Proceedings of the National Conference on NCDDP with KALAHI-CIDSS Makamasang Tugon Mayors

PROCEEDINGS National Conference on the NCDDP with KALAHI-CIDSS MT Mayors

13-15 May 2012, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Ortigas, Pasig City

I. Conference Background and Agenda

The National Conference on NCDDP brought together 150 local chief executives involved with KALAHI-CIDSS from various regions in the country and 60 representatives of national government agencies. (See Attachment A for list of participants)

The conference provided a platform to gather the participants’ inputs into current efforts of scaling up the nation’s CDD program. Its objectives were as follows: Provide a framework that situates ongoing CDD initiatives within the context of the Aquino

administration’s governance agenda; Inform participants on the status of NCDDP design, preparation tasks and timelines; Seek further input from the participants on NCDDP design; and Build consensus among participants on key actions to mobilize policy support for the

NCDDP and related CDD initiatives.

The conference meant to inform participants of recent initiatives and to solicit their opinions on these initiatives, the most prominent being ‘Bottom-Up’ Planning (BUP) led by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

The conference involved two focus group discussions (FGD). The first FGD, which was held in the morning, reflected on the current BUP as a CDD Pilot in Participatory Planning and Budgeting. The second FGD in the afternoon sought participants’ inputs on key design features of the NCDDP. Outputs from both FGDs were consolidated and presented to a panel of national agency representatives for their reactions. The final plenary session discussed proposals that participants could take to further mobilize support for the NCDDP. (See Attachment B for Conference Agenda)

II. Keynote Address (See Attachment C for transcript of Keynote Address)

Secretary Corazon (Dinky) Soliman gave the keynote address on the theme, “KALAHI-CIDSS, BUP and NCDDP: Key elements of the Aquino Administration’s Governance Agenda.” She explained the Matuwid na Daan, the social contract of the Filipino people with the President, which rests on 4 principles: citizen’s participation, community-driven development, good governance through transparency and accountability and inclusive development planning. Good governance cannot happen without citizen’s participation. As the end goal is to put power back to the people, people should be part of critical decision-making processes. Communities should drive development and development planning process should be made inclusive.

Secretary Soliman emphasized the following key components in ensuring and sustaining governance reforms: Empowered communities; Progressive LGUs that prioritize participatory local governance as it motivates: (a)

Enhanced capacity for meaningfully engaging citizens; (b) Open and expanded arenas where citizens engage and partner with the government; and (c) Established venues and mechanisms where citizens can advocate or their priorities and interests.

Consolidated programs of NGAs

1

The Secretary cited how participants are now in a position to make major contributions for a better life for the next generation, better future for the country. The Bottom-Up Planning (BUP) strategy is employed as it ensures both people empowerment and poverty reduction. This strategy supports citizen’s empowerment by encouraging participation with local units. The citizen’s influence is thus not limited to their respective LGUs budgets but extends to national agencies’ budgets as well.1 The Aquino administration features a 2012 budget that allots 32% for social welfare services. The projects identified in the pilot phase of the BUP are being incorporated into the 2013 national budget. The implementation of community projects in BUP priority projects will be monitored and the results of implementation will have significant influence on future BUP implementation in 2014 and beyond.

The KC program now includes 48 provinces, 413 priority municipalities, 9,499 barangays. Community engagements have progressed to be provincial engagements. The proposed national scale-up of the CDD program will extend over a period of 5 years, from 2013 to 2017. It shall cover 75 provinces in the country and all regions, with the exception of NCR. DSWD believes that this program will go across administrations, as it has gone through 2 administrations already. Serving the people goes beyond political boundaries.

KALAHI-CIDSS has a number of design features that may be useful towards examining BUP. Such features are: Open menu system Community subproject selection through a competitive peer review process led by barangay

representatives One-fund concept: all funds are put to the barangay level, under management of the

barangay subproject committee Grievance redress system Institutionalization framework Promotion of transparency

DSWD, DILG, DBM and NAPC are collaborating to formulate the NCDDP based on a common framework that includes increase of capacities for realizing priorities of poor communities, improvement in poor LGUs to respond to community priorities, and more efficient and responsive NGA mechanisms for giving support to community priorities.

III. Welcome Messages

DILG and NEDA – co-sponsors of the Conference and key agencies in the NCDDP – provided welcome messages.

In his welcome remarks, Undersecretary Austere Panadero of DILG expressed satisfaction with his department’s partnership with DSWD in the NCDDP planning process. He stated that “we are about to scale up KALAHI-CIDSS”. To a large extent, the success of this program lies in the LGUs’ capability to implement programs. LGUs are now better positioned-- there are still challenges but a lot of experiences have been gained. A number of 5th and 6th class towns have been successful and have surpassed expectations. The NCDDP process is a good opportunity for those who have been successful with KALAHI-CIDSS. We are now on the verge of coming up with a very innovative way of doing this at a national level.

1 Under the BUP initiative, a minimum of 10% of the national budget will be utilized to fund proposals generated through the BUP process.

2

For his part, Deputy Director-General Ruperto Majuca of NEDA “commended DSWD for persistently pushing through with all the required participatory processes to form NCDDP”, referring to the conference as an “activity that seeks inputs of LGUs in the developing NCDDP, a clear indication of the government’s earnest pursuit for good governance…. The (conference) participants’ inputs as first hand implementers and beneficiaries will be the key factors in determining the financial economic viability of the proposed NCDDP.

DDG Majuca explained that “(good governance) entails inclusive growth and poverty reduction. It requires active participation of communities, the beneficiaries themselves.” At the same time, “LGUs would know the design that works best on their communities based on their constituents’ needs.”

DDG Majuca commended “the KALAHI-CIDSS project, the precursor of NCDDP (which) has been very inspirational. It has resulted in high participation of households, increased financial commitments of LGUs, improved basic service delivery, and minimized elite capture.”

IV. Reflection on the BUP Project Identification and Submission Phase

A. Mechanics of Reflection Session

The first FGD was a reflection on the first part of the BUP initiative of DBM, “Identification of Community Projects and Submission of Proposals”, which has just been completed. Some 200 KC municipalities participated in this recently-concluded exercise.

The twelve FGD groups discussed separately the following two questions:1. How would you assess the recently-concluded BUP exercise on the 'Identification of

Community Projects and Submission of Proposals”? Specifically, What are the three things that you like about the exercise? What are the three things that you dislike about the exercise? What are the three measures that you would recommend to improve the conduct of

the “Project Identification and Submission” exercise in the future?

2. Looking forward to 2013, how should the BUP-supported Community Projects be implemented, specifically in terms of the following: Transfer of Funds Overall Project Management/ Procurement Funds Management/ Reporting Monitoring

B. Consolidated Results of the Individual FGDs

The results of the individual FGDs were consolidated and presented in plenary. Following is the consolidated report.

1. Reflections on the BUP Project Identification Process

1.1 What Participants Liked It strengthened the convergence effort of NGAs, CSOs and NGOs. Projects were

matched to NGA priorities. There is a broader menu of eligible projects.

