PROGRESS
Program for Governance
and Rural Empowerment Support Services
2002-2006
For more than two decades, Helvetas has carried out development activities in the Philippines concentrating on collaboration with local NGOs in the working areas of natural resource management, education and culture.
In 2002, Helvetas established PROGRESS focusing on partnerships between local government units and civil society organizations.
PROGRESS, in cooperation with IPG initiated trainings for both LGU and civil society personnel on the provisions of the local government code and participatory development planning at the barangay level.
IPG and Helvetas cooperated on the PROGRESS project with the aim of strengthening the democratic participation in governance component among the project implementers; to pilot a bottom-up, participatory barangay development planning process in 24 barangays i.e. four (4) barangays in three (3) municipalities each in Palawan and Northern Samar, train local facilitators on participatory governance concepts, mechanisms and approaches; document project interventions and come up with a semestral newsletter of PROGRESS- Helvetas.
In 2002, IPG worked closely with PNNI in Palawan and ACE in Samar for its interventions in these PROGRESS project areas.
IPG conducted a Direct Action for Local Governance Seminar (DIALOGS) on March 17-22, in Samar with 55 participants from which 16 are women. In Palawan, the seminar was conducted on February 25 – March 2 in Puerto Princesa City. It was attended by 46 participants from which 20 are women.
IPG also conducted a Facilitators’ Training on Barangay Development Planning through Participatory Rural Appraisal (BDP-PRA) on May 5-11 for Samar and on June 10-15 for Palawan. In Samar 48 participants with 18 women attended, while in Palawan, 39 participants joined, from which 19 were women.
The actual application of what the participants acquired during the facilitators’ training was done in 3 barangays in Northern Samar and 2 barangays in Palawan which was participated in by participants who attended the in-house trainings. The practicum areas in Northern Samar are the following: Bgy. Doña Lucia, Mondragon; Bgy. Camparanga, Pambujan; and Bgy. Geratag, San Jose. The actual field BDP-PRA was simultaneously conducted on May 20-26, 2002.
In Palawan, the barangays covered are the following: Bgy. Iraan, Aborlan and Bgy. Alfonso XIII, Quezon. A total of 36 participants completed the practicum which was held on June 24-30, 2002.
At the end of each training, the participants agreed to form themselves into a provincial pool of facilitators for BDP-PRA that will assist each project area in conducting actual BDP-PRA.
IPG also held a training in Documenting and Packaging Barangay Development Plans in both project areas. In October, a Training on Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) was conducted in both Palawan and Samar. The trainings also provided a venue to initially review and evaluate the status of the projects in each municipality.
In other areas, IPG published 1,000 copies of Balitang Kaunlaran (BALITANG K) in July, a 24-page newsletter that featured the PROGRESS projects in different areas, including featured article on 2 projects, each from Samar and Palawan. It also included editorial and features on deepening the beneficiaries’ knowledge in participatory local governance.
IPG also took part in project monitoring and evaluation, developed the framework for the assessment of projects under PROGRESS and facilitated the assessments of the project management committees in PROGRESS project sites in Palawan.
In June, IPG together with its partners in Samar conducted a consultation on the sustainability of PROGRESS initiatives, one way thorugh which was via the KALAHI-CIDSS program. The consultation was attended by more than 200 participants. The consultation-forum provided the participants, mostly beneficiaries of PROGRESS, information on how to avail the program (KALAHI-CIDSS) once the program is implemented in the province.
IPG also conducted a staff development program on management on August in Davao City. The course was called Management Course for SIAD (Sustainable Integrated Area Development) Practitioners, a two-week course on management tools, development paradigms, and strategic planning tools that are helpful for senior officers of civil society organizations, especially those who are doing SIAD programs, i.e. PROGRESS.
Some noted achievements during the first year implementation of PROGRESS included a change in attitudes and orientation towards partners. Before, LGUs treated CSOs as competitors. Worse, some LGUs viewed CSOs as front of insurgents. But because of the partnership that was developed, LGUs and CSOs are now planning and working together. Barangay development councils in some areas have either been reactivated or established. There was also formulation of barangay development plans in other barangays other than the practicum area. And finally, there was an initial integration of barangay development planning process into the system of planning of the municipal local government units.
