Memorandum
To: Elena Santos
From: Stephen C. Ulrich jr
Date: September 30th, 2004
Subject: State of PREP in Barangay Lobgaon
The PREP program made a good start in Barangay Lobgaon, but it now faces a serious challenge.
The project has succeeded in the initial steps. The project has focused village attention on possible actions to improve their financial base, and specifically their coastal resources. It has successfully mobilized the entire village to start a mangrove plantation. It has also done a good job of exposing the villagers to fish sanctuaries and developing interest in that possibility.
Most of this has been done with open participation and involvement on the part of the villagers. It has also drawn on the pre-existing unity within the village. Villagers have been the ones to make many of the plans and take the necessary steps.
The failures of the program can be seen in the sharply declined interest in the mangrove project, the failure of the fishermen in the village to contribute to the cooperative’s funding, and perhaps most importantly, the deterioration of village unity and the growing resentment between the farmers, who had paid into the fishing cooperative, and the fishers, many of whom had not.
The villagers, the fishermen in particular, are no longer actively engaged in the PREP project. The plans laid out by the project call for them to take active steps in restructuring their lives. However, they were not involved in the later parts of the decision making process. Experts, most notably Ed, gave specific ideas for what to do and how to do it, without developing alternatives and with progressively less input from the village as a whole.
The requested cooperative fee is an uneven burden on the fishers and farmers. Perceived chastisement and mockery of their non-involvement has increased the reluctance and disengagement of the non-contributing villagers, who expressed interest in the cooperative. The failure of the fishermen to pay, while the farmers have paid, contributed to the deterioration of relations between the two groups. Additionally, the possibility that villagers could reap the benefits of the fish sanctuary without having to pay into the cooperative creates a moral dilemma for the financially strapped fishermen.
To recover from the current path to failure, it will be necessary to resolve the conflict that has been created. A start to this is to return the funds currently invested in the cooperative, and examine alternatives as a group. Particular ideas to examine could include pursuing different funding strategies for the fish sanctuary or cooperative, a smaller, more affordable sanctuary, or no sanctuary at all, and instead refocusing on group action such as the night watch and mangrove plantation.
The work to date has built valuable social capital, but has become too focused on building technically correct solutions, and is now damaging that capital. The project should refocus on that social capital and seek solutions that are as politically viable within the village as they are technically sound.