOccidental and Western Samar), categorized as havingmedium levels of encounters in the same period (Bautista 2005,11), were selected for Visayas. Encounters in the two Visayanprovinces are between the AFP and the NPA. The researchteam, together with MEDCo and UN ACT for Peacerepresentatives, selected Surigao del Sur, North Cotabato, andSulu. The three Mindanao sites were selected because the levelsof conflict, the participants in the conflict, the composition ofthe communities, and the degree of intervention of the twoMindanao-based organizations in these areas, all vary fromone another. North Cotabato generally has a high level ofarmed encounters; it is a high-conflict area in encountersbetween the AFP and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)or Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) but a medium-levelconflict area in encounters between the AFP and the NPA.Sulu is a high-conflict area with encounters between the AFPand the MILF or MNLF. Surigao del Sur, meanwhile, iscategorized as a medium-level conflict area with encountersbetween the AFP and the NPA (De Dios et al. 2005, 2; Bautista


2005, 11). North Cotabato has a mixed population of Muslimsand Christians, Sulu is predominantly Muslim, and Surigaodel Sur is predominantly Christian. Finally, Metro Manila (withMarikina and Pasay City treated as one area), while categorizedas a high-level conflict area by the PHDR (De Dios et al. 2005)with documented conflicts between the AFP and the NPA from1986 to 2004, is used as a “control site,” in the sense that theremight be a low level of encounter or even no insurgency-relatedencounters in Metro Manila at present. However, it might yieldhuman security issues related with other types of conflictsinvolving the state, such as land and housing conflicts (seeFigure 1.2 for the sample sites identified in the Philippine map).

The study employed a multistage stratified randomsampling with the selected provinces as domains andbarangays as enumeration units. From the list of all barangaysin the areas covered in the study, barangays were randomlyselected. The households served as the primary sampling unit.One eligible respondent was interviewed per household. Thehousehold head or the spouse of the household head, or anyresponsible adult in the household who is knowledgeable aboutthe household members, was selected as respondent.

The sample was distributed as follows:

1. Makati and Pasay in Metro Manila covering fivebarangays per city and twenty households perbarangay, with a total of 100 respondents;

2. Albay and Cagayan Province in Luzon covering tenbarangays per province and twenty households perbarangay, with a total of 200 respondents;

3. Negros Occidental and Western Samar in Visayascovering ten barangays per province and twentyhouseholds per barangay, with a total of 200respondents; and

4. Surigao del Sur, North Cotabato, and Sulu inMindanao covering fifteen barangays per provinceand twenty households per barangay, with a totalof 300 respondents.


In each of the household sample, the intervieweraccomplished the household form and the individual’squestionnaire (see full questionnaire, Appendix 2). Thehousehold form contains information about thesociodemographic and economic characteristics of allhousehold members and the housing characteristics of thehousehold. The individual’s questionnaire contains severalblocks which include information on the following:

1. Block A: Identification and Call Record (province,city/municipality, name of sample barangay, urban-rural stratum, household number, respondent’sname, complete address, etc.)

2. Block B: Socioeconomic and DemographicCharacteristics

3. Block C: Economic Security4. Block D: Food Security5. Block E: Health Security6. Block F: Environmental Security7. Block G: Community Security8. Block H: Personal Security9. Block I: Political Security10. Block J: General Perception of Human Security

Eight FGDs were held, one per site, which generatedqualitative data on human security perspectives that complementthe quantitative data generated from the survey. The FGDs werepurposely held to include several marginalized groups to accountfor human security perspectives of marginalized sectors—specificsectors that UNDP wants to include in its programs. Thesystematic random sampling method used to select householdsfor the surveys had no way of purposely selecting members ofmarginalized groups. The survey questionnaire itself did notprivilege specific sectoral concerns.

The Rest of the Book

The succeeding chapters of the book present the findingsof the project. Cabilo and Baviera’s review of the literature on


human security in chapter two explores the historical contextof the concept and its relationship with other notions ofsecurity, the debates regarding the scope and focus of humansecurity, the evolving human security discourse in thePhilippines, and the various attempts to measure humansecurity and insecurity. In addition, the review identifies someresearch gaps that the current project hopes to address.

In chapter three, Cabilo, Baviera, and Delias present theresults of the KIIs. The informants’ diverse backgrounds andinstitutional affiliations are reflected in this chapter. It showsnot only the broad range of responses but also the debatesamong the respondents, notably those between the traditionalsecurity sectors and the civilian sectors. These debates consistof their definition of human security, threats and dimensions,roles of the state and non-state actors in addressing the threats,and the actions that institutions can do to mitigate these threats.

In chapter four, this author focuses on the views ofmarginalized groups on critical and pervasive threats, themarginalized groups’ own indicators of human security, andtheir views on what would constitute conditions in whichhuman security could exist. The participants were also quitearticulate on what can be done by different sectors to addressthreats to human security.

In chapter five, Lusterio Berja shows the results of thesurvey. It shows the data generated by the survey on thedifferent dimensions of human security, the context in whichhuman security exists or could exist, and the susceptibility,exposure, and coping capacity of individuals to threats, amongother aspects. It also shows how a more comprehensivemeasure or index of human security can be constructed basedon the thirty-one original indicators and the survey responses.

Finally, chapter six, also written by this author, summarizesthe data gathered from the various techniques employed. It alsoreflects on the limitations of the project, the difficultiesencountered, the opportunities and challenges for furtherdevelopment of the index, and the integration of human securityin mainstream policy making in the country.


While specific members of the research team wrote the finalversions of the individual chapters, the whole book is a teameffort that benefitted from countless drafts developedcollectively or individually by team members, hours of teammeetings, and actual as well as virtual consultations withexperts, and various groups.

Notes

1 This introductory chapter is based on the project’s originalresearch proposal and the more detailed research design andmethodology developed by the research team during the firstthree months of the project.2 This section was based on Cabilo and Baviera’s extensive reviewof literature in chapter two.

References

Aguirre, Alexander. 1998. National security: Concepts andorganizations. National Security Review 18 (2): 20.

Alkire, Sabina. 2002. A conceptual framework for human security.CRISE Working Paper No. 2. University of Oxford: Centerfor Research on Inequality, Human Security, Ethnicity (CRISE).

Annan, Kofi. 2000. Secretary general salutes internationalworkshop on human security in Mongolia. Message deliveredduring the International Workshop on Human Security,Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Bajpai, Kanti. 2000. Human security: Concept and measurement.Occasional Paper No. 19:OP:1. Indiana: University of NotreDame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

Bautista, Cynthia Rose B. 2005. Ideologically motivated conflictsin the Philippines: Exploring the possibility of an early warningsystem. A background paper submitted to the HumanDevelopment Network Foundation, Inc. for the PhilippineHuman Development Report 2005.


Cabilo, Zuraida Mae D., and Sharon M. Quinsaat. 2007. Towardsa human security framework in the Philippine context. InDefining the human security framework in the Philippine context:Proceedings of the Third World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series2006, ed. Third World Studies Center, 117-123. Quezon City:Third World Studies Center in partnership with the ConflictPrevention and Peace-Building Programme (CPPB) of theUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP)–Philippines.

Commission on Human Security. 2003. Human security now:Commission on Human Security report. New York.

De Dios, Emmanuel, Soliman Santos Jr., and Sharon Faye Piza.2005. The fifth Philippine human development report: Peace, humansecurity, and human development in the Philippines. Quezon City:Human Development Network and the United NationsDevelopment Programme.

Dee, Howard, and Ernesto Garilao. 2005. A justice-baseddevelopment as a fundamental right. Paper presented as areaction during the presentation of the highlights of the 2005Philippine Human Development Report, Heritage Hotel, PasayCity, Philippines.

Goucha, Moufida, and Francisco Rojas Aravena. 2001. Newperspectives on human security in Latin America and theCaribbean. In Human security, conflict prevention, and peace inLatin America and the Caribbean, ed. Moufida Goucha and RojasAravena, 154-184. Paris and Santiago: UNESCO and FLACSO-Chile.

Honasan, Gregorio, and Michael Eric Castillo. 2002. A nationalsecurity framework for the Philippines. National Security Review20 (December).

Institute for Strategic and Development Studies (ISDS). 2007. SSRUpdate 1 (May).

Manasan, Rosario G., Eduardo Gonzalez, and Romualdo B.Gaffud. 1999. Indicators of good governance: Developing anindex of governance quality at the LGU level. Discussion Paper


Series No. 99-04. Makati City: Philippine Institute forDevelopment Studies.

Nef, Jorge. 1999. Human security and mutual vulnerability. 2nd ed.Ottawa: IDRC Books.

Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP).2007. Conflict sensitive and peace promoting localdevelopment planning. Unpublished draft.

Paris, Roland. 2001. Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air?International Security 26 (2): 87-102.

Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights). 2002.Economic, social, and cultural rights: The grassroots’ view (ESCrights standards and indicators setting project phase II). QuezonCity: Philippine Human Rights Information Center.

Rothschild, Emma. 1995. What is security? Daedalus 124 (3): 53-98.

Talisayon, Serafin. (n.d.) The framework of national security.Unpublished.

Third World Studies Center (TWSC). 2007. Defining the humansecurity framework in the Philippine context: Proceedings of the ThirdWorld Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series 2006. Quezon City:Third World Studies Center in partnership with the ConflictPrevention and Peace-Building Programme (CPPB) of theUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP)–Philippines.

Thomas, Nicholas, and William T. Tow. 2002. The utility of humansecurity: Sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. SecurityDialogue 33 (2): 177-192.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1994. Humandevelopment report 1994. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Figure 1.2 Map of survey areas

WesternSamar

CagayanProvince

Albay

Metro Manila

NegrosOccidental

Surigaodel Sur

NorthCotabato

Note: Shaded portions are the sample areas of the study.Map prepared by Juanito G. Berja Jr.

Sulu

Defining and Debating Human Security/Cabilo & Baviera 23

Chapter Two

DEFINING AND DEBATING HUMAN SECURITY:A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Zuraida Mae D. CabiloMara Yasmin S.P. Baviera

Introduction

Human security is the new catchphrase in internationalsecurity discourse. It is presented both as a concept and as apolicy framework that challenges traditional notions ofsecurity, which are state-centric, focused on interstate conflict,and primarily concerned with military defense. Human securitybroadens the notion of security by expanding its dimensionsto economic, political, cultural, and even psychological aspects.It deepens the notion of security as the referent object shifts toinclude individuals, groups, and societies (Paris 2001; Krauseand Williams 1996). As a concept, human security is contested.Scholars, institutions, and even nations offer various definitionsof the concept. Despite the abundance of literature, debateand analysis on the issue since 1994, human security isconsidered vague and meaningless as a conceptual tool. As apolicy framework, human security has gained some successwith the establishment of the Human Security Network andthe Commission on Human Security, and its adoption in thenational security agendas and foreign policies of nations, suchas Canada and Japan. Other accomplishments include thesigning of a convention on anti-personnel landmines and theestablishment of the International Criminal Court. However,as Paris (2001) argued, there is still much to be desired aboutthe use of human security as a policy framework since theconcept is silent on what values should be made priorities bygovernments with limited resources.


This review of the human security discourse, which is byno means exhaustive, is structured along five areas. First, itexplores the historical context of the development of the term“human security” and its relationship with traditional or statesecurity, as well as broadened notions of security (i.e., commonsecurity and comprehensive security). Second, it presents thedebates regarding the scope and focus of human security, itsrelationship to human development, and how different statesespouse the concept in their foreign policies. Third, it brieflydiscusses the human security framework in the Philippines.Fourth, attempts in measuring human security and insecurityare critically evaluated. Finally, some theoretical andmethodological research gaps are identified that would beincluded in the research agenda for human security.

The Development of the Human Security Concept

Human insecurity is as old as humanity itself. The issues offood shortage, physical violence, and natural disasters areperpetual problems that threaten human lives. Communitiesand national governments have continually sought to protectpeople from such problems. Long before the term humansecurity itself became a buzzword, the International Committeeof the Red Cross (ICRC) has espoused the issue of humansecurity in the international arena since 1863 (UNDP 2003;DFAIT 1999). The ICRC advocated the protection ofnoncombatants in conflict situations. Even in times of war,rules of engagement needed to be followed to minimize humansuffering. In the late twenty-first century, the nature of conflictshifted from interstate to intrastate wars. The human cost ofconflict increased as battles were fought in the midst ofcommunities and away from borders. The figure of civiliancasualties has risen to 90 percent as opposed to the earlytwentieth century wherein 90 percent were military casualties(Speth in Maclean 2000). International organizations and civilsociety groups around the world increasingly viewed theimportance of protecting the individual from the repercussionsof conflict and poverty. The interests of the internationalcommunity in the humanitarian crises in Kosovo, East Timor,


Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia are testament to thecommitment of nations in promoting human security.

The era of twenty-first century globalization has given riseto common threats among countries and individuals aroundthe world. The free flow of “goods, services, finance, peopleand images” brought about by international trade makes theworld into an ever smaller space (Commission on HumanSecurity 2003). Head (in Maclean 2000) introduced the conceptof “mutual vulnerability” wherein the increase ofinterconnectedness among states corresponds to the increasein their susceptibility to the same security threats. These threatsinclude the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus(HIV), global warming, problems related to migration andrefugees, and inequalities brought about by globalization.Moreover, problems of human security in one region affectother regions in the international system. Sometimes,disturbances in a relatively weak region can even havesignificant effect on more powerful regions due to the linkagesof economic and political systems (Head in Maclean 2000; Nefin Maclean 2000). These conditions create the impetus foraddressing human security in the international community.

Bajpai (2000) asserted that the “genealogy of the idea”(authors’ italics) of human security can be traced to changesin the notions of development from the 1960s to the 1980s. AsBajpai chronicled the evolution of the concept, he cited theimportance of two independent commissions that expandedthe notions of security. These are the Independent Commissionon International Development Issues and the IndependentCommission on Disarmament and Security Issues. The formerlinks the issues of hunger, economic inequalities, and conflictas security while the latter advances the ideas of common securityand common responsibility in which the issues of the environment,population growth and migration, and undemocratic institutionsare considered security issues (Bajpai 2000). Rothschild (1995;Alkire 2002), on the other hand, went back further and gave ahistorical account of the development of “extended security” andtraced its roots to European political thought.


The term human security was first used in the 1994 HumanDevelopment Report (HDR) published by the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP). Mahbub Ul Haq, theeconomist chiefly responsible for the Humane Governance andHuman Development Indices, is the person most closelyidentified with the concept of human security. The 1994publication formally defined the concept and explicitly madethe individual the referent object of security. In 1999, theHuman Security Network was formed through the initiativesof Norway and Canada and in 2001, the Commission onHuman Security was formed with Amartya Sen and SadakoOgata as co-chairs.

Definitions and Perspectives of Human Security

Human security is essentially a contested concept. Variousscholars, nations, and institutions offer alternative definitions,implementation, and propose methods of measurement. Theseproposals range from minimalist to maximalist definitions thattend to overload the concept with various dimensions. Thistendency of defining human security in such broad or narrowterms largely depends on the interest of groups that engage intheorizing or applying the concept of human security.

Mahbub Ul Haq simply defined human security as freedomfrom fear and freedom from want. This 1994 HDR definitioneffectively categorizes the threats to human security as thoseemerging from conflicts and those caused byunderdevelopment. To adopt the peace and conflict studiesliterature, threats to human security can be seen as violence(Bajpai 2000). Johan Galtung, the father of peace research,classifies violence as direct or structural and as probable or actual.Direct violence is caused by an actor while indirect or structuralviolence is a preventable but “unintended harm” done topersons (Weigert 1999; Bajpai 2000). Appropriating thisterminology in the human security literature, direct violence iscaused by conflict and structural violence caused byunderdevelopment and natural disasters. The latter includesthreats such as the spread of infectious diseases, lack of food


and water, etc. The 1994 HDR also defined human security as“safety from chronic threats like hunger, disease and repressionand protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in patternsof daily life.” This implies that both present (actual) and future(probable) threats are taken into account and addressedthrough problem-solving and prevention mechanisms. Humansecurity attempts to address these different kinds of violenceor threats. The 1994 HDR enumerated seven dimensions ofhuman security: personal, environmental, economic, political,community, health, and food security. The UNDP formulationof human security is widely criticized as being all-encompassing that it is difficult to say what is not a human-security issue. Similarly, Nef (in HSR 2002) proposed thathuman security includes “(1) environmental, personal andphysical security, (2) economic security, (3) social security, (4)political security, and (5) cultural security” (HSR 2002). Reedand Tehranian (in Paris 2001) classified issues under humansecurity in no less than ten elements, including psychologicaland communication security.

Alkire (2002) proposed another definition of humansecurity: “(the protection of) the vital core of all human livesfrom critical pervasive threats, in a way that is consistent withlong term human fulfillment.” As a working definition, itremains ambiguous on what exactly is to be protected, who istasked with the act of protecting, what are the kinds of threats,and how these threats can be addressed. The author claimedthat determining the “vital core” of values to be protectedremains a value judgment to be undertaken by appropriateinstitutions (Alkire 2002). Leaning and Arie (2000) addressedthis conceptual ambiguity by proposing that a minimumstandard of living and cultural and psychological securityshould comprise these core values. Components of the corevalues are expressed as “1) a sustainable sense of home; 2)constructive social and family networks; and 3) an acceptanceof the past and positive grasp of the future” (Leaning and Arie2000). In defining human security, Thomas (in Alkire 2002and Paris 2001) stressed the values of human dignity anddemocracy. On the other hand, Hampson et al. (in Alkire 2002)emphasized the physical safety of the individual as the primary


objective of human security and define human security as an“underprovided public good” caused by political and marketfailures. Owen (2004a) attempted to sidestep the issue of givingpriority to various sets of core values by proposing a“threshold-based definition” with the “threats (being) includedon the basis of their actual severity” instead of being arbitrarilychosen beforehand. This definition attempts to strike a middleground between narrow and broad definitions. It showed thatthe maximalist definitions are usually based on normativegrounds; in contrast, criticisms against the maximalist positionand the preference for the minimalist definitions are based onempirical and methodological grounds.

Considerable debate still continues among scholars on thescope of human security, the dimensions of the concept, andthe core values to be protected. There is a lack of focus on thesubstantive and systematic study of threats under humansecurity. Paris (2001) argued that dimensions and values areselected arbitrarily without justification. He considered it futileto narrow down the concept of human security when it is inthe interest of its advocates to keep the concept ambiguous.He further argued that “human security is powerful preciselybecause it lacks precision and thereby encompasses the diverseperspectives and objectives of all the members of the coalition”(Paris 2001). Instead, he proposed that human security shouldonly be used as a research category of military and non-militaryissues concerning individuals, groups, and societies (Paris2001).

From Traditional to Non-traditional Security

In the latter half of the twentieth century, traditional orrealist conceptions of security were gradually challenged byextended notions of security. The concept of security has beenextended both vertically and horizontally (Krause and Williams1996). The vertical extension corresponds to the broadeningof the referent object of security. From the state, it has beenextended downward to social groups, communities, andindividuals. The horizontal extension corresponds to thebroadening of the dimensions from the political and military


in order to accommodate environmental, community, personal,physical, psychological, and food security. Human security,the latest addition, is only one of these extended notions. Other“broadened notions” include global security, common security,collective security, comprehensive security, and cooperativesecurity. Collective security is defined in the UN Charter as “asystem in which each state in the system accepts that thesecurity of one is the concern of all and agrees to join in acollective response to aggression” (Alkire 2002). In thedefinition of global security by the Commission on GlobalGovernance, there is a call for security to be “broadened fromits traditional focus on the security of states to include thesecurity of people and the planet” (Alkire 2002). As such, anenvironmental dimension is embedded in the concept.Comprehensive security, which is a security frameworkdeveloped by Japan to respond to economic and politicalthreats, became the national security doctrine of some Asiancountries such as Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia (Dewitt1993). As used in Asia, regime survival, economic stability,and social justice are the primary concerns of the securityframework (Acharya 2001; Dewitt 1993). The concept ofhuman rights is noticeably absent from the security discoursesof these Asian countries. Acharya (2001) argued that thedevelopment of comprehensive security in Asia has made iteasier for the concept of human security to gain acceptance.Common security addresses environmental and ecologicalthreats in addition to those brought about by demographicphenomena. It promotes transparency over secrecy and dispelsthe notion of balance of powers in favor of internationalcooperation. It rejects threat and the use of military force asfactors that serve to exacerbate insecurity (Dewitt 1993). Theconcept of cooperative security was adopted from commonsecurity. It advocates for “security to be pursued multilaterallybased on the principle of inclusiveness” through militaryconfidencebuilding, political dialogue, and functionalcooperation. However, as opposed to common security,cooperative security advocates “a more ad hoc multilateralism”and “recognizes balance of powers structures” (Dewitt 1993).Even with the inclusion of non-traditional issues such as socialreform, economic security, environmental security, and


international cooperation in promoting security, these conceptsmaintain the focus on the state as a referent object of security.

In 1994, the UNDP published the Human DevelopmentReport, formally introducing the concept of human securitywith personal, environmental, economic, political, community,health, and food security as its components. It differs from thetraditional conception of state or national security because itshifted the attention away from issues of territorial integrityand national sovereignty to personal welfare and wellbeingand the physical safety of individuals. Instead of addressingthe threat of warfare, the 1994 HDR addressed multiple threatssuch as generalized poverty, communicable diseases, and otherthreats to basic human rights. Maclean (2000) systematicallycompared traditional security and human security along sevendimensions (see Table 2.1 below).

Most scholars recognized the idea that state and humansecurity are complementary (Lodgaard 2000; Maclean 2000;Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2004; Kraft 2003; Acharya2001). Ensuring the security of the individual leads to thesecurity of the state but the converse is not necessarily true asthe state is sometimes the cause of insecurity. Furthermore,Axworthy (in DFAIT 1999) argued that the provision of humansecurity leads to greater state legitimacy as the presence ofhuman security “can be attributed in large measure to theeffective governance of states” (DFAIT 1999).

Table 2.1 Dimensions of traditional and human security (Maclean 2000)

Dimension Traditional Security Human Security Spatiality Teritorially sovereign Not necessarily spatially

oriented Target State Community and individual Subject matter Diplomatic and military Socio-political; socioeconomic;

environmental Pattern of control Institutionalized Non-institutionalized Decision-making Formal (political) Informal (intuitive) Potential threat Structured violence Unstructured violence Responses Diplomatic and

military; unilateral Scientific; technological; multi-lateral governance


Human Development and Human Security

There can be no human development without humansecurity (Leaning and Arie 2000). The relationship betweenconflict and development is symbiotic in the sense thatunderdevelopment and abject poverty often cause conflictsthat disrupt service delivery, employment, and generally, havea negative impact on the economy. Human security deals withthe downside risks of human development such as financialcrises, environmental degradation, and even war and conflictthrough the provision of safety nets and assistance. Humandevelopment, on the other hand, promotes expansion withequity and encourages fair trade to benefit the poor—activitiesthat contribute to human security. While Alkire (2002) assertedthat both ideas share a conceptual space, the specificdistinctions between the two, the overlaps, and the nature ofthe relationship is not given enough attention in the literature.In response to this conceptual ambiguity, some scholars preferto remove the developmental aspect in the concept of humansecurity. Human development is defined as the widening ofthe range of people’s choices, which according to Lodgaard(2000), is merely a “shorthand for freedom from want.”Focusing the concept of human security on conflict alone asdistinct from human development will enable clarity in thetheoretical aspects and in policy making. Other scholars donot mind the lack of boundaries between the two conceptsand instead argue for the incorporation of human security indevelopment policy (Mani 2005), and for the two concepts tobe used simultaneously on the issue of social protection (Zohir2006).

Competing Perspectives on Human Security

Canada is at the forefront of the human security discourse,making human security the defining thrust of its foreign policy.Human security is simply defined as the security of the peoplewith its core elements derived from the UN Charter, theUniversal Declaration on Human Rights, and the GenevaConventions. Canadian foreign policy adopts a critical standagainst the 1994 HDR. It notes that the report is too focused

political; socioeconomic;

; multi-


on the human development aspect of human security and“(y)et by the UNDP’s own criteria, human insecurity is greatestduring war” (DFAIT 1999). This definition makes a cleardistinction between human security and human development,and avoids the conceptual ambiguity in relating the twoconcepts. Bajpai (2000) critically compared the concept ofhuman security of Canada and the UNDP on the basis ofwhose security is protected, what threats and means ofaddressing threats are identified, and what values are upheld.As part of its foreign policy, Canada actively lobbies for thehuman security agenda in the UN Security Council (Heinbeckerin Maclean 2000) and uses the concept as its justification forsanctions and military intervention (DFAIT 1999; Maclean2000).