3

KC–MT areas have an advantage in the BUP process because of their CDD experience through KALAHI-CIDSS.

BUP has enhanced the participation and communication with communities; the barangays themselves identify projects based on their priorities.

Regional technical assistance was provided. Capacity-building was provided for the community volunteers. BUP maximized the participation of MLGU, particularly by expanding the role of the

MDC.

1.2 What Participants Did Not Like The indicative municipal allocation of funds is still not enough to meet priorities. The timeframe for the municipal and barangay planning processes was not enough There are too many requirements Some of the CSOs involved in the accreditation are not locally-based. The BUP guidelines were either not clear or incomplete. For example, it was not

clear whether CBMS or PSA data were to be used. There was inadequate coordination between the LGUs and NGAs. The process required additional expenses for the LGUs. In the end, it will be the NGAs who will approve the projects to be funded, not the

LGUs and communities. Other national government funds, such as, the Congressional PDAF, are not

included in the BUP initiative. Since some project proposals may not be funded, the process may create false

hopes for the people.

1.3 Participants’ Recommendations to Improve Future Project Identification The BUP-LPRAP planning process should start in January. This will allow for the

timely and synchronized budget cycle between local and national governments. BUP-approved projects should be exempt from the election ban so that they can be

immediately implemented beginning January 2013. CSOs participating in the accreditation of projects for submission to the BUP should

be locally-based as much as possible. Local CSOs have better familiarity with the context of development and governance in the municipality and will likely have stronger ownership over and accountability for results of their interventions.

Every project submitted through the BUP process should be funded. Good performing LGUs should receive bigger fund allocations from the BUP. The BUP should employ well-trained or expert facilitators. The BUP should provide clear and detailed information, particularly with regard to its

technical guidelines. The community projects that were identified, submitted through the BUP, and

approved for funding should be implemented even if there are leadership changes in the municipal and barangay LGUs.

The CBMS framework and data should be used in the BUP planning and selection process.

The approval of community projects to be supported by the BUP should be done by LGUs and communities.

The BUP process should include the congressional PDAF funds. The documentary requirements for submission of community projects to the BUP

should be reduced. BUP should also allow for the electronic submission of project documents.

BUP-supported projects should not require MLGU counterpart.

4

2. Proposals to Implement BUP-Financed Community Projects in 2013

2.1 Project Management and Procurement. Two options were proposed as follows: Management by the MLGU in coordination with the BLGU; or Management following the KC strategy through the use of the BSPMC and

community volunteers.

2.2 Funds Management and Reporting. Three options were proposed as follows” Funds management using the MT scheme, that is, the MLGU acting through the

MCT and the MPDO/MLGOO. Funds management through CSOs. Funds management by the Barangay LGU, using conventional LGU processes.

2.3 Monitoring of Community Projects: Six options were proposed as follows: Utilize KC participatory monitoring scheme, which involves the community, MIAC and

third parties. Multi-level monitoring involving the barangay and municipal LGUs as well as regional

planning bodies Monitoring by the NGA who funded the project Monitoring by accredited NGOs/CSOs. Monitoring by COA and the NGAs.

V. Discussion on the Proposed NCDDP

A. Briefing on the NCDDP Design and Preparation to Date

Alexander Glova, National M&E Specialist of KALAHI-CIDSS and Team Leader of the NCDDP Consultants Preparation Team, gave the briefing on the current status of the proposed NCDDP.

The current NCDDP design is borne out of discussions between DSWD and the national inter-agency preparation team. NCDDP is being proposed for implemented from 2013 to 2018. It consists of two sets:

Set 1: KC-2 implementation. This involves the introduction, continuation or completion of KALAHI-CIDSS in eligible municipalities. Eligible municipalities are those that are currently under the KC program and new municipalities whose poverty incidence is below the national average as determined by the NSCB Small Area Estimates.

Key integration points between KC-2 and the LPRAP-BUP are as follows: KC pre-entry into new barangays via KC social investigation; For those municipalities with ongoing KC implementation: (a) Input the results of the KC-

assisted, barangay assembly-approved KC PSA into LPRAP preparation; and (b) Keep BUP allocation in KC MIF/e-MDC considerations

Expand existing KC tie-ups with PLGUs; stronger CDD integration to be enhanced through the new ADB TA for PLGU engagement

NGAs to take part in existing BUP initiative.

Set 2: Transitioning. This involves KALAHI-CIDSS communities that have finished at least 4 cycles. The goal is to transition these municipalities and apply their experiences in human

5

development and thus expand their application to cover new projects, such as those directed at economic opportunity enhancement.

These municipalities shall shift from being 'implementers of the KC project' to institutionalizing KC good practices in the regular LPRAP. Transitioning, however, is challenged by the possibility of 'slide-backs'. To avoid this, a built-in system for rewarding results and good governance is imperative. As such, proposed KALAHI-CIDSS graduate activities shall involve: LGU-led conduct and funding of municipality-wide LPRAP process LGU LCC funding for implementing LPRAP projects Key KC CEAC practices to be integrated into LPRAP/BUP, including: (a) KALAHI-

CIDSS’ participatory situation analysis; (b) barangay assembly consultations and priority setting; (c) resource allocation and prioritization with participation of barangay assembly members/residents other than LGU officials; (d) reporting to BA of plans, progress and spending

Promotion of inclusiveness through involvement of all barangays. Promotion of volunteerism from barangays (to improve community ownership, capacity

and commitment, enhance sustainability and create jobs for barangay residents) Follow-up capacity strengthening and top up performance based funding from NCDDP. Strengthening KC integration with sectoral agencies.

The proposed formula for municipal allocation lies between Php2-million to Php20-million. The computation of the municipal fund allocation shall be based on the poverty incidence of the municipality.

Proposed NCDDP components shall include: (a) capacity building and implementation support; (2) barangay grants via community planning and training, and investment grants for community projects' implementation; and (c) Program Management and M&E.

Open Forum. An open forum was held after Mr. Glova’s presentation. The forum featured the following questions and answers.

1. Where will the money come from? If it’ll come from the LGU, perhaps the local government code can be amended. Otherwise, if money will come from the national government, there should be no problem. Response:Funding for this project will come from the national government and loans. Money for implementing community projects, however, shall emanate from BUP.

2. Can you apply community procurement or finance from funding from BUP?Response:Municipalities may not entirely apply community procurement or finance from funding from BUP. However, a number of options have been recently found to be helpful in terms of community procurement. A COA circular that began in 1995, for example, which was revised in 2007, sets rules for granting, utilization of government funds granted to NGOs and POs. DSWD is currently working out prerequisites for formal registration with agencies like SEC, DOLE and CDA. Moreover, DSWD is discussing the possibility of registration expansion, of the inclusion of accreditation by the LGU, to COA. Pending that these discussions are considered, accreditations by LGUs will be made acceptable.

6

3. How do we prioritize projects? What about accountability? Are we allowed to transfer money to a community account? What about responsibility? Can we look at both the local government code and COA rules? The national government has not crafted their own response to this.Response: Although a general framework exists that government funds may be granted provided they are register, the COA may still require a MOA for this. The main point lies in the desirability of the program; MLGUs are suggested to go to that route.

