Report on CLMP Implementation: A draft

National Anti-Poverty Commission

June 2014

I. Background

• Just like other programs, a number of vulnerabilities can emerge in the implementation of the Grassroots Participatory Budgeting Process

• These vulnerabilities may include fraud, corruption, inefficiency and disenfranchisement of CSOs in the whole process

• Based on previous experiences, among the design features necessary to mitigate governance and corruption risks are the presence of citizens’-based monitoring and/or social accountability mechanisms

• Thus, in November 2013, NAPC, with funding support from the DBM, implemented a pilot project entitled Citizens’ Led Monitoring Program or CLMP

• It adopts the Community Scorecard Process (CSC), a tool in conducting community based project performance monitoring

II. The Mechanics of the Pilot run

• The program covers 102 cities and municipalities in 8 poorest provinces targeted by the GBP in 2013.

• The CSO partners, the number of municipalities, number of projects to be monitored and the 8 provinces concerned are:

Provinces Partner CSOs `No. of Municipalities

No. of Projects

monitored Abra Concerned Citizens of Abra for Good

Governance (CCAGG) 17 20

Antique Antique Federation of NGOs (AFON) 7 14 Negros Occidental Quidan Kaisahan (QK) 19 37 Northern Samar Sacred Heart Institute or Transformative

Education (SHIFT)

12 27

Zamboanga del Norte ACORD 17 29Davao Oriental PAKISAMA Mindanao 8 16Camarines Sur Caucus for Bicol Development (CBD) 21 35 Benguet Igorota Foundation 1 2

TOTAL 102 180

III. The CSC: Its Objectives, Basic Features and Methodology

A. Objectives

It hopes to help improve governance, promotes transparency, accountability and strengthen community’s voice and empowerment.

Specifically, it is aimed to

1) Keep the community informed on the status of project implementation

2) Establish mechanism of direct feedback thru an interface meeting between the community/beneficiaries and project implementers

3) generate action plans, learning and insights

B. Basic Features

Improvement-oriented – geared not to investigate, find fault, castigates, vilify or build cases but to improve project performance

Participatory/geared towards people empowerment - involves various stakeholders most especially the beneficiaries.

Citizen’s-based/led - projects will be assessed according to the process and/or outcome indicators that the community will decide depending on their knowledge, understanding and capacity

C. Methodology

The 6 major steps

1. Social preparation or preparatory groundwork activities• Ensure that monitoring groups are organized and prepared and

stakeholders are informed, will support and participate in the process

2. Input Tracking/Assessment of Project Status• A simple comparison of project plan and targets with actual

accomplishments in the community

3. Community Scorecard• an assessment of project performance based on criteria

developed and scored by the community and coming up with suggestions for reform

4. Self-evaluation Scorecard•This refers to the project implementers who shall also conduct self-assessment on their performance. The methodology is identical to the CSC.

5. Interface Meeting and Action Planning•Respective feedback from the community and self-evaluation score cards are presented and mutually agreed “reform” agenda are generated

6. Monitoring of project implementation/implementation of action plan•The conduct of monitoring and spot checks to enquire about the implementation of action plans

8

IV. Monitoring Indicators

•Projects will be assessed according to the process and/or outcome indicators that the community will decide depending on their knowledge, understanding and capacity, which may include the following:

A. Process Indicators

o Quality. Is the project implemented according to the standard? Are the materials according to the POW or Proposal?

o Efficiency. Is it implemented according to plan, budget and schedule? Is the accomplishment report consistent with the actual

implementations?

o Participatory. Are the community/beneficiaries consulted or involved in the project identification, design and monitoring?

o Transparency. Are the project information made public?

9

B. Outcome indicators

o Beneficiaries Satisfaction. Are the beneficiaries happy with the project?

o Functionality/availability. Is it available, can be used or of service when needed?

o Adequacy. Is it sufficient vis a vis the need of the beneficiaries?

o Gender sensitivity. Does it have no negative effects on women?

o Poverty Responsiveness. Is it based on the on the urgent need or responsive to the poverty situation?

o Sustainability/Reliability. Is there a maintenance scheme in place and/or is it sustainable and reliable?