However, some drawbacks included the inconsistency of participants and the holding back among some LGUs from fully supporting the program. In some instances, facilitators were eager to conduct the BDP-PRAs but the municipal government did not provide the backing necessary for the activity.
Thus at the end of the first year of IPG’s work with PROGRESS, it was recommended that clear indicators for the program beincluded in the terms of reference between PROGRESS and the LGUs and PMCs, a mechanism be put in place to follow up and support trained facilitators, and improve on the participants targeted for the trainings that IPG undertake. It was also recommended that other possible funding sources be tapped such as KALAHI-CIDSS, and that the PSMB and HELVETAS help the communities who have undergone BDP-PRA to seek resources for the community plans and show-case those which can produce tangible results and impact after the 5-year program.
Second Year.
The year 2003 marked the second year that IPG and Helvetas embarked on the participatory good governance component of the PROGRESS project. The project continues to engage the local government units and civil society partners and communities in the PROGRESS areas where development projects were being implemented.
For 2003, IPG conducted a total of nine trainings for both Palawan and Northern Samar. This included three facilitators’ training for the BDP-PRA, three BDP-PRAs covering 7 barangays, 2 trainings on participatory monitoring and evaluation and 2 workshops on BDP packaging. An average of 45% of the participants in these trainings were women.
The facilitators’ Trainings were conducted on April 21-25 in Samar with 41 participants, 20 of whom were women. In March, the same training was conducted in Palawan with 31 participants, 13 of which were women. The facilitators’ training fro Roxas, Palawan meanwhile, was conducted on November 17-21.
The BDP-PRA for Northern Samar covered 2 barangays, while 5 barangays underwent their BDP-PRA process from April 28-May 3.
In the municipality of Roxas, the actual planning was conducted simultaneously in Brgys. Jolo and Caramay on November 24 – 28, 2003.
As follow-up trainings, a BDP Packaging training was undertaken from June 25-27 in Samar and from May 7-9 in Palawan. A Participatory Monitoring and evaluation training was also done on October 7-9 in Samar and December 1-3 in Palawan
IPG facilitated the assessment of year 1 activities, and helped the PSMB monitor projects in the project areas.
The second year of PROGRESS saw an improved perspective on the development process among the stakeholders, building upon the initial interventions undertaken in the first year. The NGOs, communities and LGUs continued with their partnerships, and it was noticed that the program had an impact on areas that were even outside the scope of the project. Some barangays outside of the practicum area also began working on their barangay development plans.
In Roxas, there was the initial formation of municipal technical working group composed of LGU employees and NGOs/POs to scale up the participatory planning process in the municipality.
In this year, the PMC was also able to come up with project indicators to help gauge the performance of the project.
Some problems remained however, such as the lack of support from some LGUs.
The participatory good governance component of the project also made headway with the agreement that development projects to be funded under PROGRESS would come from the BDP-PRA process, and the decision that the pool of facilitators was urgently needed as well as more basic trainings on governance concepts, as covered by DIALOGS.
Third Year.
The year 2004 marked the third year of IPG’s participation in PROGRESS. During the third year, the project built upon its interventions by exploring areas where LGU-civil society collaboration could be replicated in other areas of the country. From the participatory good governance interventions of the previous two years, PROGRESS also started to implement joint participatory good governance projects focusing on natural resource management and delivery of basic social services in the project areas. Documentation work also began during the third year of partnership.
A total of four batches of BDP-PRA processes were undertaken this year, four facilitators’ training, three participatory monitoring and evaluation training, three BDP packaging trainings and the continued distribution of Balitang Kaunlaran, the official publication of PROGRESS.
In Palawan, the program was able to train two hundred fifty eight (258) participants coming from the Local Government Units, Non-Government Organizations and People’s Organizations. One-hundred sixty-two (162) or sixty-three percent (63%) of the participants came from the LGUs while the remaining thirty-seven percent (37%) came from the representatives of the NGOs and POs. From the total participants who attended the training activities, forty-three percent (43%) were women.
