Talking peace at the national level is vastly different from how peace is understood at the community level, where the concept of peace is perhaps better understood as a freedom from fear.

Recent news events reveal that the ongoing peace negotiations that the PNoy administration is pursuing with both the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army-National Democratic Front and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front are undergoing levels of doubts and accusations. This is par for the course in any negotiating table.

However, this is a cycle that we have seen and felt as a country for 25 years since 1986, and this administration expressed the resolution of the peace negotiations during its term. Previous administrations kept the peace talks on the national agenda with a general attitude that as long as people are talking peace, there will be less shooting, so let's just keep talking. But this did not lessen the poverty or the further marginalization of communities who are caught in these areas of un-peace.

The peace talks are undertaken mostly for greater national viability and to reduce the image of conflict in the Philippines for the sake of investment and the national development agenda. On the other hand, we have to be there with people caught in the conflict, such as in Cotabato, Misayap and other areas where there are internally displaced people in evacuation centers.

However, one of the greatest areas where we have an ambiguous sense of people and circumstance are the mountainous areas and where we have no well-informed basis to connect with these upland communities.

These are the areas where the ideal of peace in part is an illusion and where people are struggling with very limited support to keep the basics together so that there is a "freedom from fear." In the UNDP Human Development Report 1994, human security was broadly defined as "freedom from fear and freedom from want" and "characterized as safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease, and repression, as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in the patterns of daily life - whether in homes, in jobs, or in communities."

These people continuously are at the margins of social coordination. These are massive margins of the poor whose daily struggles are defined in whether there's food to eat, medical attention when they and their children get sick, education for the children, and a livelihood to ensure a bit of cash flow. It is that simple and basic, yet we are hamstrung in responding.

Why is that?

We don't even know who and where the poor are. Look at how we struggle in determining the list of poor people as defined by the Department of Social Welfare and Development, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), and the different local governments.

The Philippine Development Plan talks about 4.3 million poor, the Conditional Cash Transfer program lists 4.6 million poor as beneficiaries that was based on the 2006 official poverty statistics of NSCB. But the NSCB is saying there were 3.7 million poor in 2006, and 3.8 million in 2009. And each local government identified as eligible for the program also have their own lists of who their poor are.

Also, the definition of peace is generally understood as in terms of no arms and no aggression from armed groups. But there is also a growing acknowledgment that the human development and cultural integrity sought are substantial elements in the pursuit of peace.

Thus, there is now more pronounced focus on social and economic reforms, social protection, urban and agrarian land reform, inclusive growth, local and national resource access and utilization, and other development agenda beyond ideologies and arms. And apart from cultural recognition of ancestral domain areas, there are many cultures in Mindanao who are pushed to the social edges by the lack of access to livelihood. They are pushed to the margins because we have limited communications with them. Though their language maybe in a list of Philippine languages, but we don't send any teachers to integrate the national language in their community. We deal with them as "taga-bukid" and "taga-dagat" but do not spend adequate financial and human resources.

But while this intent is expressed, the peace process appears to be highly determined by a military understanding of areas they "control" and areas that are "NPA-infested." This distinction results in a dichotomy of assistance to these marginal communities, and drives another level of marginalization amongst the poor.

In our recent visit to Barangay Binikalan in San Luis, Agusan del Sur, a government program was extending assistance as part of the peace initiatives in the area. However, the community was torn apart as the recipients did not include other communities perceived to be NPA sympathizers. This marginalization of assistance exacerbates the depressing situation prevalent in the area and creates resentment.

The strategy as we understood is that the peace talks at the national levels, assisted by third country hosts, will be accompanied by localized efforts that bring national development programs to the barangay and sitio levels. This is intended to create levels of stability at the bottom and at the margins, as basic services are provided in terms of food subsidies, livelihood options, health and maternal care, and education for children.

The Office of the Presidential Assistant on the Peace Process may acknowledge this, but the limitations are grave and responses cannot be meaningfully implemented if the government works only within the confines of what the military defines.