4. In terms of funds transfer, MOAs and identification—should the barangays form coops and/or associations?Response:There is a specific funding release system that will be provided by the national agencies. This system shall determine who will fund projects. DSWD is not currently equipped to provide rules from different NGAs.

Community groups do not necessarily need to form co-ops, but perhaps LGU accreditation is needed for participation. Notable positive experiences and processes from the KC program can be drawn out into the NCDDP.

5. Current practice involves money coming from the World Bank. With the BUP approach, there might be problems arising from funds transfer and accounting. Why don’t we make a template suitable for all agencies to follow?Response:Noted. A template for funds transfer and accounting suitable for all agencies and LGUs should be drafted. This is a recommendation for the current assessment of the pilot.

6. There seems to be a problem with the required equity, most especially finance equity among barangays with low IRA allotment. Sharing of equity is not the same as before; there is no longer mandatory equity from the provincial government.Response: There is no longer a mandatory equity from the local government as the cost-sharing law is currently suspended.

7. Clarification regarding municipalities that have completed all 4 cycles towards BUP. This process entails municipal prioritization rather than barangay prioritization. There may be a loss of focus on poverty reduction at the barangay level. Perhaps a consideration for KC graduates may be discussed. Response:Noted.

8. Was there a discussion on the possibility of giving more than Php20 million per cycle?Response: The Aquino administration has formed an inter-agency task force to address the possibility of giving more than Php20 million per cycle.

B. Mechanics of FGD on NCDDP Design

Following the NCDDP briefing, the second FGD was held to discuss key design features of the proposed national CDD program. Each FGD group chose one of the following six topics for its discussions.

7

1. Transfer of local CDD implementation to MLGUs. The MT experience suggests that, given certain favorable conditions, MLGUs can assume responsibility effectively for CDD implementation within their municipalities.Questions: What four (external and/or internal) conditions should be present for the NCDDP to consider transfer of local CDD implementation to an MLGU? What are the five most desirable characteristics of an MLGU who has assumed full responsibility and is effective in CDD implementation? Should transfer of CDD implementation to the MLGU be done in a phased manner? What are the major stages of the transfer process?

2. Selection mechanism for barangay sub-projects. KALAHI-CIDSS utilizes competitive selection (through the MIBF) to determine the barangay sub-projects that will receive KC funding. Competitive selection has proved successful in allocating scarce development funds to the priority needs of participating communities. However, competitive selection has generated negative feelings among those barangays who do not receive funding. There are also persistent rumors regarding collusion among some barangays to ensure funding for their projects to the exclusion of others. Questions: If competitive selection is set aside, is there another mechanism that will ensure that scarce development resources are used effectively to meet the most pressing community needs, particularly of the poorest citizens within the municipality? Please describe three major elements of this alternative mechanism.

3. Role of provincial governments in NCDDP. The proposed NCDDP is expected to operate in 50% or more of the municipalities of its target provinces. Because of this broad geographical coverage, the support of Provincial Local Government Units (PLGUs) is essential for implementation success. Provincial governments are mandated to link municipal poverty reduction priorities with broad sub-national level development directions, have resources that can augment those available to NCDDP municipalities and provide services that may complement those provided by the municipalities and barangays for more sustained impact.Questions: What are the three most important roles of the PLGU in NCDDP implementation? What are the three most important benefits to the PLGU that will result from its participation in NCDDP implementation? What are the three biggest obstacles that prevent PLGUs from participating fully in NCDDP? How can these be addressed?

4. Local counterpart contribution of municipal governments to the NCDDP. KALAHI-CIDSS requires a participating municipality to provide a minimum local counterpart contribution (in cash and/or in-kind) equivalent to 30% of the KC municipal grant. This counterpart contribution is expected from various sources, including community residents, philanthropic individuals, congressional PDAF, municipal LGU, etc. KC experience indicates that municipal LGUs provide a major portion of the local contribution. Many KC mayors have indicated that the local counterpart requirement is a great burden on their resources, especially since their municipalities are classified as fourth and fifth class municipalities. They have requested that the minimum LCC requirement be revised for the NCDDP.Question: What are three most important factors that should be used to determine the minimum LCC requirement of the MLGU to local CDD implementation?

8

5. Sustainability of CDD practices in the Municipal LGU. Studies of Makamasang Tugon Pilot have reported several positive LGU-led efforts to institutionalize participation, accountability, and transparency into municipal governance systems, including the legislation of LGU policies supportive of CDD, adoption of guidelines for poverty reduction programs, institutionalization of mechanisms for pro-poor service delivery and other related good governance and processes in development planning and budgeting. A major threat to these institutional reforms is leadership change, that is, when officials who have been trained in and become committed to CDD must vacate their posts at the end of their terms.Questions: What is the likelihood that CDD principles and practices within MLGU operations will be abandoned because of leadership changes? What is likely to occur if CDD principles and practices are abandoned by the new leadership? How do ensure that the CDD practices of good performing LGUs are insulated from constant changes of leadership?

6. Effective Coordination between and among National Agencies and LGUs. While the Local Government Code mandates municipal government leadership in the coordination of development resources for their respective municipalities, LGUs are often unable to take leadership for a number of reasons, including: (a) different national agencies have different ways of doing things; (b) overlaps among the programs of different agencies; (c) the tendency of NGA projects to be “one size fits all” and (at time) not to be aligned with the priorities of the municipal LGU; and (d) the exclusion of municipal LGUs from provincial and regional planning. Effective coordination between and among national agencies and municipal LGUs is imperative if the NCDDP is to be implemented successfully.Questions: What are the three most important principles that should guide coordination among national agencies in NCDDP implementation? What are the three most important principles that should guide coordination between national agencies and MLGUs in NCDDP implementation? What are the three most important actions that MLGU should do to enhance coordination with national agencies in NCDDP implementation?

C. Consolidated Results of the Individual FGDs

Of the above six topics, five FGD groups opted to discuss the LCC Contribution of MLGUs.

Other topics selected for discussion were: Sustaining CDD practices in the MLGU despite Leadership Change (3 groups), Transfer of Local CDD Implementation to MLGUs (1 group), Alternative Selection Mechanism for Barangay Subprojects (1 group), and Effective Coordination Between and Among National Agencies and LGUs (1 group).

None of the FGD groups chose to discuss the topic on the Role of PLGUs in NCDDP.

Following are the consolidated results of the FGDs.

1. Local Counterpart Contribution of Municipal Governments to the NCDDP

Following are the key factors identified by the FGD participants that should be used to determine the minimum LCC of MLGUs:

9

The class of municipality based on the DOF classification. Local poverty incidence: low or no cash counterpart should be required of municipalities

with higher poverty incidence. The net fiscal position of MLGU as determined by the formula [Income – Expenses = Net

Worth]. The internal revenue allotment (IRA) of the municipality as determined by the factors of

population, land area and principle of “equal sharing”. Capability of LGU in terms of expertise and equipment. Geographic character of the municipality in terms of difficulty or ease of access. The type and cost of the prioritized project. For example, income-generating projects will

require larger local counterpart compared to social services.