In Northern Samar, there were a total of one hundred ninety-eight (198) who attended the training activities. Seventy-six (76) or thirty-eight percent (38%) were women. At least fifty-five percent (55%) of the participants came from the LGUs.
In Surigao, where only one training was conducted, fifty-six percent (56%) of the total forty-five (45) participants were women.
A conference workshop entitled “Palawan Water Summit” was conducted in Puerto Princesa from April 24 – 26. It was attended by 23 participants coming from the local government units, non-government organizations and people’s organizations from the municipalities of Roxas, Dumaran, Taytay, San Vicente, Brooke’s Point, Coron and Culion. These participants were involved in the management of potable water systems in their area, particularly the officers of the Rural Waterworks and Sanitation Associations.
The summit was aimed to be a venue for discussion on the current experiences in managing and address the sustainability and expansion issues of the water system projects funded and supported by the Helvetas Philippine Program Office in the Province of Palawan and to introduce the Solar Water Disinfection (SODIS), as an alternative technology particularly to those communities in the upland who depend on rivers and dug wells for their water.
Aside from the discussion outputs of the activity, the summit also saw the formation of the Palawan Tubig Working Group, which was expected to spearhead the preparation of securing water permits, water rights and other related tasks. It is composed of representatives coming from the water associations, local government units and the non-government associations.
A workshop seminar on Participatory Development Planning Review and Local Development Council Strengthening was held at in Catarman, Northern Samar on October 24 – 26. The main objective of this workshop seminar was to assess the BDP-PRA of the four municipalities in Northern Samar which were assisted by IPG. IPG invited in this workshop the key people who were responsible for the implementation of participatory local development planning to appraise what has been done so far, to learn from the gains, to fill in the gaps, and recommend policies and actions towards the sustainability of the outcomes of the intervention.
Some of the achievements of PROGRESS for 2004 included the formation of the Municipal Technical Working Group as an indicator of establishing participatory governance mechanism, creation of venues for collaboration between the local government units and civil society groups particularly in joint undertakings on community development, the formation of Provincial Pool of Facilitators, among others. An assessment revealed the need on integrating Barangay Development Plans into Municipal Development Plan through participatory processes involving municipal departments and line agencies, and the need to support attempts to replicate mode of partnership in other undertakings outside of PROGRESS projects
Some problems though, were encountered. For example, the activities were lumped into the second half of the year due to the national election. This drained the energy of the facilitators and the participants since they also have other duties and responsibilities in their respective organizations. In fact there were some barangay elected officials and residents in the community that refused to participate because BDP-PRA was purportedly identified with their rivals in politics. This also contributed to the delay of the desired outputs required of them particularly in the packaging of Barangay Development Plans.
It was observed that participants to the training activities were mostly non-PMC members particularly on the theoretical part of participatory planning and budgeting, and participatory monitoring and evaluation. There was no monitoring conducted on the status of the activation of Barangay Development Councils and other local special bodies and there was some difficulties on sustaining the interest of the participants to attend the continuous full 5-day planning session
It was thus recommended that among others, attendance of PMC members must be assured in discussions, especially those involving framework settings. There should also be advanced capability building programs for the Provincial Pool of Facilitators to avoid being mechanical in conducting participatory planning processes. There was also the recurrent suggestion to open up other possible sources of funding support for project partners. And finally there was a need to support municipal-initiated activities (both LGUs and CSGs) that emanated from partnership experiences such as scaling-up of barangay-level initiatives to municipal level in order to sustain the rising interest on partnership such as the strengthening of the Municipal Development Council and initiating participatory planning processes at that level.
Fourth Year.
The year 2004 marked the third year of IPG’s participation in PROGRESS. During the third year, the project built upon its interventions by exploring areas where LGU-civil society collaboration could be replicated in other areas of the country. From the participatory good governance interventions of the previous two years, PROGRESS also started to implement joint participatory good governance projects focusing on natural resource management and delivery of basic social services in the project areas. Documentation work also began during the third year of partnership.
