Action 2.1 Revamp urban development planning systems at the national and local levels
15. The current system is outdated, inadequate, and ignored by LGU decision makers. In many local governments the preparation of plans is often seen as a matter of compliance rather than as a tool for furthering development goals. There is urgency to develop enforceable regulations, incentives and support structures to ensure that comprehensive land use plans (CLUPs) are prepared and implemented in a participatory manner. Consensus needs to be reached on a time table to ensure that all LGUs have their CLUPs in place with sanctions for LGUs that do not comply. A starting point of the CLUPs needs to be risk sensitive land use planning ensuring the resiliency of urban areas to natural disasters. Beyond this minimum requirement – which is not achieved by most LGUs in the Philippines -- national government support is necessary to establish land use plans which promote equity and competiveness in the overall context of sustainable urban growth. As a third step, minimum standards of accountability of LGU officials to their constituents could be established and benchmarked. In the Philippines the comprehensive land use plans will have a special role to play in crafting a second generation of City Development Strategies (CDS) which can bring physical and economic planning considerations under one framework. In this sense the new generation of CDS can benefit from the Eco2 cities initiative which fosters an integrated long term perspective to urban planning.
Action 2.2 Address the urban management and planning capacity constraints
16. Capacity constraints limit the quality of planning and management in cities. International best practice suggests that the most important capacity building reform is developing an independent and verifiable system to certify competencies in key areas of urban management and planning. Publicly financed capacity building initiatives should be based on a framework whereby financing is based on achieved results (certified staff) rather than on inputs (staff who attend courses). An obvious capacity building entry point is the induction program for recently elected mayors and LGU officials. Organizational arrangements for promoting inter-city collaboration are also desirable programs. As important as capacity is the need to establish effective urban planning institutions. Inspired by the Institute of Research and Urban Planning of Curitiba (IPPUC) in Brazil, many such independent urban think tank and planning institutes have been established in Latin America.
Policy Area 3: Addressing the Needs of the Urban Poor
Action 3.1 Develop and implement an ambitious national slum upgrading program
17. While cities are expected to take the lead in ensuring the delivery of basic services, they are not always in a position to do so without central government support. A critical area of support which is required to address slum upgrading is access to a tertiary network of basic services that includes water, sanitation and road/public transport infrastructure. In order to meet these social objectives (including non devolved sectors such as education), LGU administrations can be encouraged to allocate more of their own resources through the provision of matching or challenge funds. Cities should also be encouraged to improve their own performance by updating existing regulations and introducing smart tax regimes to accelerate the development of critical services, such as housing, through the private sector (both individual and corporate). The current approach to housing delivery has led to urban sprawl, and has had limited success in ensuring that livelihood opportunities are not diminished. With the growing opportunities of securing global climate funds targeting carbon footprint reduction, planning for greater densification of cities, so that the carbon footprint in terms of energy and transport consumption is lowered could actually mobilize substantial concessional financing. The national government could create special incentives for local government to increase the level of financing for partnerships with real estate developers and communities to unlock and equitably share urban land values in manners that are consistent with well crafted zoning and building ordinances (e.g., higher floor area ratios) that reduce vulnerability to natural disasters.
Action 3.2 Encourage the private sector to invest in slum upgrading and resettlement
18. Urban renewal and slum upgrading will not be possible in the Philippines without close partnership with the NGO and private sectors. The most critical aspect is to develop techniques to unlock suboptimal land use while ensuring equitable access of housing solutions for the poor. In Metro Manila this will necessarily require a rationalized effort to densify areas with improved roads and public transport but also by transforming the housing solutions from primarily horizontal to primarily mid-rise housing solutions. These mid-rise housing solutions, in combination with the appropriate policy and regulatory framework, will create the necessary conditions to improve land use patterns in the urban space and enable private sector participation. Throughout developed economies, mixed housing development regulations have been used to oblige developers to produce and offer a certain number of units within each newly developed neighborhood at prices that are affordable to low-income households. In the developing world, the creation of “Transferable Development Rights” (TDRs) has brought developers into the low-income market in much the same way. In Mumbai, developers were offered an increase in the permitted floor-surface-index (FSI) if they agreed to produce a given number of low-income units. Results from these experiments have been mixed but important lessons have been learned. Even in cases where government was not involved, slum communities have come to similar arrangements with developers who owned land where slums were situated but faced long court battles to evict slum dwellers. In an arrangement called “land-sharing,” communities agree to voluntarily vacate part of the land for commercial development in return for receiving rights to occupy, and in some cases even receive housing and basic services, on the less commercially-viable part of the land. Examples include Thailand, Cambodia and India. Finally, CEMEX the leading Mexican cement producer, has gotten even more directly involved in housing construction by targeting its Patrimonio Hoy program to low and middle income families that are building their homes one room at a time. The credit provided for the purchase of cement, plus the technical assistance and storage, have allowed families to add an additional room in 60 percent less time and with 35 percent lower expense while maintaining higher technical quality.