The Norwegian formulation of human security focusesexclusively on conflict, and like Canada, strongly criticizesdefinitions that include threats to human development andthe threats of natural disaster. The opposition is founded onthree key arguments. First, the core of human security shouldcorrespond to the core of state security with both centering onmaterial means (i.e., military force and physical violence).Second, Lodgaard (2000) asserted that, “all securityconsiderations should have the elements of predictability andcontrol.” Threats of natural disasters are automaticallydiscounted as human security concerns because these threatsare neither predictable nor controllable. This argument,however, discounts the fact that not all natural disasters canbe predicted, thus the extent of damage is mitigated. And third,clear and mutually exclusive analytical tools should bedeveloped. The inclusion of the development agenda in humansecurity muddles the distinction between human security andhuman development (Lodgaard 2000). Norway advocates thecurbing of the proliferation of small arms and the conduct ofpeace operations.

Thailand recognizes that the provision of state security isinsufficient and does not necessarily lead to human security.A clear example that supports this point is the problem ofresource allocation. The increase of resources allocated to the


military to combat threats to national security could correspondto a significant decrease in the resources allocated for socialservices that address threats to the security of individuals andcommunities. Hence, it is important to adopt a human securityframework that balances the economic and politicaldimensions. Acharya and Acharya (2001) asserted that theThai interpretation of human security is a “credible Asian wayof developing a human security agenda.” The Thai viewintegrates human rights, the human costs of conflict, andhuman needs in the concept of human security.

Japan’s conception of human security falls along the“maximalist” end of the spectrum by accommodating theconflict and developmental aspects of human security. TheJapanese are openly critical of the Canadian focus on conflict,and states that there can be no human security and basic dignityamidst poverty and desolation (Japan Ministry of ForeignAffairs 2004). Japan is one of the most vocal advocates ofhuman security as evidenced by its initiative to create theCommission on Human Security in 1999. Its endowment forhuman security activities from 1999 to 2004 was the largest inthe UN amounting to USD227 million. Moreover, its advocacyof human security is expressed in the Official DevelopmentAssistance Charter of Japan.

Human Security in the Philippine Context

Defining Human Security in the Philippine Context

The National Security Framework

The national security framework in the Philippinesincorporates some elements of human security. Talisayon (n.d.)enumerated (1) moral/spiritual consensus, (2) culturalcohesiveness, (3) economic solidarity/organicity, (4) socio-political stability, (5) ecological integrity, (6) territorial integrity,and (7) external peace as the elements composing a broadenedframework. Honasan and Castillo (2002) identified thefollowing as pillars or foundations of national security: social


cohesion and stability; economic prosperity and stability; andpolitical unity and stability. At first glance, it could be observedthat these concepts of national security approximate some ofthe UNDP dimensions of human security.

After the 1986 People Power movement, national securitywas redefined as the “security of the people” (Talisayon n.d.).Honasan and Castillo (2002) considered the people, regime,and state to be the referent objects of national security.However, the authors claimed that there is an artificial “dividebetween the people and state,” and that the government andthe people are the components of the state. The people orindividuals are thereby subsumed under the state. Theyrecognized that there may be divergent interests between thestate and the people, but this divergence remains unaddressed.

Institutional mechanisms are generally unable to respondto threats to human security. For example, Aguirre (1998, 20)proposed the creation of an Organization for National Security(ONS) that “refers to the structure of the decision-makingprocess that affect the national survival and general welfareand wellbeing of our people” and will be “mainly responsiblefor the management of the national security planning process.”One of the organization’s tasks is to address nontraditionalsecurity threats. However, the language used is still hingedupon a state-centered view of security. The NationalIntelligence Coordinating Agency, National Security Counciland National Intelligence Board are cited as the partneragencies for the ONS. Honasan and Castillo (2002) proposedthat diplomacy and the military should be used as the“instruments for the attainment of national security.”

The national security framework nominally considersnontraditional security threats as security issues, but does notreflect the normative underpinnings of human security. Whilethe Philippine national security framework accommodatesnon-traditional threats, its institutional capacities areinadequate in responding to such threats. Also, the termhuman security does not even appear in the documentsexamined. Thus, it can be observed that human security normsare not embedded in the security sector.


There are a number of obstacles in the inclusion of humansecurity in the national security framework and the securitysector. First and foremost, the concept of human securityemerged as a challenge to the state-centric view of security. Ithas an explicit bias for individual security over state security.It protects the people from cases wherein the state is the sourceand perpetrator of insecurity. This comes in clear conflict witha national security framework that centers on the state andsubsumes the people under the state. It assumes that the statemust be protected first since it is chiefly responsible forproviding the security of the people. Increasing demands andexpectations and the inability of the state to provide for a broadrange of the people’s needs contest this assumption. Non-traditional threats, with the exception of natural disasters, arealso seldom included in the notion of traditional security andoften subsumed under frameworks of governance and theconduct of normal politics. Lastly, the definition and conductof national security remain to be the prerogative of the military.

Defining Human Security in the Philippines

In the Philippines, various attempts have been made bythe government, civil society organizations, and otherdevelopment actors to contribute to the human securitydiscourse. The concept of human security was first introducedin the public consciousness through a 1995 conference “TheGathering for Human and Ecological Security.” At the end ofthe conference, a formal commitment was made that placedthe protection of the people and the environment at theforefront of the national agenda. This was merged with formerPresident Fidel Ramos’s Social Reform Agenda of Philippinesociety’s basic sectors to make up the people-empowermentpillar of Philippines 2000. This came a year after the term“human security” gained currency in development circles in1994. A multi-agency effort was undertaken in the middle of2004-2005 to reintroduce the concept of human security inpublic policy making. This effort led to the creation of theNational Task Force on Convergence (NTFC) in 2005 whosemandate was to “harmonize the perspectives between themilitary . . . and civilian agencies in defining and makingoperational a common framework for national security.”


In the same year as the NTFC was reworking the nationalsecurity framework, the 2005 Philippine Human DevelopmentReport (PHDR) was released. It defined human security as the“freedom from fear, want, and humiliation.” The 2005 Report,though, focused only on what it calls “ideology-based armedconflict.” It also differentiated between human security andhuman development, noting that, while “human developmentis the process that widens the range of people’s choices, humansecurity means that people can make those choices safely andfreely. [H]uman security is the external pre-condition forhuman development.” The report provided concrete indicesto measure the costs and causes of armed conflict which maybe useful in putting together an initial list of human securityindicators appropriate to the Philippines.

Developing a Human Security Framework in thePhilippines

There have been two attempts to develop a human securityframework appropriate to Philippine realities. TabangMindanaw, an organization headed by Ambassador HowardDee, developed what it calls the Justice-Based Human SecurityFramework in response to the 2005 PHDR. It points to injusticeagainst poor sectors and communities, and not poverty, as thecatalyst to armed conflict (Dee and Garilao 2005). Based onjustice, equity, and people-centered governance, the frameworkis used by Tabang Mindanaw in working with indigenouspeoples, the Bangsamoro, and the people of Basilan, Sulu, andTawi-tawi. The framework responds to the root causes ofarmed conflict. According to Ambassador Dee, for the justice-based human security framework to be adopted, three thingsare imperative. First, is to acknowledge that inequalities indeedexist; the second is to find out the reasons behind the persistenceof such inequities; and the third requisite is for institutions tobe more responsive against injustice (Dee and Garilao 2005).The thin line that separates human development and humansecurity is best described by the following quote: “Humansecurity complements state security, enhances human rights,and strengthens human development.”


The University of the Philippines Third World StudiesCenter (UP TWSC) initiated a more recent effort in 2006 bygathering a variety of viewpoints from multi-sectoral actorswith development, governance, culture, and violent conflictsituations as key themes. The four-session series focused onthe community, instead of the individual, as the referent objectof human security in the Philippine context. The proposedframework is hinged on four principles. These include “theinterconnectedness of the various dimensions of humansecurity, the centrality of land ownership and stewardship aspart of human security, the emphasis placed on communitysecurity rather than the individual, and the plurality ofunderstanding human security” based on local realities (Cabiloand Quinsaat 2007). Teresita Quintos Deles, keynote speakerin the final dialogue and former head of the Office of thePresidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP),underscored that the discourse on human security is “alreadymoving beyond the formulations of basic principles andagenda, to designing operational constructions by which onecan create, measure, and compare indices of human security.”This is the only way for the nebulous concept of human securityto be rendered useful in public policy.

Measuring Human Security

Global Attempts

The attempt to make sense of human security in concreteterms by developing various indices as a measurement tool,however, operates on concepts such as human development,human security, and human rights. The concepts of humandevelopment and human security intersect in its focus on theindividual (UNDP 2006; Alkire 2002). Questions have beenraised as to what differentiates human security from humandevelopment and human rights. Ideally, human security“builds on human development, human rights, and even statesecurity” (Ogata and Cels 2003). The nexus between humansecurity and human development lies in taking stock of boththe intentional and the unintentional, as well as negativeconsequences of development, leading to vulnerability.


The Human Development Index (HDI) was formulated tomeasure the degree by which development fosters an “enablingenvironment for people to enjoy long, healthy, and creativelives” (Human Development Report website). It seeks to measuresocioeconomic development using indicators such as lifeexpectancy, literacy rate, and purchasing power parity.However, it does not include a way to measure politicalfreedom. Other indices that complement the HDI are theHuman Poverty Index (HPI), Gender-related DevelopmentIndex (GDI), and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM).Human security, likewise, intersects with other concepts suchas peace and wellbeing. This becomes apparent when otherindices are examined. Critical of the HDI, a WellbeingAssessment1 was developed to measure the interaction ofhumans with the ecosystem and how it affects humanwellbeing. The Wellbeing Assessment consists of threecomposite indices—the Human Wellbeing Index (HWI),Ecosystem Wellbeing Index (EWI), and Wellbeing/Stress Index(WSI). The HWI claims to have a wider coverage than the HDI,with indicators including datasets on longevity and quality oflife, as well as stability of family size; microeconomic andmacroeconomic indicators of wealth; accessibility of educationservices and communication facilities; governance andpeacefulness in terms of conflict and crime; and equityindicators in the household and community level in terms ofincome, education, and participation in decision-makingprocesses in government. The EWI, on the other hand,measures the extent of man’s activity vis-à-vis the quality anddiversity of species and genes, land, water, and air. Finally,the Wellbeing/Stress Index is the intersection of the HWI andthe EWI wherein the impact of one to the other is measured interms of how well countries are able to balance human activityand the ecosystem. It is indicative of the degree to which asociety or country is “close to sustainability” and to a certainextent, the price that a particular society pays for the level ofdevelopment it enjoys.

To assess the relative peacefulness of 121 countries, aconsortium of peace advocates, composed of internationalhumanitarian organizations, academic research institutions,


and think tanks, have come up with the Global Peace Index(GPI). Extending Galtung’s (1996) definition of peace2 to includethe “conditions which are favorable to the emergence of peace”(positive peace), the determinants of positive peace became anecessary component in measuring peace. The index iscomposed of twenty-four indicators under three categories:measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict,measures of safety and security in countries, and measures ofmilitarization. Indicators were selected based on the availabilityand accessibility of data, which demonstrate the presence orabsence of peace. As with other indices, the GPI also faces“issues of bias and arbitrariness” in ascertaining peacefulness.However, as The Economist (2007) put it, “the true utility ofthe index may lie not in its specific rankings of countries now,but in how those rankings change over time, thus trackingwhen and how countries become more or less peaceful.”

While these indices measure a vast array of peace anddevelopmental concerns, the proposed methodologies onmeasuring human security fill the gap of providing a way ofevaluating the degree of vulnerability or insecurity arising fromdeprivation. In order to clarify the fuzzy concept of humansecurity, some scholars have proposed the creation of a humansecurity index, similar to the HDI, in the research agenda.Measuring human security makes it possible to define humansecurity in more concrete terms. Also, measurement helps“identify . . . human insecurities, as well as reveal chains ofcausality and cumulative impacts,” thus enabling theidentification of “causal and correlative relationships” (Owen2002). On the other hand, measuring connotes that there hasalready been a preset understanding of human security, whichidentifies what is, or what is not, human security. Furthermore,contradiction may be revealed in coming up with “objective”and “subjective” measures (Owen 2002).

King and Murray (2002) responded to this challenge andproposed that human security should be measured in “yearslived outside of a state of generalized poverty.” The individualis the unit of analysis of this measurement. The domains inthis measure include health, education, income, political


freedom, and democracy. King and Murray (2002) wanted toshift the focus solely on development, arguing that poverty isthe root of conflict. However, it is important to note that conflictsare caused by a confluence of factors and that some conflictsare fought over non-economic reasons.

The Global Environmental Change and Human Security(GECHS), a project of the International Human DimensionsProgramme on Global Change, designed an Index of HumanInsecurity. The domains included are environmental, economic,social, and institutional aspects of insecurity. Some of theindicators used are net energy imports, soil degradation, adultliteracy rates, real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita,urban population growth, life expectancy, degree ofdemocratization, and human freedom index (GECHS 2000).Although the index includes sixteen indicators, they are by nomeans exhaustive. For example, conflict as a source ofinsecurity is not given due attention.

The two indices—the Global Peace Index and the Index ofHuman Security—do not consider conflict as a dimension ofsecurity or insecurity. This is quite surprising since mostdefinitions of human security, including the one proposed bythe 1994 HDR, include conflict as a vital threat to humansecurity. The arguments of Canada and Norway cannot stressthis point enough. Also, the distinction between the indices ofhuman development and human security/insecurity isconfusing as there are overlaps on a number of dimensionsand indicators.

The Human Security Audit is different from the two indices.It does not attempt to come up with a figure that aggregatesthe multiple dimensions of human security. Instead, theUppsala/Human Rights Centre publishes data on three majorareas: human rights abuse, criminal violence, and humantrafficking. On the feasibility of creating a human securityindex, the report noted that it is “certainly not currentlypossible, and that it is probably not desirable” (HSR 2005).This is due to incomplete datasets, the advantage ofdisaggregate data over simplified composite data, and the


difficulty of measuring insecurity in highly secure countries(HSR 2005). To distill the various human securitymeasurements, Owen (2002) surveyed the works of King andMurray (2002), Bajpai (2000), and GECHS (2000) (see Table2.2). For the human security index, he suggested the use ofstatistics on mortality resulting from different causes. Thepracticality of using mortality data is attributed to thestraightforwardness of data, which avoids problemsconcerning weighting disparate indicators. Mortality statisticsis also a good measure of “a wide variety of developmentalproblems,” changing patterns of human activities, and othervulnerabilities, which approximate human insecurity. Itprovides a comprehensive view of all sources of insecurity orvulnerability, enabling a depiction of the state of humansecurity as it captures the broad concept of human (in)security.Most importantly, these data are readily accessible andavailable. Table 2.2 summarizes the initiatives to quantify theconcept of human security through different instruments.Owen (2002) critically compared the strengths and weaknessesof the definitions, dimensions, indicators, and methodologiesof these instruments. Tables 2.3 and 2.4, on the other hand,compare UNDP, Gender Development Index, the HumanSecurity Audit, the Index of Human Insecurity, and the HumanSecurity Report across various dimensions.

Developing a human security index is indeed aschallenging as defining the concept it seeks to clarify. In sodoing, two basic principles may be gleaned from the variousefforts to develop a human security index. First, capturing thebroad concepts of human security should be given carefulconsideration if a comprehensive and accurate picture of thecountry’s human security situation is to be presented. Second,the substantial divergence in the nature of human securitybetween countries, and even within states (Owen 2004a),necessitates that indicators reflect these varied realities. Thisrequires indicators to be sensitive to local realities asvulnerability in one locality may be different from another area.However, a paradox emerges as the feasibility of measuringhuman security lies on limiting indicators to measure humansecurity (Owen 2002). While the Human Security Report


exemplifies the usefulness of its Human Security Audit bymeasuring human security (or insecurity) in terms of deathsfrom armed conflicts and criminal violence (Human SecurityCentre 2005), this measurement falls short in addressing thewide array of insecurities that the concept of human securityencompasses. Owen (2004a) recognized that

[h]uman security threats should be included not because they fallinto a particular category . . . but because of their actual severity . . .all preventable harms should be considered threats to humansecurity. However, as varying harms require dramatically differentpolicy responses, any possible threat must be assessed based on itsseverity. Only those that surpass a threshold of severity should beincluded.

He, then, proposed that a “threshold-based human securitymeasure” be developed, which is determined by adopting theCommission on Human Security’s “vital core”3 of human livesand “critical and pervasive threats.”4 Thus, parameters forthreat selection are based on threats to the “vital core” ofhuman life, which determines the severity of the threat, andthe relevance of threats to regional, national, and local contexts.Identifying human security dimensions into six categoriesbased on the Commission on Human Security’s definitionrenders the ambiguous and all-encompassing concept ofhuman security as “more manageable and analytically useful”(Owen 2004a).

The challenge, then, in developing a human security indexis that a broad index requires more indicators, which aresusceptible to problematic issues of weighting, timeliness, andaccuracy (Owen 2004a).

Table2.2Surveyofhuman

securitymeasurements

(larj

Proponent

KingandMurray

(2002)

Title

Generalized

PovertyIndex

HS

Definition

a[H]uman

insecurity

asa

stat

eof

'gen

eral

ized

pove

rty'

...

[which]exists

whenahuman

beingranks

belowa

predetermined

threshold

in

anyof

anumber

ofdomainsof

well-beincf

(Owen20

02).

Dimension/s

Income

Heal

th

Education

Politi

cal

freedom

Democracy

?elybasedonOwen

Indicators

GNP

perca

pita

convertedto

purchasing

power

pari

ty

Qualityof

heal

thsc

ale

Literacyrate

oraverage

yearsof

schooling

FreedomHouse

measure

ofso

ciet

al

freedom

Fractionof

adults

ableto

part

icip

ate

inel

ecti

ons

[2002],unlessindicated)

Methodology

1.Measuringth

eYears

ofIndividualHuman

Security(Y

IHS)

,which

indi

cate

sthenumberof

yearsth

atan

indi

vidu

al

spends

inastateof

"generalizedpoverty"

usingascaleof

0to

1.

2.MeasuringIndividual

Human

Security

(IHS),

repr

esen

ting

the

proportion

ofan

individual's

life

span

that

theindividual

couldexpectto

spend

outs

ideof

astateof

generalizedpoverty.

Remarks

•"Generalized

poverty1

doesnot

nece

ssar

ily

equatewi

th

poverty

inthe

trad

itio

nall

y

understood

sense"

(Owen2002).

0)

Q.

O n 3. n a;

o"

00 i



Proponent

Kingand

Murray(2

002)

Kant

iBajpai

(2000)

Titl

e

Generalized

PovertyIndex

Human

SecurityAudit

HS

Definition

"[H]umansecurity

is...the

protection

from

direct

and

indi

rect

thre

ats

topersonalsafety

andwellbeingof

theindividual"

(Owen

2002).

Dimension/s

Dire

ctThreats

Loca

l

Regional

Nati

onal

International

Indi

rect

Threats

Soci

etal

level

Global

leve

l

Indicators

Viol

entcrime,

abuse

of

women/children

Terrorism,

genocide,

governmentrepression

Societal

violence,

inte

rnat

iona

lwar,

band

itry

,ethnic

viol

ence

Interstate

wars,

weaponsofmass

dest

ruct

ion,

landmines

Methodology

3.Aggregatingthe

YIHS

fora

particular

population

toyield

thePopulation

YearsofHuman

Security(PYHS)

1.Measuringthe

pote

ntia

lth

reat

tothe

individual.

2.Measuringthe

capacityof

the

individual

tocope

with

pote

ntia

lth

reat

s

(capacitiesof

governmentand

individual).

Remarks

Problems

(Owen

2002):

1.Problemswith

data

cont

inui

ty

andaccuracy

giventhe

broadrangeof

indicators.

2.Muchof

the

datarequired

isei

ther

aggregated

fromsparse

and

questionable

dataso

urce

s.

o n> (S.o *o 5"

io X c a>3 <S\

fb

Q.

X -o

•5 ■D 5' n



Proponent

Kant

iBajpai

(2000)

Title

Human

SecurityAudit

HS

Defi

niti

on

"Human

secu

rity

relatesto

the

protection

ofthe

individual's

pers

onal

safety

andfreedom

fromdirect

and

indi

rect

thre

atsof

viol

ence

"(B

ajpa

i

2000).

Dimension/s

Indicators

Lackof

basi

c

needs,disease,

employment

leve

ls,po

pula

tion

growthorde

clin

e,

naturaldi

sast

ers

Population

movement,

environmental

degradation,

unequal

consumption

Methodology

Remarks

3.Judgmentsabout

potentialth

reat

svs.ac

tual

phys

ical

harmare

nece

ssar

ilyconjectural

and

unlikely

tocommand

consensus.

4.Weightassignedto

thre

atsandcapacities

wouldhaveto

be

entirely

subj

ecti

ve.

5.Therearenoassurances

that

capacities

will

be

directly

relevant

toth

e

thre

atsposed.

Usesof

HSI

(Baj

pai2000):

1.Enablesth

edevelopment

ofaso

cial

earl

ywarning

system.

2.At

tent

ioncanbefo

cuse

d

onproblemareas.

o to (U

3 Q.

O n i c tu

3 ton c n TOw to



Proponent

KantiBajpai

(2000)

Title

Human

Security

Audit

HS

Definition

Dtmension/s

Indicators

Methodology

Remarks

3.Nation

aland

intern

atio

nal

prio

riti

es

mayberedefined.

4.Enablesth

esettingof

nati

onal

and

intern

atio

nalstandards.

5.Generationofnew

social

scientific

knowledgemaybe

faci

lita

ted.

Mainch

allenges

toanHSI

(Baj

pai20

00):

1.Dualproblemof

vali

dity

and

reli

abil

ity.

2.Problemsof

aggregation

ofva

riou

smeasures.

3.Thein

dexre

pres

ents

an

aggregatemeasure

at

thena

tion

allevel,

which

may

notbe

repres

enta

tive

oflocal

realitie

s.

cr>

n_

O •a X c a.n x 5"T



Proponent

Kant

iBajpai

(2000)

Global

Enviro

nmental

ChangeandHuman

Secu

rity

Proj

ect

(2000)

Titl

e

Human

SecurityAudit

Indexof

Human

Insecurity(IHI)

HS

Definition

Human

secu

rity

is

'achievedwhen

indi

vidu

alshavethe

opti

on,physically

and

poli

tica

lly,

toend

oradaptto

thre

atsto

theirenvironmental,

soci

alorhuman

rights,'

placingfocus

on*a

cumulative

causalre

lati

onsh

ip

betweenthe

environmentand

personalsafety

(Owen

2002).

Dimension/s

Soci

al

Environmental

Economic

Inst

itut

iona

l

Indi

cato

rs

Urban

popu

lati

ongrowth

Youngmalepopulation

Maternalmo

rtal

ityra

tio

Life

expectancy

Netenergyimports

Soil

degradation

Safewater

Arableland

RealGDP

perca

pita

GNP

percapita

grow

th

Adultli

tera

cyra

te

Valueof

importsandexports

ofgoodsandservices

Public

expenditures

on

defense

vs.ed

ucat

ion

Grossdomesticfi

xed

investment

Degreeof

democratization

HumanFreedomIndex

Methodology

1.Time-seriesand

nati

onal

-lev

eldata

ofallindicators

are

coll

ecte

d.

2,Standardizationof

data

into

acommon

scal

e,which

is

cruc

ialto

the

validity

ofthe

final

measurement

3.Computationthrough

clusteranalysis.

assigningadegree

ofseverity

(insecurity)

between

1to

10perindicator.

Remarks

4.While

itmaybean

'obj

ecti

ve'measure,

it

isst

illli

mite

dby

inte

rpre

tati

onsof

soci

alre

alit

y.

Posi

tive:

1.Theonly

inde

xsofar

actu

aliz

edusingreal

data.

Concerns:

1.What

isthedi

ffer

ence

betweendevelopment

and

secu

rity

as

definedbyGECHS?

2.What

differentiates

the

IHIfromtheHDI?



Proponent

Human

Security

Centre,Liu

Institutefo

r

GlobalIs

sues

,

University

of

BritishColumbia

(2005)

Titl

e

Human

Security

Report

HS

Defi

niti

on

Human

security

isachievedwhen

indi

vidu

alsare

prot

ecte

dfrom

viol

entthreats

(Human

Secu

rity

Report20

05).

Dimension/s

Physical

Indicators

Deathsfromarmed

conf

lict

s

Deathfromcriminal

violence

Methodology

Aggregationof

nati

onal

and

regi

onal

leveldata.

Remarks

Challenges

(Owen

2002

):

1.Nodata

are

collectedonth

e

abso

lute

numbers

ofconflict

deaths

peryear.

2.Theda

taare

subj

ectto

a

vari

etyof

biases.