A total of four batches of BDP-PRA processes were undertaken this year, four facilitators’ training, three participatory monitoring and evaluation training, three BDP packaging trainings and the continued distribution of Balitang Kaunlaran, the official publication of PROGRESS.
In Palawan, the program was able to train two hundred fifty eight (258) participants coming from the Local Government Units, Non-Government Organizations and People’s Organizations. One-hundred sixty-two (162) or sixty-three percent (63%) of the participants came from the LGUs while the remaining thirty-seven percent (37%) came from the representatives of the NGOs and POs. From the total participants who attended the training activities, forty-three percent (43%) were women.
In Northern Samar, there were a total of one hundred ninety-eight (198) who attended the training activities. Seventy-six (76) or thirty-eight percent (38%) were women. At least fifty-five percent (55%) of the participants came from the LGUs.
In Surigao, where only one training was conducted, fifty-six percent (56%) of the total forty-five (45) participants were women.
A conference workshop entitled “Palawan Water Summit” was conducted in Puerto Princesa from April 24 – 26. It was attended by 23 participants coming from the local government units, non-government organizations and people’s organizations from the municipalities of Roxas, Dumaran, Taytay, San Vicente, Brooke’s Point, Coron and Culion. These participants were involved in the management of potable water systems in their area, particularly the officers of the Rural Waterworks and Sanitation Associations.
The summit was aimed to be a venue for discussion on the current experiences in managing and address the sustainability and expansion issues of the water system projects funded and supported by the Helvetas Philippine Program Office in the Province of Palawan and to introduce the Solar Water Disinfection (SODIS), as an alternative technology particularly to those communities in the upland who depend on rivers and dug wells for their water.
Aside from the discussion outputs of the activity, the summit also saw the formation of the Palawan Tubig Working Group, which was expected to spearhead the preparation of securing water permits, water rights and other related tasks. It is composed of representatives coming from the water associations, local government units and the non-government associations.
A workshop seminar on Participatory Development Planning Review and Local Development Council Strengthening was held at in Catarman, Northern Samar on October 24 – 26. The main objective of this workshop seminar was to assess the BDP-PRA of the four municipalities in Northern Samar which were assisted by IPG. IPG invited in this workshop the key people who were responsible for the implementation of participatory local development planning to appraise what has been done so far, to learn from the gains, to fill in the gaps, and recommend policies and actions towards the sustainability of the outcomes of the intervention.
Some of the achievements of PROGRESS for 2004 included the formation of the Municipal Technical Working Group as an indicator of establishing participatory governance mechanism, creation of venues for collaboration between the local government units and civil society groups particularly in joint undertakings on community development, the formation of Provincial Pool of Facilitators, among others. An assessment revealed the need on integrating Barangay Development Plans into Municipal Development Plan through participatory processes involving municipal departments and line agencies, and the need to support attempts to replicate mode of partnership in other undertakings outside of PROGRESS projects
Some problems though, were encountered. For example, the activities were lumped into the second half of the year due to the national election. This drained the energy of the facilitators and the participants since they also have other duties and responsibilities in their respective organizations. In fact there were some barangay elected officials and residents in the community that refused to participate because BDP-PRA was purportedly identified with their rivals in politics. This also contributed to the delay of the desired outputs required of them particularly in the packaging of Barangay Development Plans.
It was observed that participants to the training activities were mostly non-PMC members particularly on the theoretical part of participatory planning and budgeting, and participatory monitoring and evaluation. There was no monitoring conducted on the status of the activation of Barangay Development Councils and other local special bodies and there was some difficulties on sustaining the interest of the participants to attend the continuous full 5-day planning session
It was thus recommended that among others, attendance of PMC members must be assured in discussions, especially those involving framework settings. There should also be advanced capability building programs for the Provincial Pool of Facilitators to avoid being mechanical in conducting participatory planning processes. There was also the recurrent suggestion to open up other possible sources of funding support for project partners. And finally there was a need to support municipal-initiated activities (both LGUs and CSGs) that emanated from partnership experiences such as scaling-up of barangay-level initiatives to municipal level in order to sustain the rising interest on partnership such as the strengthening of the Municipal Development Council and initiating participatory planning processes at that level.
