Philippines decentralization and popular participation : an impact evaluation of the local resource management project (LRM #492-0358)

Evaluation focuses on Phase I of the project (1982-87). A product of New Directions and the 1983 CDSS, Phase I targeted beneficiaries by differentiating poverty by province, town, and village, and by occupational group. The project, managed by the National Economic and Development Authority, used national and provincial PVO's to help organize village groups and sensitize local governments to beneficiary needs. Two funds were established -- one for grants to local government for impact projects (mostly small infrastructure), and another for lending to village groups for income generating activities. Project implementation was slow for three reasons: (1) management problems; (2) disruptions in Philippine society from 1983-88; and (3) the sequential process of working with target groups through analyses, training, organization, registration, lending, and monitoring, and in the case of infrastructure, construction. Although some provinces short circuited the beneficiary analysis and choice, they generally reached the poor, but in far less numbers than planned. The PVO's, a vital link in the process, each brought their own organizational philosophy to the project, thus vitiating the experimental effort to alleviate poverty through occupational focus. Despite its administrative deficiencies at a variety of levels, the project had several positive attributes -- its direct link to beneficiaries, the role of indigenous PVO's, the initial focus on poverty on the basis of functional occupation, the training and reorientation process of government toward the poor, and its legacy of community self-help. Foreign donors and local governments are replicating and expanding the project's original concept. This was an innovative project at its inception in its direct support and capacity-building of local governments, its poverty focus, and its major PVO component. Now, due to internal political changes, these elements have become Philippine policy, giving added piquancy to the termination of the effort. Some effort to salvage the processes is recommended. Lessons learned are as follows: (1) The different organizational approaches of PVO's requires their differentiation and careful selection for the tasks needed. (2) The capacity to re-borrow may be an important incentive to repay loans. (3) Assumptions about interdepartmental coordination in project implementation should be questioned. (4) PVO financing may be an effective counterpoise when the public sector is too fiscally rigid. (5) Long lead times are needed for projects involving local organizing. (6) The reasons for people forming community groups may be different from those sustaining them. (7) Rural credit systems need much more attention at all levels. (8) Refresher training for projects involving new skills and relationships is required given normal attrition and personnel turnover. (9) Reporting, monitoring, evaluation, and other management information systems should be addressed early in project formulation. (10) At the first sign of implementation problems, management reviews should be conducted. (11) Structural links between participating institutions should be carefully considered in project design. (12) Capacity building must be a continuous endeavor. (Author abstract)