Victor Vergara (EASIN)
The World Bank
PHILIPPINES Discussion Note No. 16
Community-Driven Development
Getting more and better public services to the poor
CDD approaches are being successfully applied in the Philippines as part of efforts to enhance decentralized service delivery and improve local-level governance and performance. The objective now is to expand the program coverage nationally, but there are challenges such as the possible duplication of approaches, the need to harmonize institutional arrangements, as well as ensuring adequate financing. The key action areas are the development of a roadmap based on an assessment of experience to scale up the CDD program nationwide, and the consolidation and rationalization of the “CDD platform” to achieve synergy and convergence for maximum impact.
A. The Philippines Today: Progress and Challenges
-
The development context in the Philippines has been shaped by the constitutional and legislative provisions of the Local Government Code (LGC) which devolved significant responsibility and funding to local government units (LGUs). Yet almost 20 years after the passing of the LGC into law, many poor municipalities still lag behind. Inequity and inefficiency in resource transfers from national to local governments, a lack of ability and/or commitment on the part of local governments to support participatory approaches to development, and real capacity constraints at the community level mean that many poorer communities continue to suffer from limited resources, poor access to basic public services, and a lack of opportunity for people to actively participate in local governance processes.
-
Some programs use CDD to achieve specific sectoral objectives, such as the Mindanao Rural Development program which supports the devolution of Department of Agriculture functions to LGUs, and the Agrarian Reform Communities Development program, implemented by the Department of Agrarian Reform, which seeks to achieve national government objectives relating to land reform. Other programs, such as the Kapitbisig Laban Sa Kahirapan - Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services program (KALAHI), implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development, have utilized multi-sectoral CDD approaches to achieve broader community empowerment objectives (see Box 1). In the ARMM region, the ARMM Social Fund program has been developed to meet the needs of conflict-affected communities.
-
Initial results from the KALAHI provide evidence of the success of the CDD approach in the Philippines. Since it started in 2002, the KALAHI has financed more than 5,000 community projects for basic services (e.g., water supply systems; community infrastructure, such as access roads and bridges; school buildings; health clinics; day care centers; community enterprise ventures). The program has provided support to the poorest 25 percent of municipalities in the 42 poorest provinces with small grants provided directly to communities. Preliminary results from a quantitative impact evaluation indicate that the social preparation phase conducted by KALAHI community facilitators has led to greater participation of the poor with their “voices” heard in the selection of development projects, and that the participatory processes applied have led to positive changes in social and institutional dynamics of the villages. In particular, frequency of interaction between villagers and local officials has increased, suggesting an increase in the level of trust in local authorities. An economic analysis of the KALAHI community investments estimated that the economic rate of return (ERR) of its sub-projects was 21 percent. The analysis also concluded that the unit cost of sub-projects was generally lower than those constructed by government agencies.
Box 1: Supporting decentralized structures and processes through CDD
The KALAHI has worked closely with and through formal structures mandated by the Local Government Code, including barangay assemblies for planning, and barangay development councils for implementation. It supports innovative program-supported structures, such as the municipal inter-agency committee for horizontal integration among villages, their respective local governments and national government agencies, and the municipal inter-barangay forum for prioritization of village development plans.
By supporting established governance systems the project is able to better support strategic alignment, technical partnership and cost-sharing between village-level structures and their local governments. Compared to the past, the KALAHI has made the formal structures of local government more active by introducing processes for citizens’ participation, bottom up accountability, and greater transparency in decision making and local funds utilization. This has enabled villagers to make their demands more audible and visible to local governments, and has linked them to higher-level planning and budgeting processes to achieve greater scale and sustainability.