3.Cr

imin

alvi

olen

ce

dataarealso

subj

ectto

inaccuracies...

andar

eoften

subjectto

poli

tica

l

biases.

4.Di

ffic

ulty

in

makinganannual

indexasdata

are

collectedovera

peri

odof

seve

ral

years.

00

m 2.

■g^

3 <£)

tu

x c 3 3 O)3 to

n>r»

c ^ o.

X o 3"

rt>

-a3"

"O"O 3'

to


Finding a Niche for the Human Security Index in thePhilippines

There have been efforts in the Philippines to indirectly includehuman security through the development of indicators useful indevelopment planning and governance (see Tables 2.5 and 2.6).The Institute for Strategic and Development Studies (ISDS) hascreated a security sector reform index (SSRI) in 2006 to help inmaking “informed analyses on the state of governance of thesecurity sector, as well as its reform programs and initiatives”(ISDS 2007). Human security is used as one of the frameworks inthe performance of the security sector’s mandate. The SSRI hasfive dimensions, which include “democratic principles ofgovernance; extent of powers, knowledge or awareness andcapacity of oversight institutions; performance record of oversightinstitutions and core security sector actors; security sector reformprograms; and contribution to conflict prevention and peacebuilding” (ISDS 2007). Each dimension is based on five principles:transparency, responsibility, accountability, participation, andresponsiveness.

The OPAPP is also working on developing tools to integratepeace building and conflict prevention in the planning processat the local level. It seeks to integrate human security and usea “conflict-sensitive lens” in local governance to ensure thatplans and programs are responsive to the needs of the people.According to its draft document, it will adapt the dimensionsof human security as defined by the UNDP. Local governmentunits (LGUs) use the conflict-sensitive approach to identify thevarious forms of conflict in their locality vis-à-vis the contextunder which conflict arises to determine the root causes ofconflict. This enables LGUs to draw up plans and programsthat address factors bringing about or exacerbating conflict.

According to the OPAPP, the integration of human securityis achieved when the following conditions are met:

(1) There is deeper awareness and appreciation of humansecurity and conflict-sensitive approaches vis-à-vis localgovernance;


(2) Human security and conflict-sensitive approaches areintegrated in local government processes by theinstallation of appropriate mechanisms (legislations,local ordinances, local bodies, etc.); and

(3) There is legislation-resource match for local plans.

Human security is defined as the protection of people’s“physical safety, socioeconomic wellbeing, dignity and worth,and human rights and fundamental freedoms.” This definitionreflects the notion that human development is achieved onlywhen people live in a secure and safe environment, thusensuring their human security. While the OPAPP recognizesthat the planning tool is primarily useful for local governmentsin conflict situations, OPAPP asserts that it may also benefitlocal governments that operate in relative peace. The OPAPPalso admits that the elements of human security, as defined bythe UNDP, cut across the developmental concerns in localgovernance (employment, environment, health, etc.). Thus, itis not a totally new concept in local governance. In fact, whatneeds to be done is to incorporate human security in localgovernance. It would further strengthen the protection of basicfreedoms and the provision of “basic survival needs.” It wouldempower people to make decisions and take action. Whenframed as such, the human security approach in localgovernance is quite similar with the minimum basic needs(MBN) approach, a strategy that gives priority to the “primaryrequirements to ensure that the basic needs of survival, securityfrom physical harm, and enabling needs of the individual,family, and community are attended to” (Local PovertyAlleviation Program website). The OPAPP toolkit entitled,“Vulnerability to Armed Conflict Indicators at the Local Level,”seeks to enhance the local development planning process byusing conflict-sensitive and human security approach. Itimplicitly states the importance of developing human securityindicators, which will be integrated in a local developmentindicators list, as well as in the toolkit, and a human securityindex for a conflict-sensitive and peace-promoting localdevelopment plans.


Other tools, which do not necessarily have explicit bias forthe mainstreaming of human security, have been developedto measure human security. The Philippine Human RightsInformation Center (PhilRights) developed the Economic,Social, and Cultural (ESC) Rights indicators. The ESC rightsindicators were generated through focus group discussionswith grassroots organizations in various municipalitiesnationwide (PhilRights 2002). The indicators were categorizedinto five rights—the rights to health, food, housing, work, andeducation—covering more than a hundred indicators.Providing indicators for the five ESC rights aims to make thestate accountable in delivering its commitments to theInternational Covenant on ESC Rights. As a monitoring tool,it deals with the presence or absence of goods, services, orstructures to address people’s ESC rights.

Another tool to measure the presence or absence of people’scapabilities, the Capability Poverty Measure was developedby Manasan, Gonzalez and Gaffud (1999). It assesses threedimensions of capability: quality of life, reproduction, andliteracy and knowledge. The tool makes use of three variablesthat are given equal weights. Weights, however, may bedetermined by respondents depending on the value they placeon each indicator.

Recently, the Maguindanao Working Group of theMindanao Economic Development Council (MEDCo) devisedhuman security indicators using datasets primarily taken fromthe Local Government Performance Monitoring System andother available data at the municipal level. It also drew someindicators from Rosemarie Edillon’s Vulnerability Index, whichidentified factors that lead to conflicts. The index was pilottested in Maguindanao. It covered all seven dimensions ofhuman security as defined by the UNDP. The all-encompassingindex is very much similar to the HDI. This brings to mind thequestion as to what differentiates the proposed HSI from theHDI.


In integrating conflict-sensitive and human securityapproach in local development planning, a human securityindex will be useful in measuring the extent to which insecurityoccurs in localities. Where local development plans andprograms are inadequate in ensuring human security,identifying the causes of insecurity, with the aid of humansecurity indicators and an index, makes it possible to provideappropriate responses.

Some Research Gaps and Areas for Further Research

“Human security is a term which can mean all, andnothing.” This statement comes from no less than the UN HighCommissioner for Refugees and Co-Chair of the Commissionon Human Security, Sadako Ogata. Kraft (2006) concurred bysaying that, “The concept of human security is at best vagueand at worst meaningless.” These statements accuratelycapture the ambiguity of human security. As a concept, itoverlaps with human rights, human development, andsometimes even humanitarian intervention. It has no less thanseven dimensions (based on UNDP’s definition), whichaccording to Paris (2001) are even arbitrarily chosen. Simplyspeaking, the concept has no clear boundaries and therefore,it is analytically and practically useless (Bajpai 2000). As such,the task of implementing and measuring the concept is nearlyimpossible.

The question of whether it is possible and desirable to createa human security index was raised in the 2005 Human SecurityReport. Thus far, the Human Security Index created by Kingand Murray (2002) measures a very narrow dimension ofhuman security. Countries and institutions, which do notnecessarily agree with this viewpoint, would find little use fortheir index. While the Global Environmental and HumanSecurity index highlights the issue of environmental security,it fails to incorporate the important dimension of conflict. The2005 Human Security Report also criticized both indices for notbeing regularly updated.


Despite these criticisms, Bajpai (2000) asserted that humansecurity is still relevant as a policy framework. It allows for theindividual to be at the center of the security agenda and theindividual’s welfare to be the primary concern of the state.The question brought to mind is, shall we be resigned to theidea that human security is too broad and all encompassing tobe quantified? And while human security remains functionalas a broad concept in policy making, should we keep it thatway and not seek to delimit and capture it into a singleaggregate number?

The Paradox of “Securitizing” the Individual

Yuen Foong Khong (2001) brought our attention to theparadox of focusing on individual security. Instead of puttinghumanitarian concerns at the center of the security agenda,the only things achieved are “false hopes premised on falsepriorities and causal assumptions.” The author claimed thatan issue is made a security concern in order for its status torise in the policy hierarchy. Hence, if a diverse range of humansecurity issues are put to the fore, the objective of giving priorityis defeated. Khong’s (2001) point is valid and political scientistswould have to find a way out of this theoretical conundrum.How can clear priorities be set using a human securityframework? What would be the basis of the hierarchy ofvalues? The answer to the latter question is particularly difficultgiven that there are different values for various communities,individuals, and social groups. The institution responsible forconsolidating these “priorities” would have to face difficultdecisions in ranking values and would always run the risk ofmaking arbitrary judgments.

Objective and Subjective Aspects of Human Security

Another methodological problem in the study of humansecurity is whether human security should only considerobjective measures such as net energy imports, adult literacyrates, real GDP per capita, urban population growth, lifeexpectancy, degree of democratization, human freedom index,etc. The Latvia Human Development Report (UNDP 2003)


focused on individual’s sense of security or “a person’s internalstate of feeling secure resulting from the cumulative effect ofobjective and subjective factors.” The Latvia Report introducedthe concept of “securitability” described as “the ability to avoidinsecure situations and to retain a sense of security when suchsituations do occur, as well as the ability (to) reestablish one’ssecurity and sense of security when these have beencompromised.” The focus on psychological factors means thatit is worth looking at individual perceptions of threat andsecurity. Questions in the survey instrument of the LatviaReport included the degree of satisfaction with life, theperception of (the respondent’s) ability to prevent and mitigatethreats to their security, level of trust in others, etc. Howimportant is measuring a person’s sense of security comparedto measuring absolute indicators of security? How do theabsolute and subjective measures of human security interact?Could there be a human security index that includes a senseof security and securitability?

The next chapters will focus on the data gathered by theUP TWSC through a number of research techniques in orderto develop a human security index for the Philippines.

Notes

1 For more details, visit the International Sustainability IndicatorsNetwork website.2 Galtung (1996) defined peace as the absence of war and conflict,which he termed as “negative peace.”3 This constitutes the minimum level of survival.4 This establishes the severity and immediacy of threats.5A discount rate is the value you place to a future possession.6 Indicators of HDI, HPI, GDI, and GEM are based on theTechnical Note 1 of the “Analytical Tools for HumanDevelopment” of the Human Development Report.7 Methodologies of the HDI, HPI, GDI, and GEM are based onTechnical Note 1 of the “Analytical Tool of Human Development”in the Human Development Report 2006. You may access full detailsand examples of computations from the Technical Note 1 found


in the Human Development Report (HDR website).8 The Dimension Index is computed by using this formula:Dimension Index = Actual value – Minimum valueMaximum value – Minimum value9 Equally Distributed Index = {[female population share (femaleindex-1)]} + {[male population share (male index-1)]} -110 EDEP = {[female population share (female index-1)]} + {[malepopulation share (male index-1)]} -111 See Capuno (2000) for more detailed discussion of theGOFORDEV Index.

References

Acharya, Amitav. 2001. Debating human security: East versuswest. Paper presented at the 15th Asia Pacific Round Table,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Acharya, Arabinda, and Amitav Acharya. 2001. Human securityin Asia: Conceptual ambiguities and common understandings. York:York University.

Aguirre, Alexander. 1998. National security: Concepts andorganizations. National Security Review 18: 2.

Alkire, Sabina. 2002. A conceptual framework for human security.CRISE Working Paper No. 2. University of Oxford: Centerfor Research on Inequality, Human Security, Ethnicity (CRISE).

Axworthy, Lloyd. 1999. Foreword to Human security: Safety forpeople in a changing world in the Department of Foreign Affairsand International Trade (DFAIT). http://summit-americas.org/Canada/HumanSecurity-english.htm/ (accessed June 26, 2007).

Bajpai, Kanti. 2000. Human security: Concept and measurement. KrocInstitute Occasional Paper #19:OP:1. Indiana: University ofNotre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

Cabilo, Zuraida Mae D., and Sharon M. Quinsaat. 2007. Towardsa human security framework in the Philippine context. InDefining the human security framework in the Philippine context:Proceedings of the Third World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series


2006, ed. Third World Studies Center, 117-123. Quezon City:Third World Studies Center in partnership with the ConflictPrevention and Peace-Building Programme (CPPB) of theUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP)–Philippines.

Capuno, Joseph. 2000. Good governance index: Advocating goodgovernance for local development. Issues and Letters(December). Quezon City: Philippine Center for Policy Studies.

Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. 2004. Putting guns in their place:A resource pack for two years of action by humanitarian agencies.Geneva, Switzerland.

Commission on Human Security. 2003. Human security now.Commission on human security report. New York.

Dee, Howard, and Ernesto Garilao. 2005. A justice-baseddevelopment as a fundamental right. A reaction to thepresentation of the highlights of the 2005 Philippine HumanDevelopment Report, Heritage Hotel, Pasay City, Philippines.

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT).1999. Human security: Safety for people in a changing world.http://summit-americas.org/Canada/HumanSecurity-english.htm/ (accessed June 26, 2007).

Dewitt, David. 1993. Concepts of security for the Asia-Pacific regionin the post-cold war era: Common, comprehensive, andcooperative security. Draft paper presented at the 7th AnnualAsia-Pacific Roundtable, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Galtung, Johan. 1996. Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict,development and civilization. Oslo: International Peace ResearchInstitute.

Global Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS).2000. The index of human insecurity. Aviso 6, http://www.gechs.org/aviso/06/index.html/ (accessed June 26,2007).


Hampson, Fen Osler, Jean Daudelin, John Ray, Holly Reid, andTodd Marting. 2002. Madness in the multitude: Humansecurity and world disorder. Quoted in Sabina Alkire, Aconceptual framework for human security (University of Oxford:Center for Research on Inequality, Human Security, Ethnicity,2000).

Head, Ivan. 1991. On a hinge of history: The mutual vulnerabilityof South and North. Quoted in George Maclean, Institutingand projecting human security: A Canadian perspective (AustralianJournal of International Affairs 54: 3, 2000) 269-276.

Heinbecker, Paul. 2000. Interview in Canada World View. Buildinga safer world. Quoted in George Maclean, Instituting andprojecting human security: A Canadian perspective (AustralianJournal of International Affairs 54: 3, 2000) 269-276.

Honasan, Gregorio, and Michael Eric Castillo. 2002. A nationalsecurity framework for the Philippines. National Security Review20 (December).

Human Security Centre. 2005. Human security report: War and peacein the 21st century. New York and Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Human Security Report: A proposal. 2002. Paper presented tothe 4th Ministerial Meeting of the Human Security Network,Santiago, Chile.

Human Security Report. 2005. War and peace in the 21st century.Human Security Report Project, Human Security Centre, LiuInstitute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia,Canada.

Institute for Strategic and Development Studies. 2007. SSR Update1 (May).

Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2004. Diplomatic bluebook.http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/2004/index.html/(accessed June 25, 2007).


King, Gary, and Christopher Murray. 2002. Rethinking humansecurity. Political Science Quarterly 116 (4): 585-610.

Kraft, Herman Joseph. 2003. Human rights, security, anddevelopment in Southeast Asia: An overview. In vol.3 ofDevelopment and Security in Southeast Asia: Globalization, eds.David B. Dewitt and Carolina Hernandez, 115-35. Aldershot,England: Ashgate.

Kraft, Herman Joseph. 2006. 11 September 2001 and humansecurity. OSS Digest 1st-2nd quarter: 11-20.

Krause, Keith, and Michael C. Williams. 1996. Broadening theagenda of security studies: Politics and methods. MershonInternational Studies Review 40: 229-254.

Leaning, Jennifer, and Sam Arie. 2000. Human security: A frameworkfor assessment in conflict and transition. http://www.certi.org/publications/policy/human%20security-4.htm%20/ (accessedJune 27, 2007).

Lodgaard, Sverre. 2000. Human security: Concept andoperationalization. http://cpdsindia.org/globalhumansecurity/operationalisation.htm/ (accessed June 27, 2007).

Maclean, George. 2000. Instituting and projecting human security:A Canadian perspective. Australian Journal of International Affairs54 (3): 269-276.

Manasan, Rosario G., Eduardo Gonzalez, and Romualdo B.Gaffud. 1999. Indicators of good governance: Developing an indexof governance quality at the LGU level. Philippine Institute ofDevelopment Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 99-04.Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Mani, Devyani. 2005. Strengthening decentralized governance forhuman security. Paper presented at the United NationsDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs-United NationsCentre for Regional Development (UNDESA-UNCRD)Workshop on Decentralization, Poverty Reduction,Empowerment, and Participation as Part of the InternationalConference on Engaging Communities, Brisbane, Australia.


Nef, Jorge. 1995. Human security and mutual vulnerability.Quoted in George Maclean, Instituting and projecting humansecurity: A Canadian perspective (Australian Journal ofInternational Affairs 54:3, 2000) 269-276 and in the HumanSecurity Report: A proposal (The 4th Ministerial Meeting of theHuman Security Network, Santiago, Chile, 2002).

Official website of the Action for Economic Reforms. http://www.aer.ph/

Official website of the Human Development Report. http://hdr.undp.org/

Official website of Vision of Humanity for the Global Peace Index.http://www.visionofhumanity.com/introduction/index.php/

Official website of the Local Poverty Alleviation Program. http://www.evis.net.ph/~lpap/primer/page01.htm/

Official website of the International Sustainability IndicatorsNetwork. http://www.sustainabilityindicators.org/workgroups/NIC/PreMeetingMaterials.html/

Official website of Transparent Accountable Governance. http://www.tag.org.ph/

Ogata, Sadako, and Johan Cels. 2003. Human security—protectingand empowering the people. Global Governance 9 (3): 273.

Owen, Taylor. 2002. Body count: Rationale and methodologiesfor measuring human security. Human Security Bulletin 1 (3)(October).

_____. 2003. Measuring human security: A new view ofCambodian vulnerability. MA thesis, Geography Department,University of British Columbia.

_____. 2004a. Challenges and opportunities for defining andmeasuring human security. Disarmament Forum 2 (June).


_____. 2004b. Human security—conflict, critique and consensus:Colloquium remarks and a proposal for a threshold-baseddefinition. Security Dialogue 35 (3): 373-87.

Paris, Roland. 2001. Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air?International Security 26 (2): 87-102.

Philippine Human Rights Information Center. 2002. Economic, socialand cultural rights: The grassroots’ view: ESC rights standards andindicators setting project phase II. Quezon City: Philippine HumanRights Information Center.

Reed, Laura, and Majid Tehranian. 1999. Evolving securityregimes. Quoted in Roland Paris, Human security: Paradigmshift or hot air? (International Security 26 [2], 2001), 87-102.

Rothschild, Emma. 1995. What is security? Daedalus 124 (3): 53-98.

Speth, James Gustave. 1994. New dimensions of human security:The human development report. Quoted in George Maclean,Instituting and projecting human security: A Canadian perspective(Australian Journal of International Affairs 54:3, 2000) 269-276.

Talisayon, Serafin. n.d. The framework of national security.

The Economist. 2007. Ranking countries by “peacefulness.” May 31,2007.

Third World Studies Center (TWSC). 2007. Defining the humansecurity framework in the Philippine context: Proceedings of the ThirdWorld Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series 2006. Quezon City:Third World Studies Center in partnership with the ConflictPrevention and Peace-Building Programme (CPPB) of theUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP)–Philippines.

Thomas, Caroline. 2000. Global governance, development, andhuman security the challenge of poverty and inequality.Quoted in Sabina Alkire, A conceptual framework for humansecurity (University of Oxford: Center for Research onInequality, Human Security, Ethnicity, 2000) and in Roland


Paris, Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air? (InternationalSecurity 26 [2]: 87-102).

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2003. Latviahuman development report. http://www.undp.lv/?object_id=633/ (accessed June 27, 2007).

_____. 2006. Analytical tools for human development. HumanDevelopment Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vision of Humanity. 2007. Peace and sustainability: Cornerstonesto survival in the 21st century. Discussion Paper for the Globalpeace index. Australia.

Weigert, Kathleen Maas. 1999. Structural violence. Encyclopedia ofViolence, Peace, and Conflict 3: 431-440.

Yuen Foong Khong. 2001. Human security: A shotgun approachto alleviating human misery? Global Governance 7 (3): 231-236.

Zohir, Sajjad. 2006. Social development and human security: Issuesand perspectives. Human Resource Development Network.


Human Security Perspectives from Above/Cabilo, Baviera & Delias 89

Chapter Three

HUMAN SECURITY PERSPECTIVESFROM ABOVE:

RESULTS OF THE KEY INFORMANTINTERVIEWS

Zuraida Mae D. CabiloMara Yasmin S.P. Baviera

Dina Marie B. Delias

The key informant interviews (KIIs) conducted by theproject team sought to draw the perspectives of lawmakers,key policy makers, members of the academe, andrepresentatives from nongovernment organizations (NGOs).It was a means to present the perception of key actors whocan shape the policy landscape and inform the prospects ofmainstreaming human security. The KIIs attempted to enjointhe participation of the various national government agenciesthrough their representatives, which include the core securityactors, specifically the military and police, and other civilianagencies to get a general picture of how human security isunderstood and embedded in national policies. Representativesof relevant committees in the legislature were also invited totake part in the study, particularly those with jurisdiction onmatters relating to security and human security, using thedefinition taken from the University of the Philippines ThirdWorld Studies Center (UP TWSC) Policy Dialogue Series 2006entitled “Towards a Human Security Framework.”

The attempt to be exhaustive, however, proved to bechallenging with majority of the target respondents decliningto participate in the exercise. In most instances, heads ofnational government agencies or their representatives weretoo busy to grant the request for an interview. Some, however,such as the Department of Justice and the Office of SenatorJuan Ponce Enrile expressed interest in participating in the


exercise but were not able to do so because of schedulelimitations. Notably, representatives from the military,particularly the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), agreedto two interviews. Other agencies from the so-called securitysector,1 however, were not as obliging. In most cases, attemptsto set up an interview appointment were hindered by thebureaucratic process. The duration allotted for the interviewsfrom September 2007 to December 2007 was not able toaccommodate the tedious process the interview request wassubjected to. Despite these limitations, the research teaminterviewed twenty-three respondents: seven from nationalgovernment agencies, three from the legislature, eight fromnongovernment organizations and media groups, and fivefrom the academe2 (see Table 3.1 for the detailed list of keyinformants).

The same set of guide questions was used for allrespondents. The interview focused on the respondents’ ideasof security in general and in the process, their identification ofthreats to the various dimensions of human security.Respondents were also asked to pinpoint the sources of thesethreats, as well as policies and mechanisms that need to beinstalled to promote and protect human security with respectto their mandate. With the passage of the anti-terrorism billknown as the “Human Security Act of 2007,” reference to thenew law was deliberately kept at a minimum unless therespondents mentioned it, so as not to deviate from the statedobjective of the interview, which was to elicit an understandingof human security from the perspective of key governmentagencies, NGOs, and academic institutions.

Concepts of Security and Human Security

There are still two prevailing concepts of security amongthe respondents: that of the state-centric versus people-centereddefinition. Those from the so-called security sector view humansecurity as an intrinsic component of national security anddefine human security as the protection of one of thecomponents of the state—the people.


Table 3.1 Key informants

National Government

Agencies Legislature

Nongovernment Organizations

and Media Groups

Academe

Commissioner Jannette Serrano National Commission for Indigenous Peoples

Sen. Rodolfo Biazon Chair Committee on National Defense and Security Senate

Mr. Wilnor Papa Coordinator Amnesty International- Philippines

Dr. Jasmin Nario Galace Center for Peace Education Miriam College

Chair Purificacion Quisumbing Commission on Human Rights

Rep. Leonila Chavez Butil Partylist Chair Committee on Food Security House of Representatives

Mr. Max de Mesa Spokesperson Citizens’ Council for Human Rights; Chair Philippine Alliance for Human Rights Advocates; Board of Trustees Member Task Force Detainees of the Philippines

Dr. Mary Racelis Institute for Philippine Culture Ateneo de Manila University

Atty. Evelyn Dunuan National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women

Rep. Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel Akbayan Partylist House of Representatives

Ms. Edeliza Hernandez Executive Director Medical Action Group

Atty. Carlos Medina Executive Director Ateneo Human Rights Center Ateneo de Manila University

Sec. Esperanza Cabral Department of Social Welfare and Development

Ms. Nymia Pimentel-Simbulan Executive Director Philippine Human Rights Information Center

Atty. Ibarra Gutierrez Institute for Human Rights College of Law University of the Philippines Diliman


Generally, there was a blurring of the definitions anddifferentiations between security and human security. Securitywas viewed in a variety of ways and the sources of threatsstemmed accordingly from the idea of security. The AFP clearlyviewed security as national security and human security as anintrinsic component of national security. According to theconstitutional mandate of the AFP, the protection of humanwelfare is one of the duties of the institution. The idea of humansecurity should complement and not replace the frameworkof national security. Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, a former chief-of-staff of the AFP and now serving as chair of the SenateCommittee on National Defense and Security, echoed the sameview on human security as part of the larger national (or state)

Table 3.1 Key informants

National Government

Agencies Legislature

Nongovernment Organizations

and Media Groups

Academe

Sec. Domingo Panganiban National Anti-Poverty Commission

Mr. Ariel Castro Trade Union Congress of the Philippines

Ret. Commodore Carlos Agustin National Defense College of the Philippines

Col. Rey Ardo Office of Strategic Studies Armed Forces of the Philippines

Mr. Red Batario Executive Director Center for Community Journalism and Development

Col. Juanito Dalmas Deputy Chief of Staff for Civil Military Operations, J7 Armed Forces of the Philippines

Mr. Jose Torres Executive Director National Union of Journalists of the Philippines

Ms. Resurrecion Lao-Manalo Executive Director Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-Asia


security framework. He elaborated that national security isthe protection of the state and its various elements—territory,people, and government—from any threat. Human security isconcerned with the protection of one of the components of thestate—the people. More specifically, human security isconcerned with ensuring that an individual is protected fromphysical harm that may be inflicted by criminals/terrorists,3

as well as to guarantee the people’s constitutional rights thatinclude access to resources, services, and power as representedby political rights.