2. Transfer of local CDD implementation to MLGUs

2.1 Prerequisite conditions to begin CDD transfer to an MLGU Availability of counterpart funds, especially the LGU commitment. Good track record on KC/CDD implementation, particularly with regard to LGU

compliance with requirements/procedures. Technical capability of MLGU, such as, in financial management. LGU plans and programs were formulated and implemented using participatory

processes, such as, the KC methodologies.

2.2 Characteristics of Fully-effective MLGUs (“Gold Standard”) Transparent operations (“full disclosure”) of the LGU. Dynamic LGU leadership. Established and effective LGU financial and accounting system. Adherence to consultative and participatory governance processes. Readiness and willingness of LGU to accept responsibility for CDD implementation.

3. Selection Mechanism for Barangay Subprojects

3.1 Features of Alternative Project Selection Mechanism Use of a validation process to determine the quality of the BDP and proposed

community projects. Equal allocation of funds to all participating barangays. To the extent possible, proposed barangay projects should adhere to the fund

ceiling (=budget cap). Fund requirements in excess of the budget cap shall be outsourced by the mayor

from other sources, e.g., congressman, governor, etc. LGU local counterpart requirements shall be reduced (for MLGU) or removed

altogether (for BLGUs) Funds for approved community projects will not be released unless the required

counterpart contributions are available.

3.2 Advantages of Alternative Project Selection Mechanism Fair and equitable (each barangay receives the same amount). Promotes solidarity and trust (no barangay is excluded from funding). Barangays are challenged to be innovative in looking for funds. Shorter and easier process (especially for larger municipalities with many

barangays).

10

4. Sustaining CDD practices in the MLGU despite Leadership Change

4.1 Likelihood that CDD will be Abandoned with Leadership Change

If the LGU staff experiences CDD principles and practices for many cycles and these practices become the normal operating procedure before there is a change in leadership, the likelihood of abandonment is considered low.

Continued use of CDD principles and practices will depend on the support of the new mayor. In turn, the new mayor’s support will depend on the conditionalities attached to the CDD funding.

4.2 Impact of MLGU abandonment of CDD principles.

Abandonment of CDD principles and practices will likely result in the “political suicide” of the mayor.

It is also likely that some citizens will mobilize for the continued application of CDD principles and practices in the implementation of community projects.

One possible mitigating measure will be the influence of LGU technical staff who will encourage the new mayor to continue employing CDD principles and practices in LGU operations.

4.3 Proposed Measures to Sustain CDD Practice in the MLGU Institutionalization of CDD into LGU operations through the passage of supportive

legislation Training to build-up LGU capacity in CDD Working with CSOs to advocate for the continued use of CDD practices Linking the budget cap of MLGUs with good performance in CDD practice. This will

require the integration of CDD indicators with the DILG Seal of Good Housekeeping rating system.

Continuous awareness-raising on CDD with municipal mayors. For example, an introductory course on CDD can be incorporated into the Orientation Course for new Local Chief Executives.

5. Effective Coordination Between and Among National Agencies and LGUs

5.1 Key Principles for Effective Coordination among NGAs A single implementation tool (framework and process) should be formulated that

can be used by different NGAs The process of project implementation should be synchronized. There should be no duplication of projects; rather, NGAs should strive for

complementation of their individual efforts.

5.2 Principles for Effective Coordination between NGAs and LGUs The LCC contribution from MLGUs should be minimized as long as the MLGU

participates fully in other ways. There should be open communication between NGAs and LGUs. The design of NGA projects should be customized at the LGU level.

5.3 Key LGU Actions to Enhance Coordination with NGAs

11

Expand the role of MIAC and expand its membership to include NGA representatives.

There should be regular meetings and feedback for updates on project implementation.

There should be quarterly and semestral evaluations on project investments.

VI. Reaction of NGA Panel to Participants’ FGD Results

The panel included the following (in order of their reaction): Director Juan Antonio Perez, M.D. (DOH), Mr. Patrick Lim (DBM), Undersecretary Jude Esguerra (NAPC), Undersecretary Auster Panadero (DILG), Undersecretary Joel Rudinas (DA) and Secretary Corazon Juliano Soliman (DSWD).

Following are the main points raised by the panelists.

A. Dr. Juan Antonio Perez, DOH Dr. Perez began by highlighting the good points from the first FGD outputs on the BUP initiative. The program has quite a few strengths that should be focused on. However, he agreed on the issue of limited funds. He emphasized that most proposals brought to NGAs are most likely to be approved as long as these are in accordance with LPRAP rules, do not exceed budget ceilings and are part of the menu of eligible projects. He also agreed that future LPRAP planning processes should start earlier.

DOH would prefer that requests for RHU improvements involve barangay health units rather than municipal.

He also clarified that DOH will always require local counterparts as most of the projects they support involve infrastructures.

Dr. Perez suggested that it could be easier to transfer grants to the LGU. He noted, however, that if this is to be the case, it will be the LGU's responsibility to liquidate the grant to the COA. Other agencies, like the DBM, must first agree to this proposal.

He suggested that DBM draft a ratings system to identify which LGU meets the gold standard. In turn, municipal sanggunian should create a ranking system for barangay prioritization. This system should ensure that the process be a long-term activity, especially if it aims to be institutionalized. Counterparts should be minimized, especially for areas with geographical issues and those with no resources.

B. Mr. Patrick Lim, DBMThe Department of Budget and Management is currently drafting the 2013 budget. BUP guidelines have been sent but not all LCEs may have gotten a copy. Not all seem to be aware of the budget ceiling for the 609 LGUs; the department has received quite a number of proposals that have gone over set budgets. One of the requirements for BUP budgeting is for LGUs to submit public financial assessments. He clarified that not all LGUs included in the 609 are MT municipalities.

Mr. Lim agreed with the plenary consensus of the timeframe being too short. This has caused a lot of problems, especially for those undergoing the pilot phase. He assured DBM's efforts in

12

seeing that this issue be addressed as soon as the guidelines come out. Moreover, he agreed that the start of the BUP planning process should be in January.

C. Undersecretary Jude Esguerra, NAPCThe Undersecretary noted that there seems to be a “disconnect” between the communities' needs and the proposed projects to resolve these. He suggested that 'validation exercises' from NGAs be implemented to assist LGUs fill this gap. He further observed how the MT approach has been the preferred approach of the national agencies. He agreed with the reaction of the plenary on the issue of the time frame and made the comment that as the budget expands, the timeframe seems to shrink.

He agreed with Dr. Perez that if NGAs are to grant the funds to LGUs, it shall be the LGU's accountability to the COA. All participants and sectors involved in the NCDDP must assist in communicating with COA so that the latter can grasp the public expenditure process. He emphasized that agencies that were once hesitant are now very open towards assisting in the execution of these projects with the LGUs.