Women have played a particularly active role in the participatory processes, and many are actively involved in leadership roles as community volunteers. In addition, drawing on lessons from the early years of implementation, the project has introduced specific interventions designed to address the needs of indigenous people and conflict-affected communities, where the regular processes may not provide adequate opportunity for socially excluded groups to fully participate in project activities.
|
Key Challenges
-
Despite the generally positive experience with CDD, it is not a panacea for addressing all of the problems associated with weak governance and poor performance at the local level. And CDD programs themselves have faced a number of criticisms.
-
First, CDD programs can be prone to “elite capture” or the domination of decision making and resource allocation choices by the politically powerful. CDD programs often operate in difficult governance environments and are unlikely to be insulated from local political dynamics. The influence of vested interests limits the extent to which public institutions are accountable and transparent, which tends to bring the participatory processes adopted by CDD programs directly into conflict with ingrained systems of patronage at national and local levels, and makes the ultimate success of CDD programs depend significantly on the enabling institutional environment. It is important that CDD programs develop an awareness of national and local political dynamics that affect program implementation, and develop clear operational guidelines to apply in situations where program rules are not followed, including the sanction of program suspension.
-
Second, CDD programs run the risk of undermining decentralization policies by establishing parallel delivery mechanisms that undermine institutional arrangements for decentralization and diminish efforts to develop the capacity of local governments. Also CDD investments may not be well integrated with or may even contradict broader sector plans. And the presence of CDD programs may add to the fragmentation of anti-poverty programs at the local level. Multiple CDD approaches managed by different government agencies may also be confusing and potentially wasteful. CDD programs and their activities therefore need to be carefully designed with reference to the country’s overall decentralization framework and in close consultation with relevant national government agencies and local governments.
-
Third, while there is some evidence that CDD projects create effective community infrastructure and social services, the evidence to establish a causal relationship between program outcomes and the participatory elements of CDD remains weak. Qualitative evidence suggests that external agents strongly influence project success, but facilitators are often poorly trained and inexperienced, particularly when programs are rapidly scaled up. Several qualitative studies indicate that the sustainability of CDD initiatives depends crucially on having a supportive institutional environment, which requires upward commitment to tap sources of technical and financial assistance. Equally, studies indicate that community leaders need to be downwardly accountable to avoid demand-driven processes becoming supply-driven.
B. Where the Philippines Could Be: How to Scale up CDD in the Philippines
-
The success of CDD programs can be enhanced by the incorporation of the key principles of participation, transparency and accountability into the planning and budgeting systems of local governments which, in turn, would support a longer-term agenda of reform. Some factors that shape the local governance and accountability space are within the influence of CDD operations, including: shoring up administrative skills of the local bureaucracy for participatory governance; animating governance arenas, such as barangay assemblies; building community capacity for voice, negotiation and oversight; and, providing the experience of civil society-local government synergies that could be used to generate increased trust.
-
Scaling up CDD programs in the Philippines can create an integrative and coordinative platform to support the convergence of different government policies and programs, including those tailored to address the needs of specific local development contexts. But scaling up should be done gradually based on careful analysis and assessment of program performance, and through detailed quantitative and qualitative impact evaluations. The elements of a CDD platform have already been established in the Philippines. This can provide an effective foundation for local implementation of a range of community-oriented development programs including better organized communities that: (a) are accustomed to calling village assembly meetings to discuss priorities and assign tasks and working together for a common purpose, (b) are supportive of transparent approaches, equipped with the necessary skills to keep financial and other records, and, (c) have leaders who can motivate change and are committed to ensuring the participation of marginalized and vulnerable groups. Despite this progress in establishing a CDD platform, the scale of CDD operations remains relatively modest.
Table 1. Philippines: Areas for Action
Policy Area 1: Roadmap for Nationwide Scaling Up of CDD
Action 1.1 Ensure policy coherence
Action 1.2 Assess evidence to support program design
Action 1.3 Secure stakeholder engagement and participation
Action 1.4 Harmonize approaches
Action 1.5 Coordinate institutional arrangements
|
Policy Area 2: Expanding the CDD Platform
Action 2.1 Institutionalize CDD in planning and budgeting systems of LGUs
Action 2.2 Customize CDD approaches to address context-specific needs
Action 2.3 Promote synergy and convergence
Action 2.4 Assess impact
|
Roadmap for Nationwide Scaling Up of CDD
-
A roadmap to systematically guide and inform the scaling up of CDD would present a conceptual framework for linking together the various related parts of the CDD landscape. It would enable policymakers and stakeholders to define a common frame of reference for addressing the major issues in relation to scaling up CDD.