When talking about human security, the interview withColonels Ardo and Dalmas took a substantive turn when thedynamics between the two concepts of security anddevelopment were discussed. While the military’s mainresponsibility is the provision of security, at times it cannothelp but perform functions that contribute to development.Examples of the military’s developmental functions includebuilding schools, waterworks, and other basic services. Animportant highlight is that the National Security Council citessecurity, development, and governance in the national securityframework. While the developmental roles of the military canbe dismissed by some as lip service or superficial, the militaryperforms some basic governance functions, especially in areasnot reached by local governments. Soldiers build schools andbecome teachers and engineers. These functions are built intotheir training and the military is also trying to build aninstitutional framework that would allow it to perform theseroles through linkages with key executive departments.Although this might be worrying for advocates of theseparation of military and civilian functions, it cannot be deniedthat in practice, executive departments such as theDepartment of Health and the Department of Environmentand Natural Resources regularly contact the military for helpin their projects. This may be because the personnel andresources of the military are easier to mobilize and put to use.The AFP respondents stressed, however, that the military onlyperforms a support role to lead agencies that were chieflyresponsible for various projects.

Academe

Commodore Carlos Agustin National Defense

of the Philippines


On the other hand, NGO and party-list representatives,other nonsecurity government agencies, and members of theacademe offered a vastly different outlook from the traditionalnotion of security. Interviewees from this group recognizedthe evolving context and nature of security issues, especiallyin terms of the need to broaden the understanding and scopeof these issues from a primarily military concern to a morepeople-oriented issue. In particular, there is an emphasis onthe necessity of the interlinked rights-based approach to humansecurity in order to ensure the people’s right to an acceptablequality of life at the minimum. Human security is equated withupholding human rights that include civil and political rightsas well as economic, social, and cultural rights. Akbayan Rep.Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel, however, noted that theidea of human security presents an alternative that challengestraditional notions of national security.

Members of human rights organizations, as well as nationalgovernment agencies (National Commission on IndigenousPeoples, National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women,and the Commission on Human Rights) asserted that they viewhuman security through the lens of human rights. Theperspectives of the Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights-Asiaand the Institute of Human Rights of the UP College of Laware very similar—that security can be viewed as the fulfillmentand realization of basic entitlements. These entitlements areaccessed, claimed, and availed, instead of merely beingprovided by the state and other actors, as their resources wouldpermit. As opposed to needs that can be satisfied, they use theframework of entitlements that should be met and of theobligations of the state toward the fulfillment of theseentitlements.

To differentiate human security from human rights, thelatter is composed of inherent, fundamental rights in people,which therefore do not need legislation, while legislationsembody the mechanisms and processes by which humansecurity is enhanced. The purpose of laws on human rights isto codify the obligation of the state to respect, protect, andfulfill its commitments to international treaties. Human


security, on the other hand, is based on the combination ofcivil and political rights, and economic, social, and culturalrights. It is a concept to describe the process of striking a balancebetween individual and community security.

Threats, Sources of Threats, and the VariousDimensions of Human Security

Respondents have identified several crucial threats thataffect the various dimensions of human security, which theyconsider as crucial. The security sector highlighted armedinsurgency, territorial disputes, transnational crime, andinternational terrorism committed by nonstate armed actorsas threats to the sovereignty of the state, as well as to publicsafety (personal security). The proliferation of small arms isalso identified as a threat to the personal and political securityof individuals and communities. Both state instrumentalitiesand nonstate armed groups are seen as contributing to thegrowing concern on small arms proliferation. Another relatedthreat is the lack of reform in the police and the military sectors,which threatens political and personal security. Poverty,resulting from the failure of the state to provide for the basicneeds of its people, threatens the economic, food, and healthsecurity of individuals and communities. The threat of povertyis exacerbated by political bickering among politicians (localand national levels) and the different political movement actors.Another threat identified is “development aggression” resultingfrom the state’s economic policies, as well as the incursion ofmultinational companies in local communities, which threatenthe traditional economic systems, health, environmental, andpersonal security in local communities. Finally, social andcultural conditions are seen as a source of personal and politicalinsecurity with the violation of the rights of women andindigenous people’s communities.

However, there is still a significant articulation oftraditional security issues such as terrorism, crimes, the NewPeople’s Army, Moro groups, and small leftist groups thatcontribute to a “volatile political situation” and these comprise


the present major security concern. This view is tempered,however, by an awareness among most interviewees of themore comprehensive scope of human security, often related tohuman rights (again, reaffirmations of the necessity of thehuman rights approach, as well as recognition of the causesand factors of security issues, such as poverty).

Equally important is the emphasis on the multi-facetednature of the threats to human security and its sources. Internaland external sources of threats have been identified. Inparticular, within the Philippines, there are actors that threatenhuman security, like non-state actors, e.g., armed groups, whoare responsible for creating violent situations and insecurities,and who also commit human rights violations. Somerespondents saw the state and its actions as human rightsthreats and abuses. For example, the Human Security Act isseen as a major security issue. External actors, such as otherstates and multinational corporations, have been identified assources of threat. According to one interviewee, thegovernment’s relationship with other countries, like the UnitedStates, creates vulnerabilities for the Philippines. The VisitingForces Agreement is used as an example that would act as amagnet for America’s enemies to attack the Philippines.Another external source of threats are the agenda ofmultinational companies, for example, in mining thatundermine the security of people, and the very nature of“development” introduced by these companies are questioned.

Table 3.2 below summarizes human security threats andtheir sources as identified by the respondents. The respondentsidentified six major threats that affect the various dimensionsof human security. For instance, the threat of aggression as aresult of the implementation of development projects affectseconomic, personal, health, and environmental security. Thestate, while it is seen as a key actor in mitigating threats tohuman security, is identified as a source of this threat resultingfrom its economic policies, along with multinational companieswho are supposed to improve economic conditions in theirareas of operation. The threat of armed insurgency and smallarms proliferation, on the other hand, are threats that comefrom both state instrumentalities and nonstate armed groups,


which put the economic and personal security of individualsand communities in a precarious position. Other threats andtheir corresponding sources include territorial disputes,transnational crime, and international terrorism; poverty; theviolation of rights of women and indigenous people’scommunities; and the lack of reform in the security sector. Itmust be noted that the state is singled out in most cases as thesource of threats to various dimensions of human security.

Table 3.2 Summary of responses on threats and sources of threats

Threats Sources Dimensions

Development aggression State’s economic policies, multinational companies

Economic, health, personal, environmental

Armed insurgency, small arms proliferation

State instrumentalities (military and police) and nonstate armed groups (NPA, MILF, etc.)

Economic, personal

Territorial disputes, transnational crime, international terrorism

Nonstate armed groups Personal (public safety)

Lack of reform in the security sector resulting to restiveness among junior officers

State (military and the police)

Personal, political

Poverty Failure of the state to provide for the basic needs of its people; political bickering among politicians, as well as political movement actors

Economic, food, health

Violation of the rights of women and indigenous people’s communities

Social and cultural conditions

Personal, political


Role of State and Non-State Actors

Across all respondents, there is a consensus about thecentral role of the state in enhancing or undermining, in aidingor abetting the extent by which human security is promotedand protected. The interviewees generally agreed that it ismainly the state’s responsibility to provide human security.However, some interviewees contended that due to the failuresof the state in assuming this responsibility, the private sectorand civil society organizations should also be involved. Non-state actors, specifically NGOs and people’s organizations, arealso seen as facilitators in communities when there is a threatto individual and community security in the absence of thestate. The academe’s role is seen as challenging the existingparadigm that provides the framework for policies thatundermine human security. Moreover, all respondents agreedthat engagement, dialogue, and collaboration should becontinued in response to threats to human security.

Policies and Programs to Address Threats

When it comes to identifying the policies and mechanismsto address human security threats, there is a tendency to focusonly on one dimension of human security, depending on themandate and advocacy of the organization. Other mechanismsidentified include advocacy for representation, education tofoster understanding among different cultures, andstrengthening check-and-balance mechanisms, which is crucialwhen there is a failure in institutions and processes.Engagement, dialogue, and collaboration remain to beimportant mechanisms to promote and protect human security.Among the specific measures provided by the respondentsinclude:

(1) Formulation of enabling and domestic laws to furtherenhance rights (e.g., in support of international humanrights treaties) and advocacies for specific sectors;

(2) Strict implementation of existing human security-relatedpolicies;


(3) Review of policies, especially in terms of theirimplementation and impact on people (e.g., the HumanSecurity Act);

(4) Monitoring of human rights and governmentcompliance to international laws, such as theInternational Covenant on Civic and Political Rights(ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic,Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR);

(5) Education and information dissemination, especiallyabout human rights; and

(6) Genuine participation and sincere dialogues amongstakeholders.

The concept of human security largely determines theresponses of various actors on human security issues.Specifically, viewing human security as a function of humanrights necessitates long-term and strategic solutions to problemssuch as changes in economic, social, political, and culturalparadigms. For the military, its specific programs that addresshuman security concerns are expressed through its support ofthe programs of various government agencies such as theDepartment of Health, Office of the Presidential Adviser onthe Peace Process, the Department of Education, Departmentof Trade and Industry, and the Department of Environmentand Natural Resources. The National Development Plan of1999-2000 cites the integration of security and developmentwork in the AFP. There are also initiatives to analyze thecapability of the AFP in performing such functions.

The perspective of human security in terms of emergencyresponse, on the other hand, takes a shorter timeframe torespond to the immediate needs of people. In this case, theconcern for immediate response is to provide temporary reliefto prevent further loss of life.


Notes

1 These include the Department of National Defense, Departmentof Interior and Local Government, National Security Council, andthe Philippine National Police.2 These groupings are based on current/official affiliation.However, some of the respondents may have overlappingaffiliations, e.g., four members of the academe are also active inseveral nongovernment groupings with human rights-relatedadvocacies. Two respondents, Senator Biazon and Ret.Commodore Agustin, obviously were from the military beforeassuming their current posts.3 While Senator Biazon admits that there is no universally accepteddefinition of terrorism, he defines terrorists as those who havedisregard for the lives of victims to advance political, ideological,and religious interests.

Views from Marginalized Groups/Atienza 101

Chapter Four

VIEWS FROM MARGINALIZED GROUPS:FINDINGS FROM THE FOCUS GROUP

DISCUSSIONS1


The purpose of the focus group discussions (FGDs) was todraw the views of various sectors, particularly marginalizedgroups, regarding their sense of security, critical and pervasivethreats, indicators of various dimensions of human security,and conditions in which human security could exist (see FGDguide, Appendix 3). The project conducted eight FGDs in thesurvey areas. The details of the FGDs are in the table below.

As mentioned in chapter one, the FGDs were designed fortwo purposes. The first is to generate qualitative though limiteddata that could be used to compare and validate quantitative

Table 4.1 FGD profiles

Province Date Location Composition Number of Participants

Metro Manila Nov. 21, 2007 Quezon City Urban poor from various parts of Metro Manila

4

Cagayan Province

Feb. 20, 2008 Tuguegarao City

Indigenous people from various parts of Cagayan

8

Albay Feb. 13, 2008 Daraga City College students mostly from poor families and different areas in Albay

8

Negros Occidental

Feb. 5, 2008 Bacolod City Representatives from farming communities in Negros Occidental

6


data gathered from the surveys. The second purpose is to ensurethat the viewpoints of select marginalized groups on humansecurity are represented in the research. Are their humansecurity concerns and notions of human security similar ordifferent from those of government and nongovernmentorganizations (represented by data from the key informantinterviews) and household respondents of the survey?

Time, budget, and practical research constraints preventedthe project from conducting more than one FGD per province,as well as purposely selecting marginalized groups asrespondents in the survey. Thus, each FGD conducted is notrepresentative of the views of the people per province. Instead,they are snapshots or anecdotal evidence of human securityperspectives and concerns of people who attended the FGDsand are members of specific marginalized groups. Yet, thesedata may provide a good starting point for a more exhaustiveand focused research in the future on human securityincorporating the views “from the margins” of society. Theresearch team believes that since human security is supposedto address critical and pervasive threats to individuals andcommunities, it is important to listen to the views of peoplewho are often neglected in the discourse on human security.

Table 4.1 FGD profiles

Province Date Location Composition Number of Participants

Western Samar

Feb. 22, 2008 Catbalogan City

Women from various sectors in Catbalogan City

9

Surigao del Sur Feb. 2, 2008 Bislig City Indigenous people from Bislig City

5

North Cotabato Feb. 12, 2008 Kidapawan City

Farmers from Barangay Linangkob, Kidapawan City

6

Sulu Feb. 27, 2008 Jolo Fisherfolks 7


Sense of Security, Major Concerns, and Sources ofSecurity Threats

There was . . . a time when I asked help from them [the army]because we were continually harassed by PICOP [a papercompany] due to some land dispute resulting to allegedunaccounted deaths of countless Lumads. But the army andgovernment agencies concerned did not even help us. Theyrefused to provide protection.(translation)

- Surigao del Sur FGD Male participant,Mandaya

The mining company uses the military or the police to resolveconflicts between the company and local residents. In the faceof this, some local people might be forced to either armthemselves or to link up with nonstate armed groups as astrategy to balance the power equation in light of their issuesagainst the mining company. (translation)

- Negros Occidental FGD participant

Most FGD participants in all sites, except in CagayanProvince, said that they did not feel secure as individuals. Inthe case of the Albay FGD, some participants said that whilethey did not feel secure as individuals, they at least felt securewithin their own families. In the all-women Western SamarFGD, most participants answered that they were not secure;though some said that they were secure because of theirhusbands, families, and faith in God. In the North CotabatoFGD, while participants were generally not secure, they wereat least physically secure because there was relative peace andorder in the community now. They were no longer affected byarmed conflicts.2

The top three issues that caused the participants the mostconcern in the past year, i.e., 2007 to early 2008, and the generalcategories of issues, ranked according to the frequency of beingmentioned, were as follows:

(1) Economic and financial issues;(2) Environmental issues (degradation and calamities due


to natural and man-made causes);(3) Political issues; and(4) Health and sanitation issues.

Economic and financial issues topped the list of issues thatFGD participants identified as causing the most concern intheir lives. These included unstable livelihood or employment,difficulties in sending children to school, increasing cost ofgoods and rising fuel prices, failure to pay land taxes in thecase of FGD participants in Negros Occidental, and lack offarm-to-market roads and other problems of accessibility inremote areas in Albay and Western Samar. In certain cases,companies were the source of financial worries, i.e., miningcompanies in Negros Occidental and, Paper IndustriesCorporation of the Philippines or PICOP Resources, Inc.,,3 amajor paper company in Surigao del Sur.

Environmental issues ranked second place. Environmentaldegradation was mentioned in the Albay, Negros Occidental,Surigao del Sur, and Sulu FGDs. Identified as culprits are bigcompanies like Colet Mining (Negros Occidental) and LafayettePhilippines, Inc.4 (Rapu-rapu, Albay), as well as harmfulpractices like dynamite fishing, improper waste disposal ofhouseholds and piggeries, and logging. Natural calamities werementioned in the FGDs in Albay, Western Samar, and Suluparticularly due to the geographic location of certaincommunities. In Albay and Sulu, natural calamities like floods,volcanic eruptions, landslide, and typhoon were the foremostconcerns of FGD participants. Man-made calamities causedby mining in Negros Occidental, as well as illegal logging anddeforestation, were also noted by the participants.

Political issues ranked third and these included corruptionand abuse of power (Metro Manila), patronage (CagayanProvince), the government’s lack of political will or inability tointervene in illegal or harmful activities of some largecompanies (Surigao), changes in local administration afterelections that affect employment in the local government(Western Samar), and the assignment of then Maj. Gen. JovitoPalparan5 in the area (Western Samar). However, some


participants in the Western Samar FGD said that Palparan’spresence could actually limit or deter vices and crimes in thearea.

A fourth set of issues involved health and sanitation. FGDparticipants in Cagayan Province, Albay, and Sulu mentionedillnesses and diseases caused by extreme weather conditions,natural disasters, and mining activities.

Some other issues cited were specific to the areas. In theAlbay and Surigao FGDs, participants referred to the increasingnumber of migrants as a cause for concern. Albay and Suluparticipants noted the presence of vices and crimes.Interestingly, only FGD participants from Albay mentionedthe presence of the New People’s Army (NPA) as one of theirtop three issues of concern in the past year. Other issuesincluded food shortage after typhoons (Albay), pests thatthreaten agricultural production (Western Samar), andfertilizers that are costly and potentially harmful (WesternSamar and North Cotabato). All these concerns wereconsidered threats to the security of the participants in theeight FGDs.

When asked about the sources of the security threats, theFGD participants listed the following:

(1) Political sources: politicians (Metro Manila and Sulu),government’s inability to intervene when a particulargroup is causing these threats, different priorities ofgovernment like allowing certain companies to operatein a particular locality and not addressing the threatsto the people (Negros Occidental and Sulu), changes inlocal administration (Western Samar), and politicalconflicts (Sulu);

(2) Economic sources: poverty (Metro Manila and Albay),powerful and abusive companies (Negros Occidentaland Surigao del Sur), and manipulative traders (NorthCotabato);

(3) Illegal logging (Albay and Sulu);(4) Natural environment, i.e., calamities, pests, and


geographic location (Albay and Western Samar);(5) Improper waste disposal (Albay);(6) Military operations affecting civilians (Sulu); and(7) Lawless elements (Sulu).

Different Categories of Threats

A lot of changes happened that caused us to suffer. In thepresence of PICOP and the coal mining industry, the lives oftribes are threatened. These big industries had control over ourproperties and wealth. They have no respect for us . . . and sadto say, they were tolerated since they have connections. Theyare partners in destruction. (translation)

- Surigao del Sur FGD Female participant

The threat that I consider the most is the presence of the NewPeople’s Army in our place because when night time comes,the people in our place are already inside their respective housesbecause everyone is afraid that these “nice” people might passby. (translation)

- Albay FGD Female participantCollege student

Regarding the different types of threats, the FGDparticipants gave different answers to what they consider asshort-term threats. Most of the answers are generally based onthe composition of the FGD participants and the profile of theircommunities. Composed of indigenous peoples (IPs),participants from the Cagayan Province and Surigao del SurFGDs mentioned discrimination against or nonrecognition ofthe rights of IPs as a short-term threat. The urban poorparticipants in the Metro Manila FGD mentioned sidewalkclearing operations of the Metro Manila DevelopmentAuthority that disrupt their livelihood and the absence of unityamong vendors as threats. Albay FGD participants pointedout high transportation costs, difficulties in reaching the townproper, as well as improper garbage disposal. NegrosOccidental FGD participants identified food insecurity as aresult of mining. Surigao del Sur FGD participants alsomentioned the nonimplementation of laws and lack of political


will on the part of government and the military to protect thepeople. In North Cotabato, farmers pointed out pests and skindiseases caused by use of fertilizers. Meanwhile, FGDparticipants in Sulu mentioned financial difficulties due tounstable sources of livelihood.

As for long-term threats, economic difficulties topped thelist of threats mentioned. Participants in the FGDs (with theexception of Western Samar and Sulu) considered economichardships as long-term threats. Again, it is only in the AlbayFGD where NPA presence or presence of an armed threat tothe state was considered a long-term threat. Threats consideredlong term are as follows:

(1) Economic difficulties;(2) Presence of businesses harmful to the communities, i.e.,

mining companies in Albay and Negros Occidental,PICOP in Surigao del Sur, and traders manipulatingprices of goods in North Cotabato;

(3) Dismal state of politics (Metro Manila and CagayanProvince);

(4) Environmental concerns (Albay, Negros Occidental,and North Cotabato) and natural calamities (Sulu);

(5) Demolition of squatter settlements (Metro Manila);(6) Food insecurity (Negros Occidental);(7) Health risks of fertilizers (North Cotabato);(8) NPA presence (Albay); and(9) Vices (Sulu).

For severe threats, economic difficulties once again toppedthe list followed by natural and manmade environmentalconcerns. The full list of severe threats mentioned by the FGDparticipants is as follows:

(1) Economic difficulties (Cagayan Province, Albay, MetroManila, Negros Occidental, North Cotabato, and Sulu);

(2) Natural disasters/calamities, as well as geographic andclimate-related problems (Cagayan Province, Albay,and Sulu);

(3) Manmade environmental threats (Albay and Negros


Occidental);(4) Presence of NPA and other peace-and-order problems

(Albay and Sulu);(5) Threats or discrimination against IPs (Cagayan

Province);(6) Hunger (Negros Occidental); and(7) Presence of a paper company considered as a source

of environmental problems (Surigao del Sur).

For what participants considered as critical threats thatimpact core activities and functions, the most common answersinclude: (1) poverty and other financial difficulties (CagayanProvince, Albay, Metro Manila); (2) mining-related activities(Albay and Negros Occidental); and (3) health and sanitationproblems (Cagayan Province and Albay). Other answersinclude politics (Cagayan Province), floods (Sulu), and militaryoperations against lawless groups (Sulu).

For pervasive threats or those that are large-scale or recurrentdangers, Albay and Sulu participants both identified floodsand other natural calamities. In the Surigao del Sur FGD, theparticipants pointed out drug addiction of young people. InAlbay, participants identified financial problems and poverty,mining, and health problems. In North Cotabato, FGDparticipants complained about traders who buy theiragricultural products at low prices and then sell them at veryhigh prices. In Sulu, FGD participants pointed out kidnappingsand illegal vices.

For the question Why do you think it is necessary to beprotected from these threats?, some of the FGD participantsanswered that it is the people’s right to be protected. Theyhave a right to a better life with no worries. The future mustalso be secure for their children. In Albay, some of theparticipants answered that if they are protected from thesethreats, they can make a better contribution to nationaldevelopment. In the Sulu FGD, meanwhile, the answer is basic:they need to be protected particularly from floods so thatfisherfolks and children can resume their regular activitieswithout interruptions.


It must be noted that participants considered economicthreats to be the most important, followed by natural calamitiesand other environmental disasters. Some of the sites mentionedinsurgency-related, as well as peace-and-order problems, butthey did not top the list of threats.

Specific Indicators of Human Security

Ang problema naming mga Agta, hindi kami makapag-aralkasi, kulang sa pambayad . . . Yung kita namin sa araw na ito,husto lang para din sa araw na ito. Bukas, maghahanap kaulit para sa pagkain mo bukas. Kaya yung mga bata, hindi rinnamin mapag-aral. [Our problem is not being able to get aneducation because we do not have the money . . . our dailywages are just enough for the day. You find a way to feedyourself the next day. That is why we don’t send our childrento school]. (translation)

- Cagayan Province FGD Male participantAgta, Tuguegarao

Opinion lang ito ni Mama . . . Kahit i-deny daw ng DENRna walang food poisoning or walang chemical leakage (becauseof Lafayette Mining), meron daw. Di pa rin po kami pinapakainni Mama ng isda. [This is just my mother’s opinion . . . Even ifDENR denies that there is food poisoning or that there ischemical leakage (because of Lafayette Mining), some say thereis (food poisoning and chemical leakage). My mother still doesnot feed us with fish.] (translation)

- Albay FGD Male participantCollege student, Rapu-rapu Island

Corruption is still present. What we want to happen is forgovernment to help us. They must not always favor PICOP. Itseems we lost our freedom of expression. (translation)

- Surigao del Sur FGD Male participantChieftain, Kamayo-Mandaya

For the third part of the FGDs, participants were asked toidentify specific indicators of human security by asking them


about what they consider as threats in relation to the sevenspecific dimensions of human security. While most participantsanswered in terms of threats, a few of them also identifiedpositive indicators of human security along the variousdimensions. Some of the threats identified are applicable orcommon in many areas while some are very specific to theFGD sites and participants. Their answers appear in Table 4.2.