The undersecretary also observed that the outputs from the FGDs manifest the need for clearer guidelines and for more grassroots autonomy.

Usec. Esguerra also pointed out the tension between the need of agencies to deliver and achieve targets and the need to respect the autonomy of local processes. It is vital for all sectors involved in the NCDDP to find the perfect balance between these two drivers. He suggested that those with better understanding of local situations may deliver the best solutions. He urged mayors and all sectors involved to emphasize local autonomy rather than impose procedures.

Although each LGU carries a different situation and its citizens may have different perspectives, the undersecretary highlighted the need for predictability in public expenditure processes. There are new processes that lie within the realm of government reform. Perhaps the scope of PDAF should be expanded, he suggested.

Finally, he noted what he considered was the most important issue discussed by the FGD: political risks during transition. He recommended that situations be created where both the mayor and sanggunian will opt to use BUP. For example, DILG should develop indicators for performance that will leave new mayors with no option but to adopt processes that have worked before in order to deliver good outcomes at the barangay level.

D. Undersecretary Austere Panadero, DILGUsec. Panadero began his reaction by urging participants to focus on recommendations given, and find a way to operationalize them. He observed a shift in mindset—projects are now based on performance than entitlements. To institutionalize the idea that performance matters, he said, incentives are imperative.

He noted the conference to be a major milestone that MT mayors can use to convince other mayors that participation does work and that it makes a lot of difference. He commended everyone for their participation throughout the day.

One challenge of the BUP, the undersecretary pointed out, is the accreditation of CSOs that are locally-based. Participating mayors must make sure that locally-based CSOs are prepared to be part of the process. He challenged participants to figure out a process that is all inclusive.

13

In closing, Usec. Panadero stated that he was glad that the matter of sustainability of CDD reforms was brought up. The ideas that have surfaced represent initial thoughts; he encouraged participants to continue reflecting on the issue of sustainability. Participants, and even agency chiefs, have to think of mechanisms to move forward, in a way that goes beyond the current administration. “If we are all committed to this, we can find a way around it”, he said.

E. Undersecretary Joel Rudinas, DAUSec. Rudinas stressed that the BUP is a continuing process; what the agencies are trying to do is to ensure that the plans and priorities of localities are addressed. For this reason, the process of validation is important.

He informed the plenary that BUP project proposals are still coming in and that there ongoing negotiations on budget ceilings. He also agreed with the plenary recommendations that, in the future, planning (and proposal submission) should be started earlier in the year.

The DA commiserates with participants on the issue of rules and guidelines. Although coming up with stiff guidelines is necessary for the purpose of being predictable, he urged participants to be flexible. He said that it may be unwise to be too stiff with guidelines since every location may have different scenarios and needs. He said it should be possible to localize rules and calibrate approaches. He ended with the following question for the plenary: “how do we ensure that the initiatives for the target communities can be sustained?”

F. Secretary Soliman, DSWDThe Secretary began her reaction by acknowledging that all sectors involved are currently undertaking a process of reform.

She then focused on the question of community project selection, that is, whether the process should be competitive or if funds should be equally divided and weighed the pros and cons of each option. On one hand, she agreed that it would be nice if everyone would have a share of the funds. However, this is exactly what has been done for the last few decades. The problem with this process is that all involved agree on the lowest common denominator.

With regard to the competitive process, all concerned sectors are pressured to think of the best possible solutions through the use of debates and voting. The downside of this scheme is that some projects will not be chosen for implementation.

Participants were challenged to think of schemes that would preserve the culture of debate and looking for the best possible solution. “How can we preserve that dynamic decision-making and discussion processes while giving equal share of resources for everyone?” A formula to maintain dynamism must be found. There must be a more democratic solution to this, she maintained, without sacrificing the process of trying to build consensus.

The Secretary then spoke on the issue of sustaining CDD beyond administration changes. She admitted that the process of reform and change takes time. She enumerated three things that will help establish such reforms. First is the use of incentives, such as DILG's performance challenge fund. Second is institutionalization, which involves energizing and ensuring the commitment of civil servants. If LCEs and agency leaders are able to enhance their capability, the process will be easily institutionalized. Third is making citizens aware, organized and constructively engaged on a sustained basis. CSOs have come a long way in recognizing the role they can play in constructive engagement with local governments.

14

Turning to the NCDDP and BUP, the Secretary mentioned that the Aquino administration operates by way of clusters. The Human Development and Poverty Reduction cluster, which has assumed responsibility for the NCDDP, has identified 609 municipalities. The bases for choosing these 609 are: magnitude of poverty, incidence of poverty, and the possibility of moving significant numbers of poor over the economic hump. She noted that not all MT municipalities are part of the 609 municipalities.

The BUP has been applied primarily to the 609 municipalities. Of these, 562 municipalities have already submitted local poverty reduction and action plans that are now being processed for implementation in 2013. Monitoring procedures for the implementation of these projects are currently being discussed.

The Secretary noted that decentralization has been around for the last 20 years. LGU initiatives through the BUP may be considered as important steps that will make decentralization truly meaningful. Decentralization gives power to the most important element of a government: the citizens.

Open Forum. An open forum followed the panelists’ reactions. The forum featured the following questions and responses.

1. We are on the right track in terms of approach. If we do not go beyond planning though, things might end up like the CARP program. Do we have support programs on productivity? We should not limit CDD to just social services but extend to productivity enhancement measures.Response:The panelists agreed to the above comment.

2. KC started in 2003 when I was still mayor; I ended my term in 2004. Now I am back as mayor and our municipality has finished the KC cycles: 60 barangays competed, each producing Php500,000. Through the competition process, 34 barangays were able to get subprojects. I asked all barangays to give a Php30,000 counterpart for a total of 1.8 million and additional 3 million from our congressman. Although we are a 1st class municipality, our poverty incidence rate is over 50%. The MLGU added Php30,000 from municipal budget for any viable project. Currently, only 8 barangays remain unfunded. Response:Productivity and economic activities are definitely key drivers for poverty reduction. The Executive Committee (DILG, DBM, NAPC, and DSWD) is trying to look at ways to support LGUs outside the 609 municipalities (such as Iloilo municipalities). Currently, the DILG, DOLE and DSWD budgets are oversubscribed, while the DOH and DepEd are still undersubscribed.

3. Who are the 'poor' exactly? What methodology is used in finding out who the poor are?Response:Statistics from different agencies and surveys determine who the poor are. These agencies include the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Nutrition Research Institute, DOLE (conducted every 3 months). The NSCB has just finished its Family Income and Expenditure Survey. These agencies, which have interlocking boards, are now trying to rationalize poverty statistics. There is much that remains to be done but there is general agreement on the use of NCSB statistics to determine poverty incidence and the use of the CBMS, a common poverty framework and planning tool for

15

municipalities and provinces. A major challenge is the delay in the issuance of poverty statistics; for example, the results of the 2009 survey only came out in January 2011. Upon the approval of Congress, the current database shall be re-certified in 2013. New surveys must also be conducted in areas hit by calamities. LGUs should assist NGAs with details of local poverty conditions.