Fifth Year.
In 2005, the PROGRESS undertaking began to work around venues available in scaling up the intervention from the participatory planning initiatives implemented at the barangay level towards the municipal level.
In the fourth year of IPG’s involvement with PROGRESS, it aimed to strengthen and mobilize municipal-level network of community organization that will enforce the provisions of the Local Government Code for the creation of Barangay Development Council, Municipal Development Council (MDC) and other municipal special bodies that would oversee the effective management of the project funded by PROGRESS after it has been turned over to the community;
It also sought to develop the capacity of the Provincial Training Pool as local facilitators for participatory planning and budgeting processes; and document the governance projects focusing on the achievements and lessons learned in the implementation of the projects that will be promoted for replication in other areas
In summary, IPG conducted a total of thirteen trainings, including two for the provincial pool of facilitators in both Palawan and Northern Samar, a DIALOGS training in Palawan for the new partners of Helvetas in the province, and trainings on resource mobilization, BDP packaging and continued BDP-PRAs in more barangays in both project areas..
In Palawan, the program was able to train 189 participants coming from the Local Government Units, Non-Government Organizations and People’s Organizations. One hundred ten (110) or fifty nine percent (59%) of the participants came from the LGUs while the remaining forty two percent (42%) came from the representatives of the NGOs and POs. From the total participants who attended the training activities, thirty seven percent (37%) were women.
In Northern Samar, there were a total of 174 participants who attended the training activities. Eighty-one (81) or forty seven percent (47%) were women. At least fifty-six percent (56%) of the participants came from the LGUs.
The training on participatory monitoring and evaluation resulted in the formulation of the Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the members of the Project Management Committee. For non-members of the PMC, they were able to come up with the PM&E Plan for the Barangay Development Plans.
A seminar on Project Prioritization and Resource Mobilization was conducted in Palawan and Northern Samar. The training was the last of the series of trainings conducted for the capability building for the members of the Provincial Pool of Facilitators.
The training aimed to capacitate the provincial trainors on how to conduct project prioritization, packaging of Municipal Development Plans and resource mobilization in the municipal level. This was deemed important since participatory municipal development planning and mobilization would be conducted in municipalities where all or fifty percent (50%) of barangays have formulated their barangay development plans through participatory processes.
One of the significant accomplishments of PROGRESS in the year 2005 was the integration of the barangay development plans into municipal development plans using the same participatory approaches. This was conducted in the municipality of Roxas, Palawan. The activity was unprogrammed since it was not included in the IPG proposal to Helvetas. However, this was the direction that was aspired for as the next level of governance intervention of the program.
In March 14 – 18, 2005, the LGU of Roxas, Palawan conducted the Participatory Municipal Development Planning which aimed to integrate the results of the Barangay Development Plans into the Municipal Development Plan. Present in the activity were the barangay captains, representatives of civil society groups, municipal department heads, line agencies and the Municipal Council members.
The activity was facilitated by a team composed of Institute of Politics and Governance, Institute for Popular Democracy and Center for Agrarian Reform Education and Transformation with the assistance of the Municipal Technical Working Group of Roxas.
The barangay captains were able to prioritize projects coming from the barangay development plans that will be funded by the municipal local development fund. It was also agreed by the municipal assembly to adopt the concept of co-financing and community contribution in implementing the projects in order to maximize the limited funds of the barangay and municipality.
In May 13, 2005, the LGU of Roxas was able to conduct a pledging session in order to invite more funding agencies to support priority projects. Funding agencies and politicians were invited to express their pledge of support to the LGU. Initially, they were able to raise an amount of forty million pesos to fund various project ranging from infrastructure, coastal, agricultural and other projects.