Most FGD participants, based on their answers, have clearideas about threats to certain dimensions of security. They areable to distinguish between threats to themselves and their families,on the one hand, and threats to their community, on the other.Sometimes, however, their answers clearly show overlaps ofthreats across several dimensions or linkages of certain dimensionsof human security to other dimensions. For instance, economicsecurity is related to food security. Economic difficulties can affectone’s ability to buy rice and other food products. Declining

Table 4.2 Indicators of human security according to FGD participants

Dimensions of Human Security Threat Indicators Positive Indicators

Economic Security General: 1. Loss of livelihood, e.g.,

agriculture, or destruction of sources of livelihood

2. Lack of livelihood opportunities or alternatives to original livelihood

3. Unstable livelihood 4. Financial difficulties to

sustain children’s education

5. Rising prices of basic commodities and gasoline

6. Occasional sickness that drain families’ financial resources

7. Lack of capital 8. Vicious cycle of

indebtedness




Environmental Security Man-made threats: 1. Road widening and

construction that cut into mountains

2. Illegal logging and rampant cutting of trees

3. Absence of reforestation programs leading to denuded forests

4. Dynamite fishing 5. Blasting of rocks due

to mining that might cause landslides

6. Acid mine drainage and heavy metal contamination of soil and bodies of water

7. Destruction of the natural habitat of fauna endemic in the area

8. Loss of endemic flora due to mining activities

9. Reduced or no water sources due to mining

10. Pollution 11. Lack of water

treatment system 12. Inability of

government to implement environmental laws




Health Security 1. Having serious illness 2. Malnutrition among

children 3. Floods and other

natural disasters causing diseases

4. Unsafe, contaminated drinking waters

5. Polluted air and water 6. Poor sanitation and

improper garbage disposal leading to diseases

7. No hospitals or health centers in immediate area

8. Expensive private clinics and hospitals

9. Poorly equipped hospital facilities

10. Limited or no supply of free and/or cheap medicines, especially vitamins and vaccines for children in health centers

11. Expensive medicines 12. Discrimination and

patronage system in obtaining the services of government hospitals

13. Limited skills of doctors, nurses, and other personnel in public facilities

14. Increasing population

1. Easy access to health centers

2. Good health facilities 3. Free or affordable

medical services 4. Regular health outreach

programs in the area 5. Adequate supply of free

or affordable medicines, e.g., Botika sa Barangay




Personal Security 1. Suspicion or biases of government and others, e.g., employers, against those who are members of “progressive” or “leftist” organizations

2. Being labeled by the military and local governments as NPA sympathizers or legal fronts of insurgency simply on the basis of one’s resistance to the entry of certain companies, e.g., mining

3. Threats/harassment due to one’s political affiliation during campaigns and elections

4. Physical aggression or criminal acts like sexual harassment, kidnappings, and hold-ups

5. Presence of intoxicated people at night

6. Drug addiction

1. No incidence of physical violence


agricultural production and fish catch can definitely affect foodsupply. Environmental security is related to health security.Natural disasters like floods, as well as man-made disasters likechemical spills in rivers and seas, lead to health risks and sickness.Changing weather patterns or climate change can also affectagricultural productivity, livelihood, and food security. Inaddition, some threats to community, personal, and politicalsecurity mentioned by the participants overlap with each other.

The interconnectedness of the threats in various dimensionsof human security support the 2005 Philippine Human DevelopmentReport’s (PHDR) observation that one form of threat do not ariseseparately and cannot simply be highlighted on its own or solvedseparately (De Dios, Santos, and Piza 2005). As the PHDR stated,“one form of insecurity leads to another,” creating a cycle ofhuman insecurity (De Dios, Santos, and Piza 2005, 2). As some ofthe FGD participants from Negros Occidental asserted, thegrowing insecurity of farming communities with respect to theirlivelihood in the presence of a mining company may lead some totake up arms when no peaceful alternative is in sight. Similarly,natural calamities, as in the case of some Albay and Sulu residents,have been the cause of drastic disruption of social and economicactivities, psychological trauma, and collective insecurity.

Kagaya nyan, yung mga fields na mababa lang, palaging underwater. So, we as farmers are spending much lalo na yung binibilimo ang . . . certified seeds, then fertilizer, then maa-under water. . . Malaking gastos. [Our fields are always under water. So, weas farmers are spending much especially in buying . . . certifiedseeds, then fertilizer, only for our plants to go under water.](translation)

- Cagayan Province FGD Female participantTuguegarao

Sa economic po, hindi po talaga kami secure being in therelocation site which is 13.5 kilometers from the town.Nahihirapan po talaga kami sa livelihood programs. [Being ina relocation site 13.5 kilometers away from town, we are notreally secure in economic terms. The livelihood program isvery difficult for us.] (translation)

- Albay FGD Male participantCollege student, Daraga


Paano namin maaalagaan ang mga anak naming nag-aaralkung ang iniisip namin ay yung lupa? Kasi, sa amin yon. Samga Agta ang lupa. Wala sanang umagaw na Kristyano paramai-concentrate namin ang buhay namin, para maalagaannamin ang mga anak namin. [How can we take care of ourchildren who are in school when our primary concern is theland? The land is ours. The Agta owns the land. The Christiansshouldn’t occupy the land so that we can focus on our livesand take care of our children.] (translation)

-Cagayan Province FGD Female participantAgta, Tuguegarao

Addressing Human Security Threats and ImprovingHuman Security

For me, personal ang pagdadasal . . . I am not only praying formy direct na pamilya . . . lahat ng mga tao . . . pati outside thePhilippines pinagdadasal ko na . . . they will be protected fromdifferent calamities, especially in Taiwan. Palagi dawlumilindol doon. [For me, prayer is personal . . . I am not onlypraying for my family . . . but for all people as well . . . I prayeven for those outside the Philippines . . . to be protected fromdifferent calamities, especially in Taiwan. Earthquakes oftenoccur there. One of my daughters is working in Taiwan.](translation)

- Cagayan Province FGD Male participantTuguegarao

Sa calamity . . . kailangang handa ka. Kahit na dasal ka ngdasal, hindi ka naman handa . . . Ipaghanda mo yan. [Oneshould be prepared in times of calamities. Even if you oftenpray yet you are not prepared . . . You should prepare for that.](translation)

- Cagayan Province FGD Male participantTuguegarao

Wag tayo umasa sa gobyerno. Wag nating asahan yung mgadole-outs. Siguro, work tayo for our own. [We should not relyon government. We should not rely on dole-outs. We shouldwork for our own.] (translation)

- Cagayan Province FGD Female participantTuguegarao


FGD participants were asked about what can be done tomitigate the threats they had identified. The most commonanswers are the following (according to frequency mentioned):

(1) Proper and balanced information drive and awarenesscampaigns about these threats;

(2) Being more disciplined, particularly self-discipline andpersonal development;

(3) Prayers; and(4) Strict and consistent implementation of laws.

Other answers include the following:

(1) Proper planning;(2) Focusing on poverty alleviation, like provision of sound

economic and employment opportunities;(3) Fair and merit-based hiring and job placements;(4) Disaster management and preparedness;(5) Eradicating corruption;(6) Open communication and cooperation between the

people and government;(7) Making use of local government units (LGUs) and

processes like barangay and purok (neighborhood)assemblies to protect the interests of the people;

(8) Achieving consensus among residents regardingthreats, e.g., mining;

(9) Respect and protection of people;(10) Provision of adequate land to diversify crops; and(11) Managing and monitoring prices of food and other

commodities.

In the Sulu FGD, there is a feeling of helplessness abouttheir situation. Participants feel that there is nothing more thatcan be done.

When participants were asked if they think they can,together with others, do something to prevent or mitigate thepotential threats to general security, participants in theCagayan Province, Albay, and Negros Occidental FGDsanswered yes. Participants in Metro Manila expressedhelplessness.


Regarding agencies or organizations that could help inaddressing their security concerns, the government is acommon answer as the primary agency in all FGD sites exceptSurigao del Sur. By government, the FGD participantsmentioned, in particular, crucial agencies that deal with theirsecurity concerns, e.g., the Department of Agriculture,Department of Environment and Natural Resources,Department of Health, Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment, Bureau of Food and Drugs, NationalCommission on Indigenous Peoples, National DisasterCoordinating Council, National Economic and DevelopmentAuthority, etc., as well as local governments and officials (chiefexecutives and Sanggunian). Other common answers includeNGOs, people’s organizations, cause-oriented groups, andparty-list groups like Akbayan and Bayan Muna, as well asacademic institutions. Participants also included the CatholicChurch, Rotary Clubs and Free Masons, the Filipino-ChineseChamber of Commerce, network of human security advocates,security agencies, international agencies providing assistance,like the Organization of Islamic Conference (in the case of Sulu),and individuals themselves (Western Samar).

As to their feeling of security during the FGDs, participantsin Metro Manila, Negros Occidental, Surigao del Sur, and Sulustated that they did not feel secure. In Cagayan Province, allparticipants except one described themselves as more securethan before. In Albay, the answers were mixed, depending onthe circumstances of the participants. In North Cotabato,participants were more secure mainly due to the absence ofarmed conflict at that time.6 However, the high prices of goodsremain to be a major concern.

When participants were asked about what they thinkshould be done to improve human security, most answers pointto the important roles of the government and the peoplethemselves. For the government’s part, FGD participantspointed out the provision of livelihood opportunities, improvedperformance, systemic change, giving priority to people’sinterests, recognition of people’s basic rights, good governance,full implementation of rules and regulations, price monitoring


and regulation, and total deregulation in the planting of trees.On the part of the people, many participants noted that self-discipline is important. They also mentioned self-help, diligenceand initiative; instilling in children respect, fear in God andgood values; investing in education of children; people’sparticipation; and unity. They also mentioned cooperationbetween the people and the government. In the case of Surigaodel Sur, FGD participants suggested joint verification ormonitoring of local government, PICOP, and DENR.

Summary of FGD Findings

Based on the FGDs with marginalized sectors, most FGDparticipants did not feel secure as individuals. Regarding long-term, severe, and critical threats to human security, economicthreats remain the top concern, followed by natural calamitiesand other environmental disasters. Since the provinces whereFGD participants reside are labeled as conflict areas (or have ahistory of conflict), some of the participants in some sitesmentioned insurgency-related, as well as peace-and-orderproblems. However, these conflict-related threats did not topthe list of threats. Participants considered all types of threatsas threats to human security.

Participants cited some sources of threats, namely political,economic, and environmental sources of threats. Politicalsources, which appeared to be the most numerous, includepoliticians themselves, the perception of a weak government,changes in local administration, and political conflicts.Economic sources include poverty, powerful and abusivecompanies, and manipulative traders. Environmental sourcesinclude the natural environment, as well as practices like illegallogging and improper waste disposal. Military operations andlawless elements were also mentioned.

FGD participants have clear ideas about threats to specificdimensions of human security. Their answers are based ontheir own personal experiences or their sectoral or communitycircumstances, e.g., as urban poor, members of indigenous


communities, residents of disaster-prone areas or mining areas,relocated communities, etc. Some participants also have clearideas about the positive indicators of human security in itsvarious dimensions.

In addressing the various threats to human security, themost common answers include: (1) proper and balancedinformation drive and awareness campaigns about the threats;(2) developing more discipline and enhancing personaldevelopment; (3) prayers; and (4) strict and consistentimplementation of laws. Most participants think that they cando something about the threats, though there is a feeling ofhelplessness among some of the urban poor participants fromMetro Manila and fisherfolks from Sulu. National governmentagencies and LGUs, civil society groups, and the peoplethemselves are considered important in addressing humansecurity concerns—they all must work together. Otherparticipants also mentioned the academe, church groups, andinternational agencies as possible agents of change. However,most participants considered relevant national governmentagencies and local governments as having critical roles in theprocess.

Notes

1 This chapter is based on transcripts and highlights of the FGDproceedings prepared by various documenters hired by theproject. Their names are listed in Appendix 1.2 After the FGDs and surveys were conducted, another series ofarmed encounters and disturbances began in North Cotabato,drastically changing the security situation in the area.3 According to the official website of Bislig City, Surigao del Sur,as well as the Vista Pinas website, PICOP is a multibillion-pesopulp and paper mill with main operations in Bislig City. The millis the largest industry in the city and one of the largest papermills in the country. It used to be the largest paper mill in Asia.4 Lafayette Philippines Inc. has ceased its mining operations inthe island of Rapu-Rapu, Albay after much publicizedenvironmental damage documented by both government and


nongovernment agencies and groups. However, mining continuesin the island with new companies managing the operations.5 Palparan, now a retired major general and a former party-listrepresentative, was also the former commanding general of thePhilippine Army. He was controversial because human rightsgroups and opposition groups branded him as a “butcher” dueto his long list of alleged human rights abuses in every area hewas assigned. However, former President Gloria MacapagalArroyo promoted him several times, and in her 2006 State of theNation Address, Macapagal-Arroyo acknowledged Palparan forhis offensives against “rebel terrorists.”6 This will change if the participants were asked the same questionprobably two months later, when fresh fighting started in thearea.

References

De Dios, Emmanuel, Soliman Santos Jr., and Sharon Faye Piza.2005. The fifth Philippine human development report: Peace, humansecurity, and human development in the Philippines. Quezon City:Human Development Network and the United NationsDevelopment Programme.

Official Website of the City Government of Bislig. http://www.bislig.gov.ph/ (accessed 25 July 2009).

Official Website of Vista Pinas. http://www.vistapinas.com/article/picop-causeway/ (accessed 25 July 2009).

Measuring Human Security/Lusterio Berja 125

Chapter Five

MEASURING HUMAN SECURITYIN THE PHILIPPINES

Clarinda Lusterio Berja

Background

This study maintains the centrality of the individual in theconcept of human security. A survey in selected conflict areasis conducted to determine the level of human security asperceived and experienced by individuals as the referent objects.

Previous attempts to measure human security focused onthe provisions that eliminate human insecurity (i.e., health,knowledge, safe water, electricity) since empirical evidenceshows that investments in these arenas reduce the likelihoodof armed conflict (De Dios, Santos, and Piza 2005). This study,however attempts to incorporate the individual’s perceptionabout security. It argues that human security is not only abouteliminating the source of insecurity but also being able to makechoices safely and freely.

This survey seeks to develop a human security index (HSI)that would serve as a planning and evaluation tool to guidepolicy making of key government agencies and civil societyorganizations. The HSI describes the scope and magnitude ofhuman security in the Philippine context as it incorporatesdimensions, which need to be taken into account in the processof conflict prevention and peace building.

Specifically, its main goal is to generate data on the differentdimensions of human security, the context in which humansecurity exists, and the susceptibility, exposure, coping, andadaptive capacity of individuals to threats. It will identify thephysical, social, economic, environmental, and institutional


features that either result to or prevent threats. It also aims toconstruct a human security benchmark in the Philippines. Thebenchmark would be from the perspective of individuals inthe community using an index that encapsulates humansecurity dimensions such as economic, food, health,environment, personal, community or cultural, and politicalsecurity.

Geographic Scope and Sample Size

This survey includes seven provinces and two cities in MetroManila as study areas. These study areas include Pasay City,Marikina City, Albay, Cagayan Province, Negros Occidental,Western Samar, North Cotabato, Surigao del Sur, and Sulu—selected because of their history of armed conflict. Based onthe 2005 Philippine Human Development Report, North Cotabatoand Sulu were among the top ten provinces with the highestnumber of armed encounters from 1986 to 2004 involving theMoro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) or the Moro NationalLiberation Front (MNLF). Likewise, Albay, Cagayan Province,Metro Manila, and Surigao del Sur were among the top tenprovinces with the highest number of armed encountersinvolving the New People’s Army (NPA). The two provincesin the Visayas region, Western Samar and Negros Occidental,also have a history of armed conflict. Western Samar was inthe list of ten most vulnerable provinces by the indicator ofhuman insecurity as well.

Five barangays were randomly selected from each area (thetwo cities in Metro Manila were treated as one area). Thesample for each area consists of 100 households selected bysystematic random sampling, with one respondentinterviewed from each household, alternating between maleand female respondents to ensure an equal distribution ofrespondents by gender. The household head or the spouse ofthe household head, or any responsible adult knowledgeableabout the characteristics of the household and its members,was interviewed.


The survey started in November 2007 and completed inJanuary 2008, with a total of 800 face-to-face interviews. Theinterview dates were:

(1) NCR: November 2007(2) Luzon: November 2007-December 2007(3) Visayas: November 2007-December 2007(4) Mindanao: December 2007-January 2008

Socioeconomic and Demographic Profile of SurveyRespondents

Table 5.1 below summarizes the socioeconomic anddemographic characteristics of survey respondents.Respondents from Metro Manila accounted for 12.5 percent;Luzon, 25 percent; Visayas, 25 percent; and Mindanao, 37.5percent. There are slightly more female than male respondents(51 percent versus 49 percent). About half of the respondentsbelong to the middle-aged group (30 to 49 years old); a thirdbelong to the older age group (50 years old and above); whileonly 18 percent are in the younger age group (below 30 yearsold). A large majority (80 percent) are married. There are morerural than urban dwellers (59 percent versus 41percent). Oneout of five respondents belong to a minority group—Badjao,Bagobo, Ibanag, Itawes, Kamayo, Kamayo Maguindanaon,Maranao, and Tandaganon.

More than one third (35 percent) of the respondents havereached elementary level. One out of three respondentsattended high school while only 15 percent reached college.About 58 percent of the respondents are currently employed.Housewives account for the majority of the unemployedrespondents (60 percent). Those looking for work account for12.5 percent and about 10 percent are retirees. The mainsources of income are wages (53 percent) and owning abusiness (18 percent). The median monthly family income isfive thousand pesos.


Table 5.1 Sociodemographic profile of survey respondents Characteristics Percent

Sex Male 49.3 Female 50.7 N of cases (800) Age Group Below 25 years old 8.6 25-29 9.3 30-39 25.8 40-49 24.3 50-59 19.1 60 and above 13.0 N of cases (800) Marital Status Never Married 80.2 Currently married 10.7 Not currently married 9.1 N of cases (787) Place of residence Urban 41.5 Rural 58.5 N of cases (800) Religion Catholic 73.1 Protestant 6.6 Iglesia ni Cristo 1.0 Islam 14.4 Other 4.9 Percent who belong to a minority group 22.4 N of cases (796) Ethnicity (Dialect mostly spoken at home) Tagalog 15.6 Cebuano/Bisaya 15.9 Ilonggo/Hiligaynon 13.6 Ilocano 8.5


this study is also exploring, such as food security, healthsecurity, economic security, personal security, environmentalsecurity, community security, and political security. Figure 5.1below shows the distribution of responses across the five-pointscale used.

Figure 5.1 Perceived level of threat on the differentdimensions of human security

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Food

Se

curity

He

alth

Secu

rity

Econ

omic

Secu

rity

Pers

onal

Secu

rity

Envir

onm

enta

l Se

curity

Co

mmu

nity/

Cultu

ral

secu

rity

Politi

cal

secu

rity

5.00 Very high

4.00 High

3.00 Moderate

2.00 Low

1.00 Very low

Generally, the respondents rated moderately the extent ofthreat to the seven human security dimensions. The perceivedthreat is highest in economic security and lowest in communitysecurity.

2. Experience of Violent Conflict in the Community

About one third of the survey respondents in all areasreported that they have experienced violent conflict in theircommunity. The highest incidence is in Cagayan Valley (54percent) and the lowest is in Albay (10 percent). More thanhalf of the respondents continue to experience violent conflictup to now.


3. Perception about Community Safety

Majority of the survey respondents think that their level ofsafety remained the same (77 percent). This is true in all fourstudy sites. Six out of ten survey respondents described theircommunity as safe most of the time and all the time.

4. Perception about Potential Threats to GeneralSecurity

The top three potential threats to general security that werementioned by the survey respondents were hunger, disease,and environmental disasters. Other threats mentioned werehigh crime rates and political instability.

5. Perception about Capability to Prevent or MitigateThreats to General Security

About four out of ten of the survey respondents think thatthey are (or together with others) capable of preventing ormitigating threats to general security. Sulu registered the lowest,with only 11 percent who think that they have the capabilityeither to prevent or mitigate security threats.

6. Perceived Levels of Threat to Security

As shown earlier in Figure 5.1, perceived levels of securityare lowest in terms community/cultural security and politicalsecurity. Also, more than half of the respondents have lowand very low environmental and personal security.

Composite Measure for Perceived Threat to HumanSecurity

To determine whether an index using these indicators is areliable measure of the extent of threat to human security, thereliability analysis technique is employed. The analysis yieldeda Cronbach’s Alpha of .88 which means that the indexcomposed of the seven indicators is an excellent composite


measure. The inter-item correlations are all above 0.33 whichimplies unidimensionality or that the items represent a singleconcept. Table 5.6 lists the inter-item correlations in a matrix.

Thus, the index of perceived threat to human security isderived as the sum of the scores for each of the seven indicators.The computational formula is:Perceived threat score = (J5A+J5B+J5C+J5D+J5E+J5F+J5G)/35 * 100

This measure yielded an average score of 56.98 with astandard error of 0.78. Thus, the estimated level of humansecurity threat at 95 percent confidence interval is 56.98 +/-(1.96 * 0.78 = 1.5288). This means that 95 percent of the time,the true level of threat is between the values 55.45 to 58.51.

As shown in Table 5.7, threat is highest in NegrosOccidental where the mean rating for threat is 75 percent.Sulu registered the second highest (74 percent), and NorthCotabato, the third highest (58 percent). On the other hand,Western Samar and Metro Manila both scored the lowest witha 46 percent rating. The rest of the provinces—Surigao delSur, Cagayan Province, and Albay—all scored below thenational average.

Freedom from Want: Economic, Food, Health, andEnvironmental Security

Economic Security

Consistent with the national poverty estimates, the surveydata revealed that two out of five respondents consideredthemselves poor, and a large majority think that they eitherremained poor or became even worse off. It seems that there isno improvement in the condition of the poor. As shown inFigure 5.2 below, 19.6 percent of those who were not poorbecame better off than their poor counterparts (19.6 percentversus 6.7 percent).


Aside from perceived poverty, the respondents are alsoasked whether there are employment opportunities for themlocally and internationally. Only half of them think that thereare employment opportunities available for them in theircommunity. Fewer of the respondents (37 percent) think thatthere are overseas employment opportunities for them.

Food Security

When asked if they had ever experienced food scarcity intheir barangay, about 29 percent of the respondents responded

Figure 5.2 Perceived level of poverty

6.7 19.6 16.2 23.4 18.5 15.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Poor Not poor

Worse off Just the same Better off

Table 5.7 Index of perceived threat AREA Mean N Std. Error of Mean Pasay & Marikina 46.4784 86 2.02026 Albay 50.5280 92 1.76693 Cagayan Province 53.4039 81 2.27746 Negros Occidental 74.6273 92 1.97779 Western Samar 46.0714 96 1.61295 North Cotabato 58.2684 99 1.57003 Surigao del Sur 53.5714 76 2.04365 Sulu 73.9964 79 1.94622 Total 56.9839 701 .77597


Figure 5.4 Natural disasters experienced in the area

56.8

5 4.8 4.2 6.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Typhoon Earthquake Volcanic eruption Land slide Flooding

while the rest listed earthquake, volcanic eruption, andlandslide.

When asked about other environmental problems that theyhad experienced, 37.2 percent mentioned flooding. Othersconsidered waste disposal as their problem while 16.3 percentreported pollution and toxic wastes from factories as their mainenvironmental concern.

Aside from being a direct threat to their lives, manyrespondents (75 percent) think that environmental problemsaffected economic activities in the community. Data revealed that75 percent of the respondents claimed that the environmentaldisaster slowed down their economic activity.

Aside from the economic repercussions, environmentaldisasters also affected the health of the respondents. When askedabout access to safe drinking water, only 46 percent said thatthey have access, 35.4 percent reported that they have direct pipedwater connection, and 10.4 percent reported that they buy purifiedwater.

Freedom from Fear/Protection of Rights

Figure 5.4 Natural disasters experienced in the area

Landslide


Personal Security

Seven percent of the respondents claimed that they were avictim of crime in the past year but only half of these crimeswere reported. Seven percent is considered a high figure—thenational rate is only nine per 10,000 population.

Community Security

About 58 percent considered their community as generallysafe. Lack of livelihood was mentioned as the most serious

Figure 5.5 Other environmental problems

Figure 5.6 Experience of crime in the past year

14.5

37.2

1.8

21.6

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Pollution Flooding Toxic factory wastes Waste disposal

93 3.5

3.5 7

Not a victim Victim, reported Victim, not reported


50

2.4

29.7 15.5

2.4

0

20

40

60

80

100 Police

Military

Barangay

LGU

Public prosecutor

security issue in the community. When asked if they hadexperienced armed conflict in their locality, one out of fiverespondents said yes. They also mentioned that armed conflictmade the peace-and-order situation in their locality worse (65percent). It also caused loss of economic opportunities forresidents (51 percent). As a result of armed conflict, peoplestarted moving out of the community—about 42 percent of therespondents mentioned high out-migration rates as one of theeffects of armed conflict. A quarter of the respondents indicatedthe death of relatives as one of the effects of armed conflict intheir area.