Action 1.1 Ensure policy coherence
-
The scaling up process for CDD needs to ensure appropriate coherence and consistency with other key development strategies. This would require close cooperation with key national government agencies responsible for setting sector policies relating to CDD programs (i.e., roads and bridges, water supply, community education and health, livelihoods), as well as the broader reform agendas relating to decentralization and social protection given their particular relevance to CDD.
Action 1.2 Assess evidence to strengthen program design
-
The roadmap process provides an opportunity to synthesize the diverse evidence included in studies on the experience of local service delivery for the poor in the Philippines and elsewhere. Led by senior policy makers, and involving local academics and other stakeholders, the review process would identify, review, and present the main lessons learned to inform the design of the nationwide CDD program.
Action 1.3 Secure stakeholder engagement and participation
-
Given the wide range of stakeholders engaged in CDD programs at all levels – which include, among others, community leaders, people’s organizations, NGOs, faith-based organizations, the private sector, national government oversight and line agencies, local governments at the provincial, municipal and barangay level, and, international development partners – it would be important to define a process to permit dialogue and debate and subsequently to reach agreement on the key design, institutional, and financial arrangements for a nationwide CDD program. Civil society groups, especially NGOs with broad membership networks, would play an important role, and an enhanced role for national and local universities would help promote a stronger sense of civic engagement through student and faculty outreach, while providing excellent opportunities for research.
Action 1.4 Harmonize approaches
-
As in other countries, CDD programs in the Philippines have emerged in response to a variety of different needs and contexts. While each CDD program has its distinct rationale, successive programs do not always incorporate the lessons of previous programs, nor do earlier programs adjust to respond to lessons from subsequent programs. Over time this is likely to lead to redundancy, duplication, and complication in design and implementation arrangements. Therefore part of the review of evidence would include an assessment of the need to consolidate, harmonize, and rationalize various CDD programs to improve their overall impact.
Action 1.5 Coordinate institutional arrangements
-
Scaling up is not a linear process. The Department of Social Welfare and Development is well positioned to provide overall leadership for the roadmap process; however, given no single government agency has the capacity to support all aspects of a nationwide CDD program, overall institutional arrangements would need to transcend narrow sector-specific concerns. Using the roadmap process to secure stronger buy-in from government agencies would be essential to ensure strong coordination at the national level, which would include: key sector agencies; the Department of the Interior and Local Government and the various leagues of local governments; and national-level coordination through the National Anti-Poverty Commission and the National Economic and Development Authority. Sequencing and budgeting are also important issues (see Box 2).
Box 2: How much would a nationwide CDD program cost in the Philippines?
The actual cost to the national government of a nationwide CDD program is difficult to estimate as there are many design choices that would affect the overall cost. As a starting point, assuming average per capita KALAHI grants are in line with current allocations and similar across the country, total costs for a nationwide CDD program would be between US$250-500 million or around PhP10-20 billion per year. However, the actual amount could vary depending on a number of factors. First, cost-sharing arrangements with local governments could be adjusted depending on the poverty status of different provinces and cities, with better off areas expected to contribute more towards supporting CDD allocations; this would be similar to the arrangement to the Municipal Funds program of Mexico where resources are allocated to municipalities on the basis of a poverty index. Second, as municipalities become more successful at drawing in funds from other sources, and as they take on greater responsibility for program implementation, their co-financing share of CDD interventions is likely to increase. Third, over time it would be possible to move from an entitlement-based allocation (based on a municipality’s poverty incidence) to a more performance-based allocation (assessed according to a municipality’s performance in relation to achieving program benchmarks).
|
Expanding the CDD Platform
-
Scaling up a CDD platform for community and local government engagement offers tremendous potential to consolidate and expand efforts to help all municipalities and cities improve public service delivery, enhance local governance, and improve economic and social opportunities, especially for poorer areas and marginalized and vulnerable groups that are often excluded from the development process. To capitalize on this potential a nationwide CDD program would need to focus on the following operational priorities.
Share with your friends: |