This event was the opportunity taken by the Institute of Politics and Governance to pilot the concept of scaling up peoples participation in local governance reforms. It also hoped to replicate the same activity to other municipalities who have completed their conduct of barangay development plans.
IPG published 2,000 copies of Balitang Kaunlaran (BALITANG K) in December 2005 covering news updates from July 2004 – December 2005. Balitang K was a 12-page newsletter that featured the PROGRESS projects in different areas. It also included editorial and features on deepening the beneficiaries’ knowledge in participatory local governance.
The IPG completed the case studies on PROGRESS featuring the experiences of the municipalities of Roxas in Palawan and Pambujan in Northern Samar. The case studies highlighted the successful experiences of the two municipalities in terms of LGU-CSO partnership under PROGRESS.
The fourth year of IPG’s intervention in Palawan and Northern Samar through PROGRESS saw the formation of the Provincial Pool of Facilitators that would cater to provincial needs on participatory planning and budgeting of different municipalities, setting up of Municipal Technical Working Group, a marked improvement in skills of the Provincial Pool of Facilitators in terms of facilitation and conducting trainings, integration of the Barangay Development Plans in the Municipal Development Plans, and a noticed realization by the LGUs and CSGs of their complementary roles in achieving development.
It was noted however, that not all original members of the Provincial Pool of Facilitators were able to attend training activities designed for them because tere was some problems with the willingness of their immediate superiors to free them from office work to participate in the activities. It was observed that not all members of the Provincial Pool of Facilitators are ready to be tapped as resource persons in the training. However, all of them are good BDP-PRA Facilitators. Finally, The Provincial Pool members need to be exposed in the conduct of actual Muncipal Development Planning
IPG recommended that the members of the Provincial Pool of Facilitators be actively involved in the actual conduct of participatory municipal development planning and budgeting and further oriented on the theory, concepts and processes of participatory municipal development planning. IPG also saw the need to reorganize the Provincial Pool of Facilitators where members selected should give their commitment to actively participate in the activities expected of them.
It was suggested that a written agreement between Helvetas and the Provincial Pool member’s organization or supervisor be executed regarding their commitment to PROGRESS. IPG also recommended that the conduct of BDP-PRA process be reviewed in order to design it to be ready and fit in the preparation for its integration in the Municipal Development Plan.
The implementation of PROGRESS in 2005 achieved great results in participatory governance. From the conduct of participatory planning in the barangay level, it moved to another level, the municipal development planning. This process, together with the formation of the Provincial Pool of Facilitators in the two provinces provided the appropriate venue for scaling up the interventions made in the municipalities covered by the program.
The role and commitment of the local chief executive was also seen as very important in doing groundwork tasks for institutionalizing participatory governance. The commitment of the local chief executive should be translated into direct order to his staff by forming a Municipal Technical Working Group to do the necessary staff work. Without this, it would be very difficult even for the Municipal Development Council members to prepare a very great task.
What has been started by PROGRESS since its maiden year, 2002, started to bear fruit. The Local Government Units took the initiative of scaling up the governance work in the barangay level to municipal level. Program implementers of PROGRESS had to address this demand in order to sustain LGUs interest on participatory governance.
The Last Year.
The year 2006 was the fifth and final year of IPG’s intervention with the PROGRESS program. That year, IPG was able to facilitate a total of 25 activities, including 4 trainings, 7 municipal development plannings, 14 orientations on MDP and co-production, co-financing.
The program was able to facilitate Participatory Municipal Development Planning in seven municipalities in Palawan and Northern Samar. The Municipal-wide activities were attended by Municipal Officials, LGU Department Heads, Local Line Agencies, Barangay Captains, Barangay Councilors, Barangay Secretaries, and Representatives of Non-Government Organizations and Peoples Organizations.
Municipal Technical Working Groups were also formed to assist the facilitators in conducting the municipal participatory planning activities. The MTWG and Association of Barangay Captains were also given an orientation on Co-production and Co-financing that would guide them in implementing the projects under the barangay-bayan bayanihan framework of project implementation.