Figure 5.7 Type of crime experienced

Question: What is the nature of the physical aggression or criminal act?

Figure 5.8 Agency to which crime was reported

Question: To what agency or institution did you report the crime?

20

2.4

11.9 8.3

0 5

10 15 20 25

Theft

Kidnapping

Property disputes

Shooting


Data also revealed that although the effects are extensive,the perceived level of capacity to mitigate or prevent armedconflict in their area was low. Only three out of ten respondentsthink that they are capable of preventing or mitigatinginsurgency in their locality.

Political Security

Corruption, election, and insurgency are the top threepolitical concerns that affect the respondents. On the questionof trust in government, there is relatively higher trust on localofficials compared to national government officials.

39

19

27

4

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

All the time

Most of the time

Sometimes Rarely Not at all

Figure 5.9 Perceived safety in the community

Question: Would you describe your community as safe . . . ?


Figure 5.10 Most serious security issue

Question: In your opinion, what are the top three most serioussecurity issues that your community faces?

Question: Did you ever experience having armed conflict due toinsurgency in your locality?

34

15 6

46

13

34

58

16

0 10

20 30

40 50

60 70

Crim

e

Insur

genc

y

Ethn

ic co

nflict

Natur

al

disas

ter

Pollu

tion

Healt

h and

sa

nitati

on

Lack

of

liveli

hood

Othe

r,spe

cify

Figure 5.11 Experience of armed conflict due to insurgency in the locality

Pasa

y City

Marik

ina C

ity

Caga

yan P

.

Alba

y

Negr

os O

cc.

W. S

amar

N. C

otaba

to

Surig

ao D

S

Sulu

All A

reas

0.9

1

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

No armed conflict

Had armed conflict


individual to deal with threats. This measure of human securitycenters on the following values: safety and well being ofindividuals in physical terms and individual freedom. Specifically,it indicates the absence of threat to the following: economicsecurity, food security, health security, environmental security,personal security, community security, and political security. Italso includes variables that measure the extent of threat to theseven dimensions of human security. In addition, two variablesare used to indicate self-assessed capacity to deal with threats.

Figure 5.14 Net trust rating

Table 5.8 Presence of human security based on survey data Freedom from want Freedom from fear

1. Economic - x 2. Food - x 3. Health - 4. Environment - x

1. Personal - 2. Community – x 3. Political - x

- present x - not present

President

Vice President

Supreme Court

Senate

House of Representatives

Local governmnent officials

Upper courts

Lower courts

Barangay officials

Military

Police, law enforcers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

3.1

21.4

16.8

34.2

30.4

54.4

19.1

21.4

55.8

23.8

30.9


References

De Dios, Emmanuel, Soliman Santos Jr., and Sharon Faye Piza.2005. The fifth Philippine human development report: Peace, humansecurity and human development in the Philippines. Quezon City:Human Development Network and the United NationsDevelopment Programme.

Guttman, Louis. 1954. Some necessary conditions for commonfactor analysis. Psychometrika 19:149-161.

Kaiser, Henry F. 1960. The application of electronic computersto factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement20 (1):141-151.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1994.Redefining security: The human dimension. In Humandevelopment report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Note: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. = 0.857Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: Approx. Chi-Square = 2717.826,sig. at 0.00 level.

Table 5.10 Four factors from the principal components analysis

Variable Loading Variable Loading Factor 1: Perceived level of threat to security 1. Economic 2. Food 3. Health 4. Environment 5. Personal 6. Community 7. Political Factor 2: Protection of rights 1. Community 2. Political

0.81 0.78 0.76 0.65 0.60 0.53 0.60

0.58 0.50

Factor 3: Economic and health wellbeing 1. Economic 2. Health

Factor 4: Access to food and having safe environment/direct threats to life 1. Food 2. Environment 3. Personal

0.72 0.80

0.74 0.70 0.36


Summary, Challenges and Prospects/Atienza 151

Chapter Six

SUMMARY, CHALLENGES, AND PROSPECTSIN DEVELOPING A HUMAN SECURITY INDEX

FOR THE PHILIPPINES


Summary of Findings

To sum up the previous chapters, this study conducted bythe University of the Philippines Third World Studies Center(UP TWSC) from 2007 to 2008 explores the various dimensionsof human security as perceived and experienced by individualsin the community, major stakeholders, and dutybearers, aswell as marginalized groups in selected conflict areas in thePhilippines. It aims to develop a human security index (HSI)that would serve as a planning and evaluation tool to guidepolicy making of key government agencies, civil societyorganizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).The proposed index is envisioned to describe the scope andmagnitude of human security in the Philippine context as itincorporates dimensions, which need to be taken into accountin the process of conflict prevention and peace building.Specifically, it includes the context in which human securityexists, i.e., the susceptibility; exposure; coping and adaptivecapacity of individuals to threats; as well as the physical social,economic, environmental, and institutional features that eitherensue or prevent threats.

Human security is defined by the project as a state orcondition whereby the individual is protected from critical,immediate, and pervasive threats to life, liberty, property, andcommunity. While human security takes the individual as itsreferent object, the individual is not disengaged or separatedfrom the community for it is where the individual derives his


or her freedom, rights, and identity. Threat has variousdimensions. It is an undesirable, deliberate, or accidental eventthat may result in harm. It is often the exploitation of anidentified vulnerability. The project provisionally used thehuman security dimensions identified by the UNDP (1994) asa checklist that will be validated by respondents. Humansecurity is also a relational concept (to defend a person from)and therefore conceived vis-à-vis a known and establisheddirect threat against a person, his/her property, and hiscommunity.

For this particular stage of the project, the focus is onexploring the critical threats to human security in selectedconflict-affected areas. It takes the presence of armed conflictas its environment. Conflicts considered in this project are thosewhere one of the parties involved is the state. Conflict areasselected were randomly chosen based on the number of armedencounters. In sum, in the current phase of the TWSC project,human security takes the individual and community as itsreferent objects, applies a threat-based approach, and operatesin the context of armed conflict involving the state.

Data used in this study were gathered by using threemethods: (1) a household survey involving 800 individualsdivided equally in eight case sites and according to gender; (2)eight focus group discussions (FGDs) among selectedmarginalized sectors in the study areas (farmers, fisherfolks,women, youth from poor families, urban poor, and indigenouspeoples); and (3) key informant interviews (KIIs) involvingtwenty-three respondents from the government, the academe,and civil society.

In synthesizing the findings from the three data gatheringmethods, three general findings stand out. First, the debatebetween the state-centric and the people-centered definitionsof security still prevails as borne out by the KIIs. The state-centric definition is espoused by informants from traditionalsecurity institutions like the Armed Forces of the Philippinesand by former military personnel who now occupy civilian


positions. They viewed human security as an intrinsiccomponent of national security and define human security asprotection of one of the state’s components—the people.Meanwhile, party-list representatives, members of NGOs,personnel from civilian government agencies (including thoseperforming oversight functions over traditional securityinstitutions), and the academe are moving away from the state-centric concept of security. The second group of respondentsrecognized the need to broaden the understanding and scopeof security issues from being primarily a military concern to amore people-centered issue. They also linked human securitywith human rights. However, it must be pointed out that whilethe security frameworks of the two groups differ, bridging maybe possible since the first view also talked about humansecurity as protection of the people, although as a componentof the state.

Second, there is convergence of data from the FGDs andsurveys in terms of the primacy of economic threats to security,followed by environmental threats to human security, even inthe face of armed conflicts. Many FGD participants and surveyrespondents considered economic threats as more critical andsevere than other types of threats. This finding is supported bythe results of an eleven-country survey conducted by theHuman Security Centre (2005, 53-54), which showed thatacross all countries, the number of people who wanted“economic issues” to be the top priority for governments aremore than twice the number of those who answered “war,”“crime” (including violence, corruption, and concerns aboutthe justice system), or “terrorism.” Furthermore, people’sanswers reflected their personal experiences.

Third, as far as addressing human security threats, datafrom both the KIIs and FGDs showed an obvious preferredframework—government and nongovernment sectors mustwork together. However, in terms of specifics, the FGDshighlighted the role of local governments in addressing humansecurity threats. This finding is supported by the survey datashowing that most respondents have higher trust in their local


governments than the national government. Thus, it can besaid that while the government is perceived as one of the sourcesof human security threats, the government is still one of thecritical dutybearers that can address human security threats.Aside from government agencies and NGOs, respondents alsomentioned the critical role played by the academe, media, andinternational agencies in dealing with human security threats.

Prospects and Challenges in Developing a HumanSecurity Index and Mainstreaming Human Securityin the Philippines

The work of TWSC in human security index developmentis still a continuing effort. At this particular stage of the project,the team understands the limitation of the cases and data used.Aside from the obvious time, budget, and administrativeconstraints, the project experienced a number of problems inthe conduct of the study. They are as follows:

(1) The self-administered survey of about 200 humansecurity advocates was disregarded due to the lowresponse rate;

(2) Key legislators who expressed initial willingness tobe interviewed cannot accommodate the requestsfor interviews in their schedule; and

(3) Targeted respondents from key security sectoragencies (e.g., Department of National Defense,Philippine National Police, and the NationalSecurity Council) did not answer requests forinterviews despite repeated follow-ups.

The project also experienced delays in implementing itswork plan in the field because of unforeseen events, such asthe campaign period for the barangay elections in October2007, the worsening peace-and-order situation in some partsof Sulu, and typhoon and landslide in Western Samar. Duringthe validation and consultation meetings, the project also metresistance from a few government officials who argued that


human security is a foreign concept imposed by donor agenciesor that the data and findings of the project are unacceptablebecause they put certain government agencies in a bad light.However, we all take these experiences as part of the researchprocess. Given this context, there is a need to probe deeperinto human security issues and establish more dialogue amongdifferent stakeholders and dutybearers on the issue.

For future stages of this research, the research team wouldlike to pilot test the evolving index in conflict areas as well asin areas with little or no experience of armed conflict.Furthermore, it would be interesting to probe deeper thecurrent field cases qualitatively and quantitatively to validatethe current data. At this stage, the 100 respondents per area/province, as well as one FGD with a particular marginalizedsector per province, cannot be considered a representativesample of the entire province. It will also not be enough tocome up with a definitive human security assessment of eacharea. To accommodate the views of more governmentpersonnel, particularly those from the military and defenseestablishment, as well as those resistant to the concept ofhuman security, the project team hopes to conduct more keyinformant interviews with them in future phases of theresearch.

In developing a human security index, the TWSC is well-suited to contribute to the mainstreaming of human securityin the Philippines. There is already a loose network ofindividuals and groups, both government and nongovernment,in the Philippines that are aware of the concept of humansecurity, though definitions still vary. This network is interestedin integrating human security, particularly in policy advocacy,assessment, and planning. While some groups are pursuingdifferent projects related to human security, they have willinglyshared their experiences and given their comments andsuggestions. They have also exchanged ideas and discussionsabout the concept. The TWSC, through its human securityindex project, can play a catalyzing role in the establishmentof a human security advocacy network.


However, the so-called human security advocates aredivided by minimalist and maximalist tendencies as well as byadopting the UNDP concept or pursuing a more Philippine-specific human security definition and framework. Somestakeholders, particularly those from the government, havegreat expectations about the uses of the output of the currentphase of the project and want to use the index immediately asa companion to the human development index. Perhaps, thisdifficulty can be turned into an opportunity. It can give TWSC,using its academic standing and research capability, a nichein its further conceptualization of human security and indexdevelopment and its mainstreaming in both government andnongovernment sectors.

Moreover, a recent legislation in the Philippines presentsboth a problem as well as an opportunity for human securityadvocates to come up with a definition and a framework thatcapture human security. Republic Act No. 9372, entitled “AnAct to Secure the State and Protect Our People from Terrorism”with the short title “Human Security Act of 2007” (HSA), wasenacted in 2007. According to Santos (2007), one of the authorsof the 2005 PHDR and one of those who petitioned theSupreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional, the shorttitle is a deception and a violation of “both substantive dueprocess and the people’s right to public information.” The titleitself is misleading in equating counter-terrorism with humansecurity. But “the HSA, by its own definition of terrorism, mightonly ‘secure the state’ but not ‘protect our people fromterrorism.’ Granting that it would also protect our people fromterrorism, this comes under only the ‘freedom from fear’ aspectof human security.” Santos went on to say that projectingcounter-terrorism as human security is not only deceptive but“also dishonest as a misappropriation of a concept currentlyassociated with the UNDP, the independent global Commissionfor Human Security, and the Human Security Network ofcountries.” This “misappropriation” of the term or “theft ofintellectual property” endangers the work of UNDP, TabangMindanaw, church leaders, and other peace advocates in thePhilippines.


With this particular challenge, human security advocatesneed to reclaim the concept of human security as well as finda better working definition suitable for the country andunderstandable to a wider public. Otherwise, people may reallybe led to believe that human security is simply counter-terrorism. The ongoing index development can help clarify theconcept to a wider audience, with the security sector included,and at the same time develop an index applicable to Philippineconditions and based on both theoretically-informed andempirically grounded participatory research on the actualexperiences of Filipinos.

Finally, one promising area where the proposed humansecurity index can begin to be tested as well as human securitymainstreamed is at the local level. In integrating conflict-sensitive and human security approaches in local developmentplanning, a human security index will be instrumental inmeasuring the extent to which insecurity occurs in localities.Where current local development plans and programs areinadequate in ensuring human security, identifying the causesof insecurity with the aid of human security indicators and anindex makes possible crafting appropriate responses. LGUs,civil society organizations, national agencies, and internationaldonor agencies can also monitor improvements in humansecurity, as well as track the impact of their respectiveinterventions by periodically running the instrument.

References

Human Security Centre. 2005. Human security report: War and peace in the21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Santos, Soliman Jr. 2007. Petition on the unconstitutionality of and thegrave abuse of discretion in the approval of the “Human SecurityAct of 2007.” 16 July. http://www.icj.org/IMG/Phil_SC_Petition.pdf /(accessed 01 August 2007).

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1994. HumanDevelopment Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


159

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Maria Ela L. Atienza is Associate Professor at the Department ofPolitical Science and Director of the Third World Studies Center(TWSC), University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.She teaches courses on local governance and devolution,political analysis, political dynamics, and comparative politics.Her research involvement and publications focus on localgovernance, democratization, devolution, health politics,human security, and women empowerment. She is a fellowat the Institute for Strategic and Development Studies andformer president of the Philippine Political Science Association.She holds the following degrees: BA-MA Political ScienceHonors Program (University of the Philippines-Diliman),Executive Master’s in European and International Relations(University of Amsterdam), and PhD Political Science (KobeUniversity). She served as project leader of the human securityindex project.

Clarinda Lusterio Berja is Senior Lecturer at the Department ofPolitical Science, University of the Philippines, Diliman,Quezon City. She has done researches and published paperson youth and poverty, population, health and environment,demographic transition and food sustainability, overseas labormigration, and human security. She is currently a PhDcandidate at the Department of Sociology, University of thePhilippines-Diliman, writing her dissertation on family andcommunity influences on the trajectories of school-to-worktransition of Filipino youth. She served as assistant project leaderfor field research of the human security index project.

Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo is a former University Research Associateat the TWSC, University of the Philippines, Diliman, QuezonCity. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Family Life and ChildDevelopment from University of the Philippines-Dilimanand is currently pursuing her Master’s degree in Urban andRegional Planning. Her research involvements cover varioustopics such as fair trade, peace and development particularlyin Mindanao, human security, and international marriage


migration. She served as assistant project leader for thetechnical advisory group of the human security index project.

Mara Yasmin S.P. Baviera has worked on projects on thetechnocracy and economic decision making in thePhilippines, as well as on the negotiating strategy of thePhilippines in the World Trade Organization. She haspublished a chapter on agrofuels and food security in thebook Food Wars, authored by Walden Bello. She has aBachelor’s degree in Political Science from University ofthe Philippines-Diliman. She served as research assistantof the human security index project.

Dina Marie B. Delias has been engaged in research since 2000on the areas of local governance, development, andindigenous peoples particularly in the CordilleraAdministrative Region, Philippines. Aside from the projecton human security, she has also been involved in variousresearch projects looking into democratization, labourmigration, international intermarriages, and communityparticipation in disaster reconstruction. She holds aBachelor’s degree in Social Sciences (double major inHistory and Political Science) as well as Master’s degree inPublic Administration. She served as research assistant ofthe human security index project.

Directory of Project Participants 161

Appendix OneDIRECTORY OF PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

The Project Management Team

Project Consultant: Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem, PhDFormer Director, UP Third World Studies

CenterProfessor, UP Department of Political Science

Project Leader: Maria Ela L. Atienza, PhDDirector, UP Third World Studies CenterAssociate Professor, UP Department of

Political Science

Assistant Project Leader for Clarinda Lusterio BerjaField Research: Senior Lecturer, UP Department of Political

Science

Assistant Project Leaders for the Zuraida Mae D. CabiloTechnical Advisory Group (TAG): Former University Research Associate

UP Third World Studies Center

Sharon M. QuinsaatFormer University ResearcherUP Third World Studies Center

Research Assistants: Mara Yasmin S.P. BavieraDina Marie B. DeliasAlleson VillotaRuzzel Brian MallariKatrina Maquilan

Survey Data Encoder: Celia Abbago

Topical Experts

Methodology Ma. Lourdes G. Rebullida, PhDChair, UP Department of Political Science

Human Security Herman Joseph S. KraftUP Department of Political ScienceExecutive Director, Institute for Strategic

and Development Studies


Peace Miriam Coronel FerrerUP Department of Political Science

Technical Advisory Group (TAG)

Miriam Coronel FerrerAssociate Professor, Department of Political Science, College of Social Sciencesand Philosophy and Coordinator, Sulong CARHRIHL

Pablo Rey Pio FuentesFormer Manager, Project Management Office, UNDP Conflict Preventionand Peace Building Programme

Romulo HalabasoDirector, Peace Institution Development Office, Office of the Presidential Adviseron the Peace Process

Herman Joseph S. KraftAssistant Professor, Department of Political Science, College of Social Sciencesand Philosophy andExecutive Director, Institute for Strategic and Development Studies

Karen TañadaExecutive Director, Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute

Alma EvangelistaUnited Nations Development Programme

Toby MonsodHuman Development Network

Diosita AndotProgramme Manager, UN ACT for Peace in Mindanao

Janet LopozMindanao Economic Development Council

Veronica VillavicencioPeace and Equity Foundation

Susan Rachel JoseDirector, Regional Development Coordination Staff, National Economicand Development Authority


Field Research Team

Cagayan

Field Supervisor: Nelia Cauilan, PhDCollege of Public AdministrationCagayan State University

Interviewers: Cindy DetallaDarwin ArnedoJenelson GorospeJonathan Cuaresma

Albay

Field Supervisor: Alexander De GuzmanDepartment of Political ScienceBicol University

Interviewers: Jaymar AzagraAileen BaleanEmilio ValenzuelaCesar AraoNoemi Ibo

Metro Manila

Field Supervisor: Felipe RamosFreelance Researcher

Interviewers: Erwin EscanillanAurelia EstimoAndrea Badalan

Negros Occidental

Field Supervisor: Ma. Lourdes TisonPaghiliusa sa Paghidaet Negros

Interviewers: Antonio JusonDante CarandaRey TimtimMaylyn Calvan


Western Samar

Field Supervisor: Maricel RodriguezDemographic Research and Development

Foundation

Interviewers: Erwin EscanillanAurelia EstimoAndrea Badalan

North Cotabato and Surigao del Sur

Field Supervisor: Melba Manapol, PhDAteneo de Davao University

Interviewers: Arnold C. AbejaronRandolph AlojadoTetchie AquinoAnnabelle BandiganRomeo CabardeBrijeth EnangkileMildred MegarbioLani Rivera

Sulu

Field Supervisor: Rosalyn EchemWestern Mindanao State University

Interviewers: John AlphaBasher JainuJason MagneticoYahyah Titong

Participants in Focus Group Discussions

Metro Manila

Facilitator: Dina Marie B. DeliasDocumentor: Alleson VillotaParticipants: Ely Getubig

Sulamita LacidaElma LuegaMonalyn Villagorda


Cagayan Province

Facilitator: Marie C. CauilanDocumentor: Gabriel SernandeParticipants: Francisco Calimag

Laring MacarubboEmiliana PagalilauanBetty TaguinodNora PatagguanVillamor QuilangNerissa SuyuAdoracion Suyu

Albay

Facilitator: Rosemarie T. FriasDocumentor: Ma. Myra C. AusteroParticipants: Maria Darrilyn Capinig

Raymund John CiprianoDarwin CristoMary Christine DaepArcel DacirFlorencio LoriaJay Emmanuel HayaganJela Resoco

Negros Occidental

Facilitator: Maria Lourdes TisonDocumentor: Mary Lou SamsonParticipants: Dennis Alparito

Freddie CarmaMario EstrusasMerlinda GarbosaRichard MabalonRey Timtim

Western Samar

Facilitator: Zuraida Mae D. CabiloDocumentor: Mary Juliet VillarealParticipants: Erlinda Aboguin

Maricel AquinoArlene BetiolaLea Estera


Charite JuaniteAlfie LeeSusan MonanbaRegine Peaguta

Surigao del Sur

Facilitator: Melba ManapolDocumentor: Jasmin E. PorrasParticipants: Datu Saltos Florio

Esperanza VeranoHilario ManlinoFelipe Lobo

North Cotabato

Facilitator: Ma. Yasmin E. TaleDocumentor: Lani RiveraParticipants: Marciano Raut

Julie CaritanRomy MayonilaFernando QuiamcoJesrely PacuitReynaldo Pace

Sulu

Facilitator: Rosalyn EchemDocumentor: Yahyah TitongParticipants: Angari Karim

Aspari LayasNurhajan RajanUsman AbdullaBarlie TantihMunib UsmanAkmad Mohamad

Key Informant Interview Respondents

Commodore Carlos Agustin (Ret.)National Defense College of the Philippines

Col. Rey ArdoOffice of Strategic Studies, Armed Forces of the Philippines


Mr. Red BatarioExecutive Director, Center for Community Journalism and Development

Sen. Rodolfo BiazonChair, Committee on National Defense and Security, Senate

Sec. Esperanza CabralDepartment of Social Welfare and Development

Mr. Ariel CastroTrade Union Congress of the Philippines

Rep. Leonila ChavezButil PartylistChair, Committee on Food Security, House of Representatives

Col. Juanito DalmasDeputy Chief of Staff for Civil Military Operations, J7Armed Forces of the Philippines

Mr. Max de MesaSpokesperson, Citizens’ Council for Human RightsChair, Philippine Alliance of Human Rights AdvocatesBoard of Trustees Member, Task Force Detainees of the Philippines

Atty. Evelyn DunuanNational Commission on the Role of Filipino Women

Dr. Jasmin N. GalaceCenter for Peace Education, Miriam College

Atty. Ibarra GutierrezInstitute for Human Rights, College of Law, University of the Philippines

Ms. Edeliza HernandezExecutive Director, Medical Action Group

Rep. Ana Theresia Hontiveros-BaraquelAkbayan Citizens’ Action Party

Ms. Resureccion Lao-ManaloExecutive Director, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-Asia

Atty. Carlos MedinaExecutive Director, Ateneo Human Rights Center, Ateneo de Manila University


Sec. Domingo PanganibanNational Anti-Poverty Commission

Mr. Wilnor PapaCoordinator, Amnesty International-Philippines

Ms. Nymia Pimentel-SimbulanExecutive Director, Philippine Human Rights Information Center

Chair Purificacion QuisumbingCommission on Human Rights

Dr. Mary RacelisInstitute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University

Commissioner Jannette SerranoNational Commission for Indigenous Peoples

Mr. Jose TorresExecutive Director, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines

ParticipantsProject’s Validation Meeting on the Human Security FrameworkBalay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Diliman, 15 August 2007

Paz BumogasConcerned Citizens of Abra for Good Government

Eduardo CalbitazaDepartment of Agrarian Reform

Miriam Coronel FerrerSulong CARHRIHL and UP Department of Political Science

Jessica Dator BercillaChristian Aid

Felina DelfinOutreach Philippines, Inc.