VII. Session on Action Planning

The final session of the conference involved action planning. The discussion revolved around possible actions that the participants could take to mobilize public support on the NCDDP. The lively exchange resulted in the following ideas:

1. Organize and give importance to beneficiaries of the project for them to become active and that they become self-reliant communities. Their talents and skills must be enhanced so that they can produce their needs. Mayors, when planning, must consider the issue of productivity and not just social services. The recommendation can be adopted at two levels. The first level is based on the initiative of individual mayors. At the level of the NCDDP, the menu of projects should not only address social services but productivity enhancement.

2. Mayors of Region VI decided to submit a resolution to the Human Development and Poverty Reduction (HDPR) Cluster to expand implementation of the BUP to include KC municipalities in Region 6.

3. It was pointed out that none of the FGD groups had selected the “Role of the Provincial Government” in the second FGD discussion. This led to a spirited debate regarding the participation of provincial governments in KC and NCDDP. Some participants felt that provincial governments had no significant role or contribution to the NCDDP, while others had a different opinion. The issue was left unresolved but the discussion did indicate that more study is required on this matter.

4. Since the conference was meant to solicit feedback from the mayors on the NCDDP, the participants felt that a “formal” document (e.g., a manifesto or resolution ) should be prepared and submitted to the HDPR. The document shall list the key recommendations of the participants regarding the NCDDP. KALAHI-CIDSS shall draft the document and circulate to the mayors for their approval.

5. A number of proposals were put forward for the mayors to take an advocacy position supporting the direct transfer of BUP/NCDDP funds to communities. The proposals included: (a) a resolution to COA to revise its guidelines to permit direct funds transfer to communities; (b) the creation of an informal core group of mayors to discuss the issue with COA; and (c) request the mayors’ league to represent the participants in a discussion with COA. Despite the lively discussion on this issue, however, the conference body was unable to agree on a specific advocacy action. In the end, the participants felt that discussions with COA on the amendment of guidelines should be the responsibility of the national agencies who are the proponents of the NCDDP.

6. A template for LGUs to follow must be crafted by NGAs. NGAs should come up with policies and discuss these with COA. Participants believed that if NGAs are sincere with the BUP, procedures will be made simpler for mayors.

16

7. Resolution drafts must be emailed to the DSWD or the Human Development and Poverty Reduction Cluster. Responses should be available for discussion online.

VIII. List of Attachments

A. Conference Agenda

B. List of Participants

C. Transcripts of Speeches

17

Attachment 1AGENDA for the National Conference on NCDDP with MT Mayors

General Objective: The conference aims to provide an opportunity for mayors in KALAHI-CIDSS-supported municipalities to offer their inputs into current efforts to scale up CDD into a national program within the broader context of reforms in the area of governance.

Specific Objectives: Specifically, the conference aims to

1. provide a framework that situates ongoing CDD initiatives within the context of the Aquino administration’s governance agenda;

2. inform participants on the status of NCDDP design, preparation tasks and timelines;3. seek further input from the participants on NCDDP design; and4. build consensus among participants on key actions to mobilize policy support for the

NCDDP and related CDD initiatives.

Date and Time Session/ActivityMay 13 (Sunday)

Afternoon

2:00 Arrival, Registration and Check-in of the KC-MT Mayors

4:00Meeting of Mayors (Agenda: Organizing LGU Participation and Leadership in the advocacy for NCDDP)

6:00 Film showing on KALAHI-CIDSS MT Stories

7:00 Dinner

May 14 (Monday)Morning

8:00 Keynote Address“KALAHI-CIDSS, BUP and NCDDP: Key elements of the Aquino Administration’s Governance Agenda”Secretary Corazon Juliano-Soliman, DSWD

8:30 Introduction of ParticipantsPrudencio Maxino NCDDP Advisor

8:50 Overview of the ConferenceRaul GonzalezLead Facilitator

9:00 Welcome Messages from DILG, DBM, NAPC and NEDA

9:30 Focus Group Discussion (FGD): Reflection Session on the Current BUP as a CDD Pilot in Participatory Planning and Budgeting

How would you assess the recently-concluded BUP exercise on “Project Identification and Proposal Submission”?

What are the lessons from this exercise that can be of value in the design of the NCDDP?

Looking forward to 2013, how should BUP-approved Commu-

18

Date and Time Session/Activitynity Projects be implemented, specifically in terms of the follow-ing:(a) Transfer of Funds(b) Overall Project Management(c) Funds Management(d) Procurement(e) Reporting

10:30 Morning Coffee

11:00 Briefing on the NCDDP Design and Preparation to DateAlexander GlovaNational M&E Specialist, KALAHI-CIDSS

11:30 Presentation of Topics for FGD on NCDDP Design FeaturesRaul GonzalezLead Facilitator

12:00 Plenary Report: Consolidated Results of FGD on the BUP InitiativeRaul GonzalezLead Facilitator

12:15 Lunch

1:00 FGD on NCDDP Design Features Each FGD group shall choose one of six topics for discussions.

2:20 Gallery Viewing of FGD Results and Afternoon Coffee

2:40 Plenary Report: Results of FGD on NCDDP Design Features

3:00 Reaction to Participants’ Inputs to the NCDDP: Panel of National Agency Representatives

Panelists to include DILG, DBM, NAPC, DA,DSWD4:30 Action Planning

Adoption of Conference Resolutions to mobilize policy support for NCDDP

6:00 Dinner

May 15 (Tuesday)Morning

9:00 Mayors’ Meeting12:00 Check-out of Mayors

19

Attachment 2LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

National Conference on NCDDP with KALAHI-CIDSS Makamasang Tugon Mayors

A. Mayors/Representatives of MT Municipalities by Region

No. Name Name of Municipality and Province

CAR

1 Ms. Jovellen G. Diaz San Quintin, Abra2 Eladio H. Bang-ud Asipulo, Ifugao3 Agustin Calya-en Tinoc, Ifugao4 Florencio C. Pagaca Pinukpuk, Kalinga5 Gabino P. Ganggangan Sadanga, Mountain Province

Region IV-A6 Ma. Remedios U. Rivera Buenavista, Quezon7 Gil P. Establecida Burdeos, Quezon8 Renato A. Alilio Dolores, Quezon9 Rodelo T. Tena Jomalig, Quezon

10 Isaias Ubana Jr. Lopez, Quezon11 Maria Liwayway A. Tan Macalelon, Quezon12 Joselito A. Ojeda Mulanay, Quezon13 Prudencio Maxino Mulanay, Quezon14 Bautista Rosunabe Panukulan, Quezon15 Wilmer Aman Patnungan, Quezon16 Santiago Evangelista Perez, Quezon17 Benjamin Jorquia San Francisco, Quezon18 Eleanor U. Uy San Narciso, Quezon

Region IV-B19 Russel S. Madrigal Buenavista, Marinduque20 Eduardo B. Gadiano Sablayan, Occ. Mindoro21 Alfonso Montalbo Bongabong, Or. Mindoro22 Ernilo C. Villas Bulalacao, Or. Mindoro23 Eddie C. Lota Alcantara, Romblon24 Festo R. Galang, Jr. Cajidiocan, Romblon25 Rosa M. Ravalo San Fernando, Romblon