The municipal governments of Coron, El Nido and Busuanga in Palawan and Pambujan, Lavezares, Lope De Vega and Victoria in Northern Samar held three-four day municipal assemblies to formulate their comprehensive (5 years) municipal development plans.
The IPG mobilized the members of the Palawan Advocates for Good Governance and Empowerment (PAGE) and its counterpart in Northern Samar, the Samar Advocates for Good Governance and Empowerment (SAGE), to form a team of facilitators-coaches that facilitated the conduct of the municipal assembly.
The scaling up of participatory planning and budgeting from barangay to municipal level was an outcome of the PROGRESS project of HELVETAS and IPG, and NGO partners in Palawan. Through the PROGRESS project, Barangay Development Planning through Participatory Resource Appraisal (BDP-PRA) was conducted in most barangays in the three municipalities.
Facilitators of BDP-PRA were trained and most of them are employees of the Municipio. They later on formed the Municipal Technical Working Group (MTWG), which is led by the Municipal Development Planning Office (MDPO) and staffed by selected employees from the different municipal offices. The MTWGs prepared the necessary documents needed for the municipal development planning activity.
IPG worked closely with the MTWG in organizing and convening a municipal assembly to formulate the mechanisms that would integrate BDPs in the municipal development plan.
The municipality of Coron conducted its PMDP on July 3 – 6, while El Nido and Busuanga municipalities held the same activity on August 21 – 23 and September 4 – 6, respectively.
In Northern Samar, the same activities were conducted in Pambujan on October 15-17; Lavezares on October 21 – 23; Lope De Vega on November 19 – 21; and Victoria on November 25 – 27, 2006.
The planning workshop was attended by the Municipal Mayor, Vice Mayor, Sangguniang Bayan members, Department Heads, Barangay Captains, Barangay Secretaries, Representative of Barangay Councils, Representatives of Non-Government Organizations, Peoples Organizations and Line Agency Representatives.
The whole process resulted in the integration of the Barangay Development Plans in the Municipal Development Plans, formulation of Five-Year Municipal Development Plan approved in principle by the Municipal Development Councils and endorsed to the Sangguniang Bayan, the formulation of Sectoral Plans, proper orientation for barangay captains on how such projects under MDPs will be implemented and identification of priority projects that need immediate action and support coming from the municipality.
The problems encountered however, included the very long list of projects lined up for possible co-production and co-financing. There was also a need to identify clusters of barangays with common projects to facilitate inter-barangay cooperation and save up on potential costs. There was also a discovered need to study and discuss approaches on bureaucratic adjustments in the context of participatory planning and project implementation, since some municipal officers were reluctant to support BDP identified projects due to conflicts with the local chief executive in a particular municipality.
There was also initial confusion in situating the planning process in the context of formal (and traditional) planning process in the Municipio and the role of certain officials in this new process, e.g., local officers from the Municipio and NGAs. It was also observed that there was no mechanism for evaluating and integrating substantial programs on gender and development (GAD) in municipal budgeting, and there was a little difficulty in coordination between the facilitator-coaches and the MTWG in handling workshop discussions.
Among the learnings as the participatory planning process was scaled up was that participatory MDP should only be conducted if the mayor and the Muncipal Development and Planning Council are willing to adopt the framework. If the mayor can’t put the MPDC into work, the cycle of participatory approaches would not be completed. It might stagnate in the planning level. Influencing the vice mayor is also just as important as influencing the mayor. Influencing only the mayor makes the job half-done.
It was also noted that in project prioritization in 4th and 5th class municipality, barangays tend to prioritize infrastructure project. This might be because these municipalities are mostly agricultural municipalities that have neglected interior barangays. Projects range from farm to market road, multi-purpose pavement, water system, etc.)
In its five years of work with the PROGRESS project, IPG made headway in introducing participatory planning in helping make interventions more people-centered and truly reflective of the communities’ needs. The challenge, as ever is sustainability and the need for documenting the best practices introduced and discovered along the way for possible replication, and identification and sharing of lessons for improvements in future work.