Data Gathering Methods

Review of project documents, e.g POWs,

Interview with beneficiaries

Focus Group Discussion

Project Site Visits Community Assembly

V. Initial Findings

Fund Source

Total No of Proj

Monitored

Nothing on the ground Ongoing Completed

Not compliant with the POW/ with defects or deficiency observed

(completed)

Number %DA 84 13 38 33 12 36%DILG 32 3 16 13 7 54%DSWD 25 2 19 4 1 25%DENR 11 3 3 5 3 60%DOH 11 2 6 3 1 33%NEA 2 0 1 1 0 0%BFAR 5 1 1 3 3 100%DOLE 3 0 2 1 0 0%TOTAL 173 24 86 63 27 43%

B. Status of Projects Monitored according to Fund Source

Project Type Completed

Projects that beneficiaries are

satisfied

Not compliant with POW/ with defects or deficiency observed

Number % Number %

FMR 24 14 58% 10 42%

Potable Water System 15 9 60% 7 47%

Irrigation 4 3 75% 1 25%

Livelihood 12 7 58% 5 42%

Nursery 2 2 100% 1 50%

Electrification 1 1 100% 0 0%

DRR 2 0 0% 2 100%

Health Project 3 2 67% 1 33%

TOTAL 63 38 60% 27 43%

C. Status of Completed Projects According to Project Type

Implementing Unit/ Agency Completed Projects that beneficiaries are

satisfied

Number %

DA 5 4 80%

LGU 35 21 60%

DSWD 3 2 67%

DENR 5 3 60%

DOH 1 1 100%

NIA 3 3 100%

NEA 1 1 100%

BFAR 3 1 33%

DPWH 2 2 100%

DILG 2 0 0%

D. Beneficiaries Satisfaction Rating on Projects Implemented

Project Title Project site Fund Source

Implementing

Unit/Agency

Status Negative feedback

Cattle Dispersal for Indigent Beneficiaries

Baay-Licuan, Abra

DA LGU - Licuan-Baay

On-going the 2 batches of cattle heads (@ about 25 each) delivered to the LGU for dispersal to indigent beneficiaries were placed in a private pasture land

Fishing Gears and Materials

Baganga, Davao Oriental

BFAR NGA Completed

Some of the materials delivered were not in their specified sizes and amount i.e. 35 kilos of lead instead of 50 kilos; some floaters and nylons were not the specified sizes.

Some Projects with Issues/concerns

Project Title Project site Fund Source

Implemen

ting Unit/Age

ncy

Status Negative feedback

Barangay Nursery Establishment

Mati City, Davao Oriental

DENR NGA Completed Ready to plant seedlings were distributed; not assured of the variety; scheme is not according to their original proposal which is community nursery establishment

Enhancement of health center and facilities

Candoni, Negros Occidental

DOH LGU-RHU reported completed

from the assessment of the beneficiaries, the project is only 80% complete

FMR Bula DA DA On-going Defective, did not follow the standard procedure and has no transparency

F. Issues By Project Type

1. Farm to Market Road

a. Transparency. No billboard, Project info not accessible

b. Quality/Durability Materials not according to specs Defects/cracks noted No heavy equipment in the construction Absence of drainage canal No asphalt sealant on contraction joints• No slope protection structures, e.g. rip rap

c. Adequacy• Not adequate to the needs

2. Livelihood

a. Participation• Beneficiaries were not involve in the identification, are not aware

b.Viability•Inappropriate timing, e.g. Machinery for basi came only after sugarcane harvesting season; •Stocks (cattle) distributed are small, hence, may not generate the profit as expected

c. Quality/Durability• 50% of Rubber seedlings distributed died•fishing boats have no "katig or palatiks"; not painted properly; heads of nails are not coated with epoxy•boats are too small (can carry only 1 person); they are too light and unsafe. One boat was reported to have already sank

d. Adequacyb.Organic fertilizer distributed were not enough for each farmers’ lot

3. Potable water system

a. Functionality/Availability• Source is quite far • water supply is very limited, unstable

b. Quality• Sub-standard and leaking hose; the reservoir is small and

rough - no finishing and paint• pipes are very visible and prone to accident by the bystanders• The ram pump already broke down before it even started to

operate

c. Reliabilitya. Unsafe; not potable

a. Participation• No participation in the planning, design and implementation

G. Issues and Concerns on NGAs

• Non-coordination with the LGUs Project implementation are not coordinated with the LGUs

• Non-recognition of LGUs eligibility to implement GPB projectsNGA’s insistence in implementing the projects despite the eligibility of the LGUs to receive funds and implement such

• Delayed procurement processProcurement process at the central offices is taking too long.

• Replacement of GPB projects with regular projects and/or Attribution of regular projects as GPB projects

Some projects approved prior to BUB are eventually attributed to BUB

• The lack of knowledge about GPB projectsSeveral NGAs are not aware that the particular projects included in the list of projects to be monitored are BUB projects

H. Other concerns/issues

• Conflicting information re project statusDifficulty in getting the validated and updated status of 2013 BUB projects. The list taken from DBM website is different from the information of many LGUs.

• Inability of the LPRAT to meet regularly As regards the LPRATs, most have not been meeting as prescribed by the PMO.