Romeo ElusfaMindanao People’s Caucus

Alma EvangelistaUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP)–Philippines


Pablo Rey Pio FuentesProject Management Office, UNDP–Conflict Prevention and Peace-BuildingProgramme

Jasmin N. GalaceMiriam Center for Peace Education, Miriam College

Ruben GamalaUP Visayas Foundation

Chito GenerosoInterfaith Center for a Culture of Non-Violence

Romulo HalabasoOffice of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process

Manuel IbañezNational Defense College of the Philippines

Herman Joseph S. KraftUP Department of Political Science & Institute for Strategic and DevelopmentStudies

Adel LambinicioNational Anti-Poverty Commission

Toby MonsodHuman Development Network

Alex OzoaPaghiliusa sa Paghidaet Negros

Zenaida Brigida PawidCordillera People’s Forum

Ma. Aurora QuilalaNational Defense College of the Philippines

Maria Lourdes G. RebullidaUP Department of Political Science

Karen TañadaPeace Institute Gaston Z. Ortigas


Col. Domingo Tutaan Jr.Armed Forces of the Philippines

Eduardo VillenaPhilippine National Police

Role Players and ParticipantsPublic Presentation of the Project’s FindingsBalay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Diliman, 4 December 2008

Welcome Remarks:Zosimo E. LeeDean, College of Social Sciences and PhilosophyUniversity of the Philippines, Diliman

Presenters:Maria Ela L. AtienzaUP Third World Studies Center

Clarinda Lusterio BerjaUP Department of Political Science

Zuraida Mae D. CabiloUP Third World Studies Center

Reactors:Nymia Pimentel SimbulanExecutive DirectorPhilippine Human Rights Information Center

Raymund Jose QuilopUP Department of Political Science

Moderator:Perlita Frago-MarasiganUP Department of Political Science

Documentor:Mitzi AusteroMA Student, UP Asian Center

Participants:

Carmina AcuñaNational Security Council


Nex BeñasUP Third World Studies Center

Cynthia BugayongCity Government of Manila

Carlo CaballeganStaff, Office of Senator Antonio Trillanes VIPhilippine Senate

Melanie CaguiatCity Government of Manila

Elizabeth CarbajosaAsian College of Science and Technology (ACSAT)

Roderick CastilloOffice of the Mayor, Malabon City

Nelia CauilanCagayan State University

Alex de GuzmanDepartment of Political Science, Bicol University

Teofista de GuzmanCity Planning and Development Office, Quezon City

Vicente DoletinVice Mayor, Midsayap, North Cotabato

Rosalyn EchemWestern Mindanao State University

Teresa Encarnacion TademUP Third World Studies Center

Alma EvangelistaUnited Nations Development Programme-Philippines

Jose FrancoOffice of Strategic Studies, Armed Forces of the Philippines

Josefina FaulanNational Economic and Development Authority


Bernadette GuillermoSocial Sciences and Philosophy Research Foundation

Armando GuzmanOffice of Strategic Studies, Armed Forces of the Philippines

Herman Joseph S. KraftUP Department of Political Science andInstitute for Strategic and Development Studies

Ruth Lusterio RicoUP Department of Political Science

Augie LusungOffice of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process

Melba ManapolAteneo de Davao University

Ali Lorraine ManriqueUndergraduate Student, UP Department of Political Science

Ana Elzy OfreneoCommission on Human Rights

Anna PaceteOffice of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process

Laura PradoDepartment of Agriculture

Mary Ann Joy QuirapasUP Third World Studies Center

Cicero TriunfanteMayor, Daraga, Albay

Alleson VillotaMA Student, UP Asian Center

Questionnaire for Individuals in the Community 173

Appendix TwoSURVEY ON HUMAN SECURITYQUESTIONNAIRE FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE COMMUNITY

I Name of Interviewer 2 Date of interview 3 Interview is First

visit Second

visit Replacement

4 Time started 5 Time ended 6 Name of Editor 7 Date of Editing 8 Name of Encoder 9 Date of Encoding

QUESTIONNAIRENUMBER.

Call Order

Introduction: We are from TWSC-UP conducting a study on people’s perception onsecurity. This survey interview will take only a few minutes of your time and will be akey input to our quantitative data analysis. Responses are anonymous and intendedfor statistical aggregation purposes only. Thank you.

Block A: Identification

A1. ProvinceA2. City/municipalityA3. Sex of respondent 1____ Male 2 _____FemaleA4. Age: ____________A5. Stratum 1_____Urban 2 _____RuralA6. Respondent’s Name (Optional)A7. Complete Address

Block B: Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics

B1. What is your civil status?1 _____Single 3 _____Widowed2_____Married 4______Separated or divorced

B2. When were you born? Month __ Day_____Year_____

B3. Where were you born? Municipality____________ City/Province____________

B4. Are you a member of any minority group?1_____ Yes -->B4a. Which group? _____________________________________2_____ No


B5.What is the dialect you most often speak at home?I _____ Tagalog 4 _____ Kapampangan2 _____ Cebuano/Bisaya 5 _____ Ilocano3 _____ Ilonggo/Hiligaynon 6 _____ Other, SPECIFY_____________________

B6. What is your religion?I _____ Catholic 4 _____ Muslim2 _____ Protestant 5 _____ Other, SPECIFY3 _____ Iglesia ni Cristo

B7. What is the highest level of schooling that you completed?I _____ None 6 _____ Vocational school level2 _____ Elementary Grade 7 _____ Vocational3 _____ Elementary Graduate 8 _____ College Level4 _____ High School level 9 _____ College Graduate5 _____ High school graduate I0 _____ Post Graduate

B8. Are you currently working?I _____ Yes --> B9. What is your occupation? _______________________________2 _____ No

Bl0. What is the reason why you are not working?l _____ Cannot find work2 _____ Student3 _____ Housewife4 _____ Retired5 _____ Health reasons/disability6 _____ Others, SPECIFY______________________________________________

Bll. In the past year, how much is your total family income in the course of an ordinarymonth? (6-digit code)

Bl2. In the past year, what is your main source of your family income in the course ofan ordinary month?l _____ Wages and salaries2 _____ Rentals of property or any asset3 _____ Business income4 _____ Gift/help from relatives and other people5 _____ Pension and retirement benefits6 _____ Others, SPECIFY: _____________________________________________

Bl3. In the past year, what are your other source(s) of family income? (CHECK ALLTHAT APPLY)l _____ Wages and salaries2 _____ Rentals of property or any asset3 _____ Business income


4 _____ Gift/help from relatives and other people5 _____ Pension and retirement benefits6 _____ Others, SPECIFY: _____

Block C: Economic Security

C1. Where would you place your family in the following categories?1 _____ Very poor 4 _____ Rich2 _____ Poor 5 _____ Very rich3 _____ Moderate, just right 97 _____ Don’t know98 _____ No response

C2. Do you think your family is better off now than three years ago?1 _____ Better off 97 _____ Don’t know2 _____ Just the same 98 _____ No response3 _____ Worst off

C3. Personally, do you think you are better off now than three years ago?1 _____ Better off 97 _____ Don’t know2 _____ Just the same 98 _____ No response3 _____ Worst off

C4. Does your family have a regular source of income?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO C6)

C5. What is your source of regular income?1 _____ Wages and salaries2 _____ Rentals of property or any asset3 _____ Business income4 _____ Gift/help from relatives and other people5 _____ Pension and retirement benefits6 _____ Others, Please specify: _________________________________________

C6. Do you think there are adequate employment opportunities for you?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No

C6a. within your barangay? 1 _____ Yes 2 _____ NoC6b. within your municipality/city? 1 _____ Yes 2 _____ NoC6c. within your province? 1 _____ Yes 2 _____ NoC6d. within the country? 1 _____ Yes 2 _____ NoC6e. outside the country? 1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No

C7. Are there livelihood opportunities within your locality (municipality/city)?1 _____ Yes --> C7a. What livelihood opportunities?__________________________2 _____ No

C8. Are there available credit facilities in your locality?1 _____ Yes --> C8a. What type of credit facility?_____________________________2 No (GO BLOCK C12)


C9. Do you have access to these credit facilities?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK C12)

C1O. Have you ever tried to get a loan from these credit facilities?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK C12)

C11. Did you get the full amount that you wanted to borrow?1 _____ Yes --> C11a. How much is the full amount of the loan?_____________pesos2 _____ No --> C11b. Why not?_________________________________________

C12. Do you have school-age children, ages 5 to 16 years old in your family?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (BLOCK D)

C12a. Do they have access to public school education?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No

C13. Is there anyone of them studying in a public school?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No --> C13a. Why not?_______________

C14. Do you think the family could support them until they complete high schooleducation?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No --> C14a. Why not?________________

C15. Do you think boys and girls have equal access to education?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No --> C15a. Why not?________________

Block D: Food Security

D1. How frequently have you served rice at home in the past month?1 _____ at least 3 times a day 4 _____ Seldom2 _____ 2 times a day 5 _____ Never3 _____ Once a day

D2. In the past month, from what sources have you acquired the rice you eat? Doyou…(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)1 _____ Grow rice yourself2 _____ Get it free [from relatives/friends]3 _____ Free, part of company benefit4 _____ Part of company benefit, supplied at cheaper price5 _____ Barter/Exchange [e.g., labor or other agricultural products for rice]6 _____ Buy7 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________

D3. Do you know where you can buy cheaper government subsidized/NFA rice?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO D5)


D4. Have you ever bought government subsidized/NFA rice?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No --> D4a. Why not?__________________________

D5. Approximately, what percent of total household income is spent on rice?______%

D6. Approximately, what percent of total household income is spent on other food items?____%

D7. Have you ever experienced involuntary hunger (without anything to eat) at leastonce in the past week?1 _____ Yes --> D7a. Why?_____________________________________________2 _____ No

D8. Did you ever experience food scarcity in your barangay?1 _____ Yes --> D8a. Why? ____________________________________________2 _____ No

BLOCK E: Health Security

EI. Which of the following health facilities are located within your municipality/city?(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)I _____ Barangay health station2 _____ Rural health unit/health center (municipal)3 _____ Government hospital4 _____ Private clinic5 _____ Private Hospital6 _____ Clinic/hospitals run by non-profit/charitable organizations or persons7 _____ Traditional Healer or Alternative Healthcare Practitioner8 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________

E2. From your home, how long would it take you to reach the nearest health facility?1 _____ Less than I5 minutes 3 _____ 31-6O minutes2 _____ I6-3O minutes 4 _____ more than one hour

E3. Do you have access to the services provided in these health facilities?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO E6)

E4. Did you or any member of your family use any health facility in the last I2 months?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO E6)

E5. Did you adequately get the medical services that you need from that health facility?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO E6)

E6. Are you or any member of your family a member of any kind of health insurance?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK F)


E7. What kind of health insurance plan do you have? (ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSE)1 _____ PHILHEALTH2 _____ Employer-based health maintenance organization3 _____ Private health insurance, SPECIFY:4 _____ Community/Cooperative Health financing scheme5 _____ Others, please specify:__________________________________________

Block F: Environmental Security

F1. What sources of water are available in your barangay? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)1 _____ Direct connection, piped2 _____ Connection through another household piped3 _____ Communal system (public water source-piped or not)4 _____ Own well/hand pump5 _____ Water vendor6 _____ Rainwater7 _____ Bottled purified/mineral water, water refilling station8 _____ Others, SPECIFY: _____________________________________________

F2. What is your family’s main source of water?1 _____ Direct connection, piped2 _____ Connection through another household piped3 _____ Communal system (public water source-piped or not)4 _____ Own well/hand pump5 _____ Water vendor6 _____ Rainwater7 _____ Bottled purified/mineral water, water refilling station8 _____ Others, SPECIFY: _____________________________________________

F3. Where does your family usually get drinking water?1 _____ Direct connection, piped5 _____ Water vendor2 _____ Connection through another household piped6 _____ Rainwater3 _____ Communal system (public water source-piped or not)7 _____ Bottled purified/mineral water, water refilling station4 _____ Own well/hand pump8 _____ Others, SPECIFY:

F4. In the past year, did you experience any natural disaster in your barangay?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No

F5. What type of natural disaster?1 _____ Typhoon 4 _____ Land slide2 _____ Earthquake 3 _____ Volcanic eruption5 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________


F6. Did the disaster affect your economic activities?1 _____ Yes --> F6a. In what way?_______________________________________2 _____ No

F7. What other environmental problem do you experience in your barangay?1 _____ Pollution2 _____ Flooding4 _____ Waste disposal3 _____ Toxic wastes from factories5 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________

Block G: Community Security

G1. Is the land where this house is located … ?1 _____ Owned by you2 _____ Inherited3 _____ Owned w/o any obligations (e.g. loans, mortgages)4 _____ Owned w/ obligations (e.g. loans, mortgages)5 _____ Rented6 _____ Supplied free by employer7 _____ Supplied free by relative or other person8 _____ Living without permission of owner9 _____ Others, SPECIFY: _____________________________________________

G2. Is the house where you presently live …?1 _____ Owned by you2 _____ Inherited3 _____ Owned w/o any obligations (e.g. loans, mortgages)4 _____ Owned w/ obligations (e.g. loans, mortgages)5 _____ Rented6 _____ Supplied free by employer7 _____ Supplied free by relative or other person8 _____ Living without permission of owner9 _____ Others, SPECIFY:

G3. Was there ever a time when you were forced to leave your residence?1 _____ Yes --> G3a. Why were you forced to leave your residence?_____________2 _____ No

G4. How long have you been residing in this community? ______months_____years

G5. Would you describe your community as safe?1 _____ All the time 4 _____ Rarely2 _____ Most of the time 5 _____ Not at all3 _____ Sometimes


G6. In your opinion, what are the top three most serious security issues that yourcommunity faces?1 _____ crime2 _____ insurgency3 _____ ethnic conflict4 _____ natural disaster5 _____ pollution6 _____ health and sanitation7 _____ lack of livelihood8 _____ other, SPECIFY: _______________________________________________

G7. Did you ever experience any violent conflict in your community?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO G11)

G8. Do you still experience this (violent conflict) in your community?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No

G9. How often did you experience violent conflict in your community in the past year?1 _____ Often --> G9aI. How many times in a month?_________________________2 _____ Seldom --> G9a2. How many times in a year? _______________________3 _____ Rarely

G10. Who are involved in this (these) violent conflict(s)?1 _____ Insurgents2 _____ Ethnic/tribal groups3 _____ Criminals4 _____ Gangs5 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________

G11. Do you think that the level of safety in your community change during the pastyear?1 _____ Safety has improved --> Why? ___________________________________2 _____ Safety has remained the same3 _____ Safety has deteriorated --> Why? _________________________________

G12. Does the level of safety in your community push you to migrate to another place?1 _____ Yes, which place?______________________________________________2 _____ No3 _____ Undecided

G13. Do you know of anyone in the community other than the military/police whopossess a weapon?1 _____ Yes2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK H)


G14. What kind of weapon? _____________________________________________

G15. Why do you think they possess this weapon? ___________________________

Block H: Personal Security

H1. Have you or has anyone in your family been a victim of physical aggression or ofsome criminal act in the past year?1 _____ Yes 98 _____ No response2 _____ No (GO TO H6) 99 _____ Not applicable97 _____ Don’t know

H2. What is the nature of the physical aggression or criminal act? (ACCEPTMULTIPLE RESPONSE)0 _____ None 97 _____ Don’t know1 _____ Robbery/theft 98 _____ No response2 _____ Kidnapping 99 _____ Not applicable3 _____ Property disputes4 _____ Shootings/fighting with guns5 _____ Other, SPECIFY:_______________________________________________

H3. You said that you’ve been a victim of physical aggression or some criminal act inthe past year. Did you report it to any authority?1 _____ Yes 98 _____ No response2 _____ No (GO TOH5) 99 _____ Not applicable97 _____ Don’t know

H4. To what agency or institution did you report the crime?1 _____ Police/PNP2 _____ Military/AFP3 _____ Barangay Chair4 _____ Local government/Mayor/Governor5 _____ Public prosecutor6 _____ Press or other media7 _____ Tribal leader8 _____ Religious leader9 _____ Nongovernment organization1O _____ Other97 _____ Don’t Know99 _____ Not applicable98 _____ No response


H5. Why did you not report the crime? (ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSE)1 _____ It makes no difference2 _____ Danger or fear of retaliation3 _____ Lack of evidence4 _____ It wasn’t serious5 _____ Didn’t know where to report it6 _____ Other, SPECIFY:______________________________________________97 _____ Don’t Know98 _____ No response99 _____ Not applicable

H6. If you were a witness to a crime, to whom would you report it? (ACCEPTMULT1PLE RESPONSE)1 _____ Police/PNP2 _____ Military/AFP3 _____ Barangay Chair4 _____ Local government/Mayor/Governor5 _____ Public prosecutor6 _____ Press or other media7 _____ Tribal leader8 _____ Religious leader9 _____Non-government organization10 _____ Other, SPEC1FY:_____________________________________________

Block I: Political Security

I will mention some political concerns/issues. How much are you affected by thisconcern/issue personally?(ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE CODE)1- Very Much 2-Much 3-A little 4-Very little 5-Not at all 6-Don’t know

I1. Corruption in government 1 2 3 4 5 6I2. Freedom of expression 1 2 3 4 5 6I3. Autonomy 1 2 3 4 5 6I4. Participation in election 1 2 3 4 5 6I5. Warring political families 1 2 3 4 5 6I6. Unresolved wars involving insurgents 1 2 3 4 5 6I7. Loss of livelihood due to armed conflict 1 2 3 4 5 6I8. Displacement of people in the community 1 2 3 4 5 6I9. Participation in community decision-making 1 2 3 4 5 6I10. Participation in local council decision-making 1 2 3 4 5 6

What is your level of trust on the following?(ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATERESPONSE CODE) 1-Much trust 2-Moderately trust 3-Little 4-Very little 5-None

I11. President 1 2 3 4 5I12. Vice President 1 2 3 4 5


I13. Supreme Court 1 2 3 4 5I14. Senate 1 2 3 4 5I15. House of Representatives 1 2 3 4 5I16. Local government officials 1 2 3 4 5I17. Upper Courts 1 2 3 4 5I18. Lower Courts 1 2 3 4 5I19. Barangay officials 1 2 3 4 5I20. Military 1 2 3 4 5I21. Police, law enforcers 1 2 3 4 5

There is a close link between feeling of security and trust. Please tell me the level oftrust that you have on government officials and agencies.

I22. Did you ever experience having armed conflict due to insurgency in yourlocality?1 _____ Yes --> 122a. When was the last time it happened? ___ (month) ____ (year)2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK J)

I23. How did the armed conflict due to insurgency affect you? (ACCEPT MULTIPLERESPONSE)1 _____ Loss of economic opportunities2 _____ Death of relatives and friends3 _____ Poor peace and order situation4 _____ High out-migration5 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________

I24. Do you think you can (or together with others) do something to prevent or mitigateinsurgency in your locality?1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK J)

I25. In your opinion, what can be done to mitigate insurgency in your locality?___________________________________________________________________

Block J: General Perception on Human Security

J1. In the past three months, what are the top 3 issues that caused you the most concern?1. ________________________________________________________________2. ________________________________________________________________3. ________________________________________________________________

J2. Which of the following potential threats to general security do you fear most?1 _____ Food shortage 5 _____ Economic instability2 _____ Disease outbreak 6 _____ Political instability3 _____ High crime rates 7 _____ Armed conflict4 _____ Environmental Disaster 8 _____ Other, please specify: ___________


J3. Do you think you can (or together with others) do something to prevent or mitigatethese potential threats to general security?1 _____ Yes2 _____ No (GO TO J5)

J4. In your opinion, what can be done to mitigate this (these) threat(s)? _______________________________________________________________________________

J5. In your opinion, to what extent is there a threat on your….(ENCIRCLE THECORRESPONDING RESPONSE CODE)5-Very high 4-High 3-Moderate 2-Low 1-Very Low 97-Don’t know

5 4 3 2 1 97a. Food security (lack of basic nutrition and food supply)

b. Health security (disease and injury due to lack ofaccess to safe water, safe living environment, access tohealth services, and basic knowledge to live a healthylife)

c. Economic security (poverty due to lack of basicincome and employment, and access tosuch socialsafety net)

d. Personal security (physical violence such as crime,rape, child abuse, accident)

e. Environmental security (pollution, environmentaldegradation and resourcedepletion)

f. Community/Cultural security (ethnic discrimination,ethnic conflicts, and lack of protection of indigenouspeople)

g. Political security (violation of human rights, politicalrepression)

5 4 3 2 1 97

5 4 3 2 1 97

5 4 3 2 1 97

5 4 3 2 1 97

5 4 3 2 1 97

5 4 3 2 1 97

Thank you very much for your cooperation.


Appendix ThreeSSPRF-TWSCDEVELOPING A HUMAN SECURITY INDEX FOR THE PHILIPPINES

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

1. Questions to open the discussion:

a. Generally, do you feel secure as an individual?b. What are the top issues that caused you the most concern in the past year?c. Why were you concerned about this issue?d. Do you consider this issue a threat to your security? Why is it a threat?e. What are the sources of these threats to security?

2. Questions to deepen the discussion:

People can be harmed by such vast array of threats and individuals require protectionfrom them.

a. What would you consider as short-term or long-term threat? Why?b. What would you consider as severe threat? Why?c. In which threat do you need to be protected?d. Why do you think it is necessary to be protected from this threat?e. What would you consider critical threats that cut into core activities and

functions?f. What would you consider as pervasive threats or those that are large scale or

recurrent dangers?

3. Questions to focus on specific indicators of human security?

a. What would you consider as threats in relation to your:

i. Economic security (e.g. loss of livelihoods due to financial crisis, disasters, orresettlement)

ii. Environmental security (e.g. reduced access to resources [land, water,forests, etc.] and loss of lives and livelihoods due to environmentaldamage such as floods and drought)

iii. Food security (e.g. food shortages, hunger)iv. Health security (e.g. disease outbreak, inaccessibility of health and medical

facilities, exorbitant prices of medicines)v. Community security (e.g. ethnic conflicts, cultural risks and loss of unique

identities, values and traditions) PROBE: incidence of armed conflict inhis/her locality


vi. Personal security (e.g. crimes such as physical violence, rape, robbery,etc.)

vii. Political security (e.g. corruption in government, lack of freedom ofexpression, lack of participation in local decision-making)

b. Why do you consider these as threats?c. What are the sources of these threats?d. Which of these threats would you consider as immediate? Critical? Pervasive?

Are these threats persisting? Why?e. In your opinion, what can be done to mitigate these threats?f. Do you think you can (or together with others) do something to prevent or

mitigate these potential threats to general security?g. Do you know of agencies or organizations that could help you address these

concerns?h. What assistance do they provide?

4. Questions to look at improvement in human security.

a. Would you say that you feel more secure now than before?b. What brought about these changes/significant improvements? Who are the

major actors? Who should be involved but are not yet involved?c. What do you think should be done to improve your personal security?d. What do you think should be done to improve human security in the

Philippines?

Highlights of the Proceedings of the Public Presentation 187

Appendix FourDEVELOPING A HUMAN SECURITY INDEX FOR THE PHILIPPINES:HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PROJECT’S PUBLICPRESENTATION (COMMENTS AND REACTIONS)December 4, 2008, 9:30am–12:00nnBalay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City

WELCOME REMARKS

Zosimo LeeDean, College of Social Sciences and PhilosophyUniversity of the Philippines-Diliman

Ang kahalagahan ng nagawang report ay napakinggan ang boses ng iba’t ibangpamayanan sa iba’t ibang pook ng buong bansa. Iyong mga researchers ay merongpinuntahan na ilang project sites para talaga makakuha ng mga data o datos sa community.Siguro, alam natin na kung gobyerno lang o estado lang ang ating pakikinggan, meronsilang pananaw tungkol sa national security at ang tingin minsan ng mga nasa nationalsecurity sector ay sila lang ang taga-pangalaga ng human security. Pag titingnan namannatin ang mga pamayanan, iba po siguro yong kanilang mga mithiin o mga ninanaistungkol sa human security at higit siguro dito yong mga tinatawag natin kadalasan nabasic needs, food, environmental degradation, atsaka iyong threat to their personalsecurity. (The value of this report is that the voices of the different people from differentcommunities and different places were heard. The researchers really went to someproject sites to obtain data from the community. We all probably know that if we only listento the state on their notion of national security, sometimes the view of the state is that theyare the only protectors of human security. But when we look at the communities, theymight have different aspirations or wants pertaining to human security, they are moreconcerned with what we call basic needs, food, environmental degradation, and threat totheir personal security.)