Region V26 Justin Luna Jovellar, Albay27 German Gonzaga Malinao, Albay28 Caesar S. Daep Manito, Albay29 Dante R. Arandia Pio Duran, Albay30 Wilson Guianan Rapu-Rapu, Albay31 Bimbo Doria Santa Elena, Camarines Norte32 Robert M. Saysay Balatan, Camarines Sur33 Leovegildo D. Basmayor, Jr. Minalabac, Camarines Sur 34 Asuncion V. Arceño Pasacao, Camarines Sur

20

A. Mayors/Representatives of MT Municipalities by Region

No. Name Name of Municipality and Province

35 Joey A. Delena Presentacion, Camarines Sur36 Evelyn B. Fuentebella Sagñay, Camarines Sur37 Paz Caguimbal Del Gallego, Camarines Sur38 Annalisa B. Gacan Siruma, Camarines Sur39 Odilon F. Pascua Bagamanoc, Catanduanes40 Agnes B. Popa Caramoran, Catanduanes41 Ben G. Espiloy Monreal, Masbate42 Job Willard I. Rivera San Pascual, Masbate43 Jimmy J. Fragata Juban, Sorsogon

Region VI44 Jonathan Tan Pandan, Antique45 Ethel R. Jinon Jamindan, Capiz46 Norma M. Chavez Jamindan, Capiz47 Weldie Apolinario Jr. Ma-Ayon, Capiz48 Matt P. Palabrica Bingawan, Iloilo49 Juan R. Alvarez Ajuy, Iloilo50 Alex A. Centena Calinog, Iloilo51 Arnold A. Betita Carles, Iloilo52 Milliard S. Villanueva Concepcion, Iloilo53 Manuel Thomas F. Locsin Janiuay, Iloilo54 Reynor R. Gonzales Lambunao, Iloilo55 Ligaya P. Apura Lemery, Iloilo56 Mariano M. Malones, Sr. Maasin, Iloilo57 Larry C. Villanueva San Dionisio, Iloilo 58 Ma. Theresa I. Bilbao Hinoba-An, Negros Occ.59 Francisco M. Nazareno Moises Padilla, Negros Occ. 60 Laurence M.J. Dela Cruz Salvador Benedicto, Negros Occ.

Region VII61 Niño Rey F. Boniel Bien Unido, Bohol62 Apolonio B. Aparea Buenavista, Bohol63 Louis Thomas R. Gonzaga Danao, Bohol64 Esther F. Tabigue Mabini, Bohol65 Wilson L. Pajo Pilar, Bohol66 Claudio C. Bonior San Miguel, Bohol67 Restituto B. Auxtero Talibon, Bohol68 Eutoquio M. Bernales, Sr. Ubay, Bohol69 Jose Baldado Manjuyod, Negros Or.

Region VIII70 Susan V. Parilla Naval (Capital), Biliran71 Nathaniel B. Gertos Bato, Leyte72 Leonardo Javier, Jr. Javier, Leyte73 Irvin R. Dy Julita, Leyte

21

A. Mayors/Representatives of MT Municipalities by Region

No. Name Name of Municipality and Province

74 Elmer C. Codilla Kananga, Leyte75 Arnold James M. Ysidoro Leyte, Leyte76 Valente O. Adolfo Mayorga, Leyte77 Ma. Corazon E. Remandaban Tabango, Leyte

78 Edgardo Cinco Tabontabon, Leyte

79 Lesmes C. Lumen La Paz, Leyte80 Ananias S. Rebato San Jose de Buan, Samar81 Viscuso S. De Lira Balangiga, Eastern Samar82 Alicia C. Cesista Can-Avid, Eastern Samar83 Verina P. Amoyo Can-Avid, Eastern Samar84 Edgar C. Boco Hernani, Eastern Samar85 Delia G. Monleon Jipapad, Eastern Samar86 Carlo L. Gereña Jipapad, Eastern Samar87 Conrado U. Nicart III San Policarpo, Eastern Samar88 Reyben D. Bianes San Policarpo, Eastern Samar89 Madeleine Mendoza Ong Laoang, Northern Samar90 Andre I. Abalon San Roque, Northern Samar91 Rogelio S. Tan Pambujan, Northern Samar92 Mario L. Quijano Pinabacdao, Western Samar93 Alfredo B. Serrano Jr. Santa Margarita, Western Samar94 Emmelly D. Olaje Tarangnan, Western Samar

Region IX95 Mariano C. Candelaria Jr. Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte96 Rolando Tablezo Leon Postigo, Zamboanga del Norte97 Eugenio B. Baliling Sr. Kalawit, Zamboanga del Norte98 Crisostomo T. Eguia Jr. Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte99 Flora L. Villarosa Siayan, Zamboanga del Norte

100 Leonardo L. Babasa Jr. Bayog, Zamboanga del Sur

101 Basilio A. Vidad Dinas, Zamboanga del Sur102 Canuto C. Enerio Jr. Lakewood, Zamboanga del Sur103 Daylinada P. Sulong Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur104 Leonida A. Angcap Midsalip, Zamboanga del Sur105 Belman B. Mantos San Pablo, Zamboanga del Sur106 Richard V. Tiu Sr. Alicia, Zamboanga Sibugay107 Restituto O. Caloñge Mabuhay, Zamboanga Sibugay108 Randy A. Climaco Tungawan, Zamboanga Sibugay

Region X109 Benjie Baguio Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte110 Reynino R. Longcob Lanipao Lala, Lanao del Norte111 Muammar John S. Maquiling Munai, Lanao del Norte112 Sania Dianalan Poona Piagapo, Lanao del Norte113 Hassanor L. Tawantawan Salvador, Lanao del Norte

22

A. Mayors/Representatives of MT Municipalities by Region

No. Name Name of Municipality and Province

114 Rodel M. Maghinay Salvador, Lanao del Norte

115

Rodolfo D. Luna Don Victoriano Chiongbian, Misamis Occidental

116 Juanidy M. Viña Concepcion, Misamis Occidental117 Martin C. Migriño Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental

Region XI118 Reynaldo B. Navarro Laak (San Vicente), Compostela Valley

119 Maximo M. Estela Santo Tomas, Davao del Norte

120 Baodilla B. Quezon Santo Tomas, Davao del Norte

121 Francisco G. Gipulla Talaingod, Davao del Norte122 Jon Marco M. Dayanghirang Manay, Davao Oriental123 Samuel L. Uy Tarragona, Davao Oriental124 Vivencio L. Anislag Tarragona, Davao Oriental

Region XII125 Felix Patrimonio Arakan, Cotabato126 Efren F. Piñol Magpet, Cotabato

127 Jaime H. Mahimpit President Roxas, Cotabato128 Jane F. Dayo President Roxas, Cotabato129 Julieta Salvador President Roxas, Cotabato130 Benjamin Guilley Malungon,Sarangani131 Antonio B. Fungan Lake Sebu, South Cotabato132 Ernesto B. Manuel T'boli, South Cotabato133 Amirh M. Musali Columbio, Sultan Kudarat