• Lack of local policy issuances to support CSO participationMany LGUs have no policy issuances to support the participation of CSOs both at the monitoring of the projects & project management thru LPRAT

I. Good Practices

Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte

• The LGU actively supported the GPB process. It helped facilitate the conduct of CSO assembly and the accreditation of almost all CSOs in the municipality. It encourages the participation of CSOs in the identification and monitoring of GPB projects. The LPRAT meets regularly and the CSOs are now organized into a federation.

San Carlos City, Negros Occidental

• The LGU especially the LCE has performed his role as the LPRAT Chair, encouraged CSO participation and spearheaded the LPRAT processes. The LPRAT executed its oversight functions over the GPB projects and designated a full-time staff as the BuB Focal Person to serve as the Secretariat and coordinate with various stakeholders for feedback, follow up and updating.

VI. Learnings and Insights

1. With CLMP, defects can be solved through dialogue. • Observed in Cam Sur, Negros Occ, Zamboanga del Norte, Davao Oriental

2. It sends a strong signal to concerned agencies/units and individuals to implement GPB projects properly

• In Neg Occ, project implementers became careful in implementing GPB projects

• Draw the interest of donor to provide financial support, e.g. Antique

3. National Government backing through concerned agencies is a big push for the people to engage in local governance

4. LPRATs particularly the CSO side are left out in the project monitoring as per JMC. Their participation in the BuB/GPB process often starts and ends in the LPRAP Workshop

5. The use of project documents as reference in the monitoring of project performance has made the work of the CMTs easier and more credible.

6. The monitoring as performed by the community members and project beneficiaries is cost effective and efficient; they are instrumental in the gathering of field and on-site information related to the actual project performance in a timely and updated manner.

• In Davao Oriental, COA is already requesting PAKISAMA to provide them with information

7. The mobilization of barangay officials & purok leaders (especially in FMR projects) and community-based organizations as part of the CMTs proves effective in terms of engaging the implementers

• from securing project documents to reporting observed defects to the implementers and pursuing corrections to the projects.

8. Logistical assistance and technical mentoring are important in order to sustain the citizens’ monitoring of government projects.

VII. Recommendations

GPB Execom

1. Establish a unified, online database containing basic information and status of GPB projects.

2. Clarify/harmonize GPB guidelines with regular agency guidelines on project design and identification of beneficiaries.

• e.g. GPB livelihood project designed as grant and include non-NHTS identified beneficiaries vis-à-vis DSWD SLP guidelines designed as loans and targets only NHTS identified beneficiaries

3. Adopt a national standard for all GPB project signage

4. Include a provision prohibiting violation of labor laws such as child labor and the observance of regional minimum wage

5. Implement geo tagging of all GPB infra projects

6. Require all agencies, including LGUs to give copies of project documents and provide status updates to Citizen Monitors/communities concerned

4. Organize periodic Third Party Monitoring for GPB 2013 projects • by CSOs, academic and/or research institutes, private consulting

firms, media that have the necessary skills/expertise tracing the flow of resources from origin to destination

NAPC

1. Clarify CLMP 2 and the role of existing CSO partners

2. Strengthen the role of the Provincial Coordinating Teams or the Provincial CSO Secretariat in the citizens monitoring of BUB projects

DILG PMO

1. Strengthen the role of the LPRAT through:

a) Ensuring that LPRATs meet regularly and provide effective oversight on the projects

b) Ensuring implementation of LPRAT M&E system to complement CLMP

c) Clarifying the roles of CSOs in project implementation and monitoring

d) implement capacity building program for CSOs in local planning, monitoring and evaluation

NGAs

1.Ensure that regional and provincial offices of implementing agencies are informed of GPB projects and require them to:

a) coordinate with the LPRATs

b) conduct consultation(s) with the LPRATs/communities

c) update the LPRATs/communities of the project status.

d) provide the LPRATs with a complete set of proposals/POWs and progress reports (physical and financial)

3.Institutionalize citizens participation in NGAs monitoring of GPB projects by making citizens part of the agency monitoring teams, ex: in the inspectorate team of the FMR projects, regional monitoring teams for Salintubig, etc.

3. Include the following protocols in the agency monitoring:

a) Pre-implementation consultation with the direct target beneficiaries and other local stakeholders (CSOs and LGUs concerned)

b) Quick response on deficiencies raised for corrective measures

c) Conduct of post-implementation assessment

d) Require certificate of completion to be signed by duly authorized CMs or LPRAT CSO rep

5. Assign who and how the grievance will be received and addressed within agency M&E unit

6. Require the conduct of on-site inspection and technical validation and evaluation of proposed projects, e.g. FMR, potable water system, irrigation, livelihood; including maintenance and sustainability mechanism

7. Provide technical assistance to implementing body

"Nobody is minding the store. If you don't have any agency monitoring and no enforcement, people think they can get away with it." Bob Stern