Dati-rati po, at minsan minsan pumupunta din naman ako sa Mindanao at iba-ilangparte ng Visayas at pumupunta din doon sa mga liblib na lugar, kunyari sa Pikit, NorthCotabato na kung saan ngayon matindi ang labanan. At bagamat napakalakas ng threatto their community and personal security, ang isa pong napaka-hopeful na sign para saakin kung nagkukumpulan yung community mismo para magamit yung mga resources nameron sila sa kanilang sarili atsaka sa kanilang kapaligiran para sila din mismo aymagbigay ng seguridad para sa kanilang sarili. At kadalasan, kunyari kung sino yungmga magiging perceived na magiging kaaway nila ay nakakausap nila. Ang tinutukoy kopo dito ay basically yong Christian-Muslim conflict, for example sa Carmen, North Cotabato.Naka-capture din ng report na ito kung paano mapapalakas yong human security kungmas magkakaroon ng community efforts. (I used to go to Mindanao, in some parts ofVisayas and to far flung areas like Pikit, North Cotabato where there is now an intensifying


armed conflict. Even though there was a tremendous threat to their community andpersonal security, they show signs of hope, for me, when they convene within thecommunity to use whatever resources they have around them and provide security forthemselves. More often than not, those who are perceived to be the enemies are theones that they talk to. I am pertaining to the Christian-Muslim conflict, for example inCarmen, North Cotabato. This report also captures how human security can bestrengthened if there are more community efforts.)

Palagay ko po ngayong umaga, magiging mayaman ang ating palitan ng kuro-kuro. Pero ang naging achievement ng report na ito ay napakinggan nga ang boses ngmga pamayanan at ito po ay idudulog natin sa pamahalaan pati na rin sa iba pangnaniniwala pa na ang human security ay nakabase lamang sa military approach. (I thinkthat we will have a rich exchange of ideas this morning. But for me, the main achievementof this report is that it was able to listen to the voices of the communities and the results willbe given to the government as well as to those who still believe that human security is onlybased on the military approach.)

REACTIONS FROM DISCUSSANTS

Nymia Pimentel SimbulanExecutive DirectorPhilippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights)

On the definition of human security, it’s very nice to know that such kind of studies areconducted and are coming up with indicators or ways of measuring human security. Alsoas borne out by the study, and as shared by different respondents and participants in thestudy, contrary to how the state—particularly those coming from the military establishment—would define human security, primarily associating the concept with defense or nationalsecurity, many of our people would have a broader concept of human security even inconflict areas. Human security has a very different definition from the state’s perspective.In fact, a very concrete illustration that human security is viewed from a limited perspective,not only by the military but even by members of our legislature, would be the promulgationof the Anti-Terror Law which has been euphemistically termed or labeled as the HumanSecurity Act. So, even members of the Senate and the House of Representatives areshowing a limited concept of human security.

But I suppose, as far as the human rights defenders and advocates are concerned,human security would be viewed as a state or condition, and that has been supposed tobe weeded in the study, where the people’s human rights are respected, protected andrealized, allowing them to live in dignity and to develop their capacities and potentialitiesto the fullest possible. In other words, we are associating or linking up the concept ofhuman security to the issue of human rights. So it is a state where people, especially thevulnerable and marginalized, are able to enjoy their economic, social, and cultural rightssuch as the rights to food, health, education, housing, work, and social security, and at the


same time, their civil and political rights, like the right to freedom of expression andpeaceful assembly, freedom from torture and cruel or degrading treatment and punishment,right to religion, organization, and to due process.

Viewed from a human rights perspective, human security is both a consequencewhen human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled, and a condition necessary forpeople to develop as individuals or as human beings and as members of society. I agreethat the human security concept is a relational concept. Viewed from a rights perspective,it involves the relation between two major actors in society—the state as duty bearers withparticular human rights obligations and accountabilities, on one hand, and the citizens asrights holders with duties and responsibilities, on the other. These would be the key actorsor players, both in conflict and non-conflict situations. Although human rights are inherententitlements, in modern times, there is a general recognition of the need to translate andinstitutionalize these inherent entitlements in the form of laws, policies, treaties or covenants.Thus, when states sign and ratify these laws, treaties or covenants, they become legallybound to adhere to and comply with these instruments as reflected in their variousobligations.

On threats and sources of threats to human security, when rights are violated, allsorts of threats to human security emerge: widespread landlessness, social inequitiesand injustice. Deprivation and exclusion give rise to what the military would view as amajor threat to human security, acts of insurgency, “terrorist” activities or acts. At present,what may be considered as major and serious threats to human security, if not sources ofhuman rights violations because of their impact to human rights, would be globalizationand the war on terror.

Globalization is exemplified by neoliberal policies of governments, including theArroyo government. Examples of such policies are privatization, liberalization, andderegulation. Globalization has greatly contributed to the worsening of the poverty amongour people with the destruction of the environment and livelihoods, particularly in theagricultural sector, labor issues due to unemployment and underemployment, and thespread or worsening of hunger and disease in our midst. For instance, it has beenmentioned in the study that one source of threat would be the phenomenon of aggressionwhich we find existing in many parts of the country, particularly in the rural areas. So,development aggression has resulted to massive displacement, fiscal and economicdisplacement of poor communities, farmers, agricultural workers, and indigenouscommunities.

Liberalization policies have also resulted to massive fiscal and economic dislocationsand one concrete illustration of these would be the opening up of the mining industry andentry of multinational corporations engaged in large scale mining activities in the country.The “Mining Act” of the [Arroyo] government has identified twenty-three strategiccommunities that will be opened to large-scale mining operations. Then, of course, youalso have the commitment of the current government, again in the context of globalization,of entering into various bilateral agreements which have various implications on human


rights, both civil and political but more so economic and cultural. A very good example ofthe serious implications of bilateral agreements which have been recently entered into bythe Philippine government would be the Japan-Philippines Economic PartnershipAgreement. There are actually a lot more bilateral agreements that are about to be ratifiedor entered into and ratified by the Philippine Senate.

Now, when it comes to the war against terror, the very concrete effects of this,whether it be in Mindanao, Metro Manila, or in other parts of Luzon and Visayas, wouldbe the labeling and discrimination, particularly of our Muslim brothers and sisters. It hasalso resulted to militarization in the countryside, physical and economic dislocations asevidenced by the phenomenon of internal refugees, illegal arrest and detention, enforceddisappearances and extrajudicial killings. In rural areas—I don’t know if this has beenexperienced in the countryside or the rural areas which are part of this study, part of thecampaign against terrorism would be the use of psychological operations by labeling andclassifying even of legitimate nongovernment organizations (NGOs) or people’sorganizations as “enemies of the state”. In fact, we have had experiences in somefactories where members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines go around factories andurban poor communities showing a film where the political spectrum being shown isaligning NGOs, people’s organizations, and trade union organizations as part of the“enemies of the state” or as terrorists and terrorist supporters occupying one end of thespectrum. And of course, this would result to the sowing of seeds of distrust and fear, aswell as difficulty on the part of people to move around and to engage actively in criticizing,expressing, and defending their rights.

Addressing threats and the sources of threats to human security requires peopleand communities to empower themselves so that they are able to effectively claim anddefend their rights. In fact, this has also been one of the points raised in the results of thestudy. Civil society groups, the religious sector, academe, and mass media play a criticalrole and can greatly contribute to the empowerment of peoples and communities. Theycontribute in such areas of work like education and information dissemination, training,resource generation, legal case involvements like filing of cases against erring governmentofficials, whether at the local or the national levels, and involvement in national andinternational projection of lobby work of issues and concerns.

Based on this point, I just like to emphasize that as far as Philippine Human RightsInformation Center (PhilRights) and other human rights groups are concerned, we arevery much involved and would like to greatly emphasize that for human security issuesand rights to be addressed, you have to build capabilities of people in terms of raising theirlevel of awareness and education, particularly on what their rights are. Because forpeople to be able to move in claiming and defending their rights, it would be veryimportant to know what their rights are and then, you proceed with other skill-buildingactivities. One area which we are emphasizing among the human rights community is thearea of monitoring and documentation of rights violations, whether civil and political oreconomic, social, and cultural. So, being able to maximize and make use of legal strugglesby filing cases in courts or by doing lobby work in the Philippine Congress would require


both documentation work, being able to arm themselves with evidence-based data andinformation so that when you confront or engage with government officials, whether thisbe at the local or national level, the people are properly armed in theory, data, andinformation.

Raymund Jose QuilopAssociate Professor, Department of Political ScienceUniversity of the Philippines, Diliman

For my initial points, let me just say that personally as I was going over the executivesummary and the presentation, I think the study paves the way for a better understandingof human security which all of us have been talking about but sometimes, you really haveto be able to describe and conceptualize it. I must admit that even at this point in time, Ihave concerns when we talk about the concept of human security which I will be elaboratinglater on. So I find the study as an opportunity to further flesh out how human security bothat the conceptual level, and more importantly, at the policy level, could be implemented onthe ground.

The challenge about human security is that it is a challenging task, particularlybecause of the fact that the individual becomes the referent object and therefore, thequestion: who are these individuals? And related to this, when you have to prioritizethings, if the referent object is the individual, then things almost become anarchical: whogets to have the priority? For us who have been exposed to a certain degree with theidea of human security, we know that the individuals we refer to here are the ordinarypeople—the marginalized sectors. But my concern refers to the other individuals outthere—the elite, the rich, and the powerful could equally make claims and sometimes,people have this kind of argument that the idea of human security equally applies to them.So, how do we draw the line? We know human security is a sort of advocacy for themarginalized sectors but other witty people could also utilize it.

This is the reason why as far as the study is concerned, I find it very useful whenyou included the idea of individuals still as the referent object but you brought in thecommunity as another dimension, short of course of including the state. But the questionI would like to ask is, when you talk of community, at what particular level? Maybe youcould elaborate later on if you are talking of the barangay at that level or something biggerand higher than the barangay.

My comments and reactions are actually divided into three areas or points. First, Iwould now go to the conceptual concerns that I have. The first thing is, most of the threatsto security identified by the key informants, focus group discussions’ participants, and thesurvey respondents, if you look at them, they are practically problems related togovernance—good governance for that matter. Thus, the question that we need to askourselves is, how do we make the conceptual distinction between what items to put underthe concept of governance and what items to put under the concept of security? Why am


I concerned about this? Basically, at the conceptual level, we have to be clear aboutcertain concepts, but more importantly, at the policy level, it has certain impacts. Forexample, if we are able to put almost everything under the rubric of security, then wewould not wonder anymore if one day we wake up, as I always say, with a security sectorthat has practically been given a very wide role as far as these things are concerned. Sothat’s a consideration, how do we make that distinction?

A second conceptual clarification that I would like to raise has something to do withthe identified violent conflicts. Maybe the study could later on further flesh out or if it is therealready, elaborate further what exactly are these violent conflicts that individuals perceiveand have actually experienced so that we have a clearer sense.

The second concern that I have, for lack of a better term—I know it’s not really amethodological concern but for the lack of a better term at this point—I simply label it assuch. This has something to do with the finding that majority of the respondents think thatthe armed conflict made the peace and order situation worse in their areas. But this issomething that is supposed to be expected because the sites of the study are actually thesites where there are armed conflicts. So, if we’re fleshing out a human security index andthe area of study are these particular sites, maybe it would be good to put them on theside. Put these items on the side in the meantime and just apply it later on when you applythe index to a wider setting, including areas where there are no violent conflicts.

The third point I would like to raise has something to do with policy concerns. As thestudy itself acknowledged, the context of the study are the conflict-affected areas andmore interestingly, they limited and narrowed down the area of study in those areaswhere the state is one of the actors involved. I do not know if I just have this sense, andI maybe wrong, but I have this sense that the state is put in a way in a position where itappears that it undermines by default human security. We have to clarify that. Although insome of the findings, you have practically emphasized that some of the respondentspractically say the state undermines or promotes human security. But I have this sense,there seems to be an inherent bias against the state so much so, that the state is almostalways seen to be against human security, which of course is understandable to a certainextent because national security has always been perceived to be for the state. So, I wasjust wondering if maybe we can also flesh out those areas where the state is an actor—it is also involved but in a more positive light. What I mean is, maybe the project can focuson those areas where the state, to a certain extent even if it only a little bit practicallycontributed, if there is such an area, to human security. Maybe your future study couldlook into this and include it in the proposal.

Another policy concern that I have is maybe, how the study can further flesh out thegovernment’s claim as embodied in its policies, and if you look at it, there are indeed officialpolicies to this effect, that the tenets of human security are already embodied in its “redefined”notion of national security. This notion defines national security, as I have always arguedin several other fora, to be already multidimensional. So, what really bothers me is this:why is it that in spite of the fact that the state has been claiming that the notion of national


security is already multidimensional, and it has several elements, there is this prevailingnotion that national security is still all about military and defense? So, maybe the studycould look into the factors why this is the case. You have on the one hand a state thatclaims that the national security concept is already redefined, there is a new notion ofnational security and this is something not really new. It has been there for a very longtime. And yet, on the other hand, the other actors involved—the citizens, the people—practically have this notion that national security is still all about the military and defense.So maybe, we need to look into that.

This brings me to the point that respondents have been talking of the critical role ofthe national government. Now, what exactly is this critical role? Well, I assume that it’s forpromoting human security which is interesting because some of the participants andrespondents say that they have the capability to address threats to their security and yet,on the other hand, I do not have the exact figures, you have another group of respondentsthat say there is a critical role to be played by the state. And yet, there is this perception thatthe state has been primarily involved in undermining human security. So, I don’t know, asa reactor I was asked to ask as many questions that I could ask, and this is the interestingthing being a reactor in a forum like this, you get to ask all the questions but you never getto answer them unlike presenters.

Which then again brings me to the point that the state actually needs to be broughtinto the picture which is something acknowledged by the participants as well. The questionis: how do we really make the state appreciate this whole notion of human security,particularly if it already claims that it recognizes it? Therefore, maybe the issue that weshould be looking at is how do we translate that official policy pronouncement into actualprograms? Or maybe, for all we know, there are already actual existing programs thatare being implemented. So, how do we tie all these things together?

Finally, in spite of the caveat that the study does not intend to come up with an indexat the end of the day, and it’s basically understandable; developing an index is verydifficult and to a certain extent after getting all these things, it’s really challenging to put themaltogether in one index. So, maybe the comments on the proposed human security indexitself could be considered in future examination of this index. From a layman’s point ofview, when I see the word index, I basically think of a measuring instrument wherein youhave certain indicators, if you have a score for all these indicators. At the end of the day,you come up with a sum total, a composite score which would now give you an idea ofhow high, how low is the sense of human security.

Now, the result of the factor analysis that the group practically conducted apparentlyresulted to four factors: perceived threats to security; protection of rights; economic andhealth wellbeing; and direct threats to life. My concern about these factors is, if you look atthe perceived threats to security, I do not think they add up to an index. Protection ofrights, yes. Economic and health wellbeing, yes. Direct threats to life, it has an oppositeeffect as far as an index is concerned. Maybe this point will be better appreciated if wecompare the proposed human security index with the Human Development Index. The


Human Development Index is quite clear, you all have a sum of those things which wouldnow enable you to measure at a certain degree, the level of human development there isin a particular society. That is one aspect of it. The other aspect is the difficulty in reallymeasuring the sense of security. For example, perceived threats to security; it’s verydifficult to measure. We all understand that protection of rights, I believe, is again difficult tomeasure. Economic and health wellbeing is relatively easier. Finally, direct threats to life;its measurability actually is dependent on what actually are these direct threats to life.

OPEN FORUM

Vicente DoletinVice MayorMidsayap, North Cotabato

I have a number of concerns. The result of the data gathering might be in conflict withwhat is happening now since the study was made in 2007 to early 2008. Since June 2008until the present day, there is a new conflict that has emerged.

The conflict in Midsayap started around the 1970s, when there were what werecalled the “black shirts” going around and killing Muslims and dumping their bodies in theplace. There were so many deaths in Midsayap and the conflict continued after that.When former President Estrada declared an all out war with the Moro Islamic LiberationFront (MILF) back in 2000, there were also a lot of deaths on both sides. So, we can seewhat happened, why a war broke out. And then again in June 2008, another war brokeout, again in Midsayap.

The findings of the research project are relevant. They are true but the first problemin our area is that there are too many weapons but our government is not doing anythingabout it. Because the culture among Muslims is like this, even though they do not havefood, they would prioritize buying weapons. For them, it is a status symbol that when youhave weapons, that’s your security. Among us, we are talking of a different security, but forthem that is how it is. So, they buy weapons instead of food. Never mind that they haveno food as long as they have weapons. That is what is happening although all the findingsare true. But the main problem is still, there are so many weapons that the governmentcannot control the situation.

Second, the national government’s reports are different from what is out there. Whatthe national government is saying is different from what the local government is saying;they are not true in our area. I tell you, in Midsayap alone, we have nine thousandswampy areas and that’s where our Muslim brothers are. I was saying, if only theDepartment of Agriculture can see the swampy areas and put irrigation in it, that’s whereour conflict can be resolved. The ones who are at war with us have no work—they havenothing else to do but wage war. Health and education are very poor in the Muslim areas,not only in North Cotabato but also in Maguindanao and Sharif Kabunsuan. In one


barangay, you can try, but you cannot even see a single restroom, they do not evenhave a health center. What you see in the pictures—the Muslims just sitting and drinkingcoffee, that is what they do as work. I am not sure if it is because we were not able toeducate them, we were not able to help them or we were not able to reach out. Maybe,these can be looked into.

I also have a number of recommendations for the research team. First, maybe thenext time the group goes there, they can look for me. We are focused on areas wherethere are armed conflicts. We could go deeper into those actual areas where you will seethe actual situation. It would really be good if you can see what I see in the area: thedilapidated schools, the conflict areas, and as well as the flooded areas. Also, when we goto the sites, it is better to go without the military so you can really go deeper into the actualareas. And it is much safer to go without the military.

Second, I would also like to let you know—just for your study and hopefully you canhelp—of the problem in our area, especially in Maguindanao and North Cotabato. Thisis flooding. The problem of our Muslim brothers is not only the war but the flooding as well.Pulangi River is a catch basin area and it is silted already, so, when the water comes out,it goes to the area of the Muslims and does not leave Cotabato to go to the sea. Classesare suspended for days because of flooding even when there are no rains. This is apermanent problem with or without the problem of armed conflict. Maybe, we can passthis on to the national government because the local government does not have thecapacity to address this problem. If there is rain, we have evacuees; when there is armedconflict, we also have evacuees. It is a national issue that has not been addressed to thisday.

Herman Joseph S. KraftAssistant Professor, Department of Political ScienceUniversity of the Philippines, Diliman

Mine are just a few comments and some are actually somewhat responding to, notnecessarily raising questions, about Professor Quilop’s points earlier. My belief is that thenational security framework we have is predominantly military in terms of its orientation.Actually, Professor Quilop is right but this goes into what he raised: whether this is asecurity issue or governance issue. For example, the different agencies of the governmentuse the language of security within the context of that national security framework. TheDepartment of Agriculture (DA), they talk about food security. I am just not sure if the foodsecurity for the DA is part of a much larger framework which is used by the governmentitself. The way I understand the national security framework, it is actually utilized by theNational Security Council and some other agencies but it is not necessarily a frameworkthat the entire national government actually has adopted. Meaning to say, that even if youhave the DA talking about food security, it’s not necessarily something that is connected toan overall framework that the government is actually utilizing. Of that, I am not really toosure. This relates to the problem being pointed out by Professor Quilop. You might have


this framework but the question is, to what extent is it really something that interconnects allof the approaches of different government agencies. But that’s not a problem with thehuman security index.

Let us look at the caveats said by the group. First, in terms of the sampling and thetriangulated approach to finding the data, it gives a fairly good outline at the national level,but it would be difficult to interpret data as something that actually illustrates local governmentconditions, for example, at the provincial level. You need a much more extensive researchfor that. That is why, I appreciate it when people actually say “maybe when you comeback next time,” which might mean they have an interest in continuing this project.

But I think those comments actually illustrate the value of the index, because what theindex or what this project is actually indicating to us is that it is not true for all times. It is liketaking a picture at a point in time where the index illustrates the situation. So, the indexgives you a better picture if you actually do it over time repeatedly. Maybe, that is what weshould think about, once this index is formalized, what is needed to be done. We reallyhave to do this over a regular period of time.

The other thing with the index perhaps is the idea that it also indicates to us—this iswhere the governance versus security will come—it also indicates to us where governmentresources should actually be focused. As an illustration, in many of the communities thatwere looked into, majority of them would say that their problem would be economic. Butthere are some who would say that their human security issue is not economic, the focalpoint is different. What I mean is, if we look at the index, it indicates to us what it is thegovernment should do in specific areas. The response should be customized to what thecommunity needs.

The index is actually good in that way. One, over time, it gives you a picture of whatis going on, what it is that people feel insecure about, and where the threats are comingfrom. The second thing is, precisely because that’s the point, then it means there is anindication of what government should actually be doing in specific areas. Given that, thatis what the value of this project is. But hopefully, at some point we can approximate whatthe Human Development Index has actually achieved, where we will become capable ofcoming up with a composite score that will allow us to work quantitatively and actually givemeasurements as far as the human security issues of the country are.

Cicero C. TriunfanteMayorDaraga, Albay

From the presentation, I think there is one common problem that we have in Albay.It is not logging because that is only true for Rapu-Rapu. Our problem then was the illegalcutting of coconut trees because they were no longer productive after typhoon Reming.So, the only possible source of income was coco lumber. That has already been addressed.


Now, our problem is the human security with respect to insurgency which has neverbeen perhaps given a special role. The reason why most of the constituents in Albay arereluctant to cooperate in addressing the problem of security is because during elections,the congressmen and the governors themselves pay the so-called “permit to campaign”and “permit to win.” So, if these elected officials were having some sort of an alliance withthe insurgents, then, where will people go to for security reasons? To whom will theyaddress their problems when they are being asked for a portion of their agriculturalproducts, their salary in the case of the teachers, their honoraria in the case of barangayofficials?

Of course, there are some areas, as you have reported, which are good becauseduring that time, if the constituents are disciplined and there is no crime, that means that itis an “influenced” barangay. It would be the New People’s Army (NPA) who punish thesepeople, especially the cattle hustlers. They kill them, as well as the burglars. But now, thisis no longer the case. The NPAs are no longer moved by idealism, but more of profit-making ventures. You have to pay in order to campaign and you have to pay for theballots to be counted, otherwise, even if you were allowed to campaign but you did notpay for the “permit to win,” your ballots will be confiscated. So, that is the very problem thatwe have and people are already used to this because even congressmen and governorsare paying these dues. There is nobody to turn to because the police are only operationalin the poblacion areas but not in the rural areas. They are not visible and understandablybecause we lack police personnel.

No matter how much we request the provincial or national command, they have nobudget to send additional police. We are apprehensive that Daraga has been chosen tobe the site of a future international airport. How will it be when the proposed location issituated in a rural area and we can only secure the poblacion? I think as early as today,we should start preparing for the security of investors in that area.

As of now, we are used to all these threats and nobody would even dare say thingsin public because they are ashamed and scared as well. So, you cannot get this informationfrom them. When it comes to the insurgency, they will not say anything but that is theproblem we are facing. Even our livelihood is affected. If you want to raise pigs, the NPAswill also ask for the profits from the sale, same as in small business enterprises. There areno delinquent tax payers when it comes to “the other side.” They also have records ofreal properties; they know who the tax payers are in the area.

Of course, right now, we are more preoccupied with shelter and livelihood securitybecause of our experience with typhoon Reming. I have 4,679 families to be resettled. Ihave only so far succeeded after one year and a half to furnish house and lots for free for1,600 families. There are still many more left behind so that is the problem we areaddressing. It is good that we have so many NGO partners. We have the United NationsChildren’s Fund, the International Organization for Migration, the Project for Compassion,Gawad Kalinga, Plan International, etc. Of course, the Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment is only one of those helping us.


Ana Aelzy OfreneoCommission on Human Rights

As you know, this is compatible with what we are doing in the area of human rights.If we could remember, the United Nations (UN) came out with the Declaration to the Rightto Development in 1986, which focuses the discussion of development on the people.Everything should be focused on the person—the person is not only the object but alsothe subject of development. In 2003, the UN created a Commission on Human Security.Their framework is very simple, they are pushing for freedom from fear and freedom fromwant. Freedom from fear pertains to the civil and political rights protection. Freedom fromwant pertains to the protection of our economic, social, and cultural rights.

Related to this, the UN also came out with a reform program. In the framework forreform of former Secretary General Kofi Annan entitled “In Larger Freedom,” humanrights was still the basic tenet. And because of that reform initiative, it became a trend in theUN what we call the rights-based approach to development programming, supportinginitiatives, etc. And right now, the Philippine Commission on Human Rights is coming outwith how to ensure that these initiatives from the UN can be crystallized and operationalizedlocally through these indices. So, I am curious to see this human security index. I amhoping that we can already develop an economic empowerment index, socialempowerment index, political empowerment index, cultural empowerment index, etc.since what we want to happen is to emancipate and empower the human person becausethe human person is at the center of the initiative of every development that we canimagine and think of.


Developing a Human Security Index for the Philippines

Documents

measuring human security

university of thephilippines

human hand

surveyon humansecurity

berja jr

existing indicators

cover design

serious security issue5