Region XIII134 Ramon M. Calo Carmen, Agusan del Norte135 Glicerio M. Monton Jr. Jabonga, Agusan del Norte136 Salimar Mondejar Veruela, Agusan del Sur137 Leonida P. Manpatilan Esperanza, Agusan del Sur138 Ambrosio O. Lim La Paz, Agusan del Sur139 Romeo O. Magadan Loreto, Agusan del Sur

140 Glenn Plaza Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur141 Thelma G. Lamanilao Sibagat, Agusan del Sur

142 Lucio T. Gonzales Pilar, Surigao Del Norte143 Reynerio Canta Socorro, Surigao Del Norte144 Ma. Clarita Limbaro Bayabas, Surigao Del Norte145 Cristina Camba Hinatuan, Surigao Del Norte146 Alfeo G. Perez, Jr San Miguel, Surigao Del Norte147 Leo C. Navarro Marihatag, Surigao Del Sur

148 Baby Niel D. Quiñonez Cagwait, Surigao Del Sur149 Donell V. Polizon Tagbina, Surigao Del Sur150 Ma. Fe B. Llamera Libjo (Albor), Dinagat Island

23

B. National Government Agencies, Development Partners, LGU LeaguesNo. Name Organization151 Corazon Juliano-Soliman DSWD152 Georgina Ann Hernandez DSWD153 Camilo Gudmalin DSWD154 Ms. Dadiva C. Villanueva DSWD155 Edgar Pato DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

156 Benilda Redaja DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

157 Benito Cesario Tingson DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

158 Cicero Juan Aguilar DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

159 Alexander Glova DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

160 Abelardo Cea DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

161 Karlo Alberto de Asis DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

162 Prudencio Maxino DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

163 Tricia Rona Maligalig DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

164 Sugar Gonzalez DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

165 Leo Quintilla DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

166 Elena Quezon DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

167 Sharon Barrameda DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

168 Amante Sabangan DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

169 Melanie L. Sison DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

170 Melanie Guevarra DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

171 Mirali M. Durr DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

172 Milo Casals DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

173 Ronnie Tapnio DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

174 Rachel Aquino DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

175 Edna Gapuz DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

176 Jan Michael Olit DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS

177 Patrick Erestain DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS178 Usec Austere Panadero DILG179 AD Anna Bonagua DILG180 Nelia Abalos DILG181 Virginia Clavel DILG182 Luzviminda Fortaleza DILG183 Thelma Abdulrahman DILG184 Usec Jude Esguerra NAPC185 Lani Garnace NAPC186 Edgar Allan Cruz NAPC187 Patrick Lim DBM188 Deputy Ruperto Majuco NEDA189 AD Myrna Asuncion NEDA190 John Geronimo NEDA191 Usec Joel Rudinas DA

24

B. National Government Agencies, Development Partners, LGU LeaguesNo. Name Organization192 Richard Leaño DA193 Gerard Araña DA194 Director Juan Antonio Perez MD DOH195 Usec. Lourdes Trasmonte DOLE196 Cielo Cabalatungan DOLE197 Director Angelina Manga DOE198 Rowena de la Cruz DEPED199 Director Susana E. Leones DAR

200 Adelfa Gabalfin DAR201 Commissioner Domingo Fampulme PCUP202 Commissioner Ric Domingo PCUP203 Yuki Ito ADB204 Mercedes Cornejo AECID

205 Rosela Agcaoili AusAID

206 Marivic Añonuevo M-CAP

207 Sean Bradley World Bank

208 Ma. Loreto Padua World Bank

209 Lilian de Leon League of Municipalities

210 Pat de QuirosUnion of Local Authorities

of the Philippines

25

Attachment 3: Transcripts of SPEECHES

A. KEYNOTE ADDRESS

KALAHI-CIDSS, BUP and NCCDP: Key Elements of the Aquino Administration's Governance Agenda

DSWD Secretary Corazon Juliano-Soliman

To all our partners from different parts of the country-- local chief executives who are very busy but have given time for this very important gathering -- isang magandang umaga, maayong buntag, salaam alaykom. I also would like to greet our partners from the national government agencies who are here: Undersecretary Austere Panadero of Department of the Interior and Local Government, DDG Majuca of National Economic and Development Authority, and Undersecretary Trasmonte of Department of Labor and Employment who I understand, is coming in straight from Cambodia. That's how committed our partners from the national government agencies are. And of course, my greetings to colleagues from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) particularly our KALAHI-CIDSS National Project Management Office, DSWD regional offices, and our consultants.

Let me review some of the basic premises that many of you have actually brought to life. And I would like to emphasize these because these are the elements that weave themselves into basically our joint and integrated efforts to make sure that the bosses -- the people -- are part of critical decision-making processes that you yourselves have experienced. The Matuwid na Daan is basically the social contract of the Filipino people with the President, and it has some elements. It has the concept of citizen's participation, that development should be driven by the communities themselves; good governance through transparency and accountability, and inclusive development planning. The social contract with the Filipino people by this administration rests on these four principles. Good governance cannot happen if there is no citizen's participation because it will have to be the citizens, our bosses, who will tell us what we are about if we are doing right or wrong. And for you mayors-- the local chief executives -- this is very clear as the citizens make the choice every three years. In other words, participation of the citizenry in choosing their leadership is a very clear action. But we want to do more. We want to make sure that development is driven by them. As I said, many of you if not all of you, have seen that happen in your own municipalities because they are part of inclusive development planning that we do and good governance through transparency and accountability. It is not just the accountability of government or local chief executive but also the accountability of the people themselves. It is indeed a partnership, as you have seen. So, our end goal is to put power back to the people. We believe that a real democracy can only be meaningful, can only happen if democracy is translated into food, clothing and shelter and that people have the power to be able to influence those decisions as citizens. Ensuring and sustaining governance reforms, I believe, has several components: empowered communities, progressive local government units, and consolidated effort of the national government agencies. Empowered communities, again, is something that you have seen live in your own communities. They

26

actually engage ordinary citizens in critical decision-making processes, and they have the capacity to meaningfully engage in and negotiate with government.

I just came from Cordillera and I note that some colleagues from that region are here today. I was traveling from Baguio to Besao, Mountain Province through Halsema Road. We were able to meet in Lak-maan, a barangay in Besao, and you probably have seen this -- the ordinary citizen, a female who is bookkeeper of the subproject explaining to me what was the cost of the daycare, where the counterpart was, where they are, how much has been paid and how much still has to be paid, explaining to me in the daycare center that was almost done. To me, that is the power of KALAHI-CIDSS -- when citizens know how much the project is, they decide on the cost, and they monitor to ensure that the project will work for them. But it cannot just be empowered citizens. It has to be, as you know, progressive LGUs. And you represent progressive LGUs being local chief executives or Makamasang Tugon Mayors, who basically saw that it is good governance to have people decide with you on what projects and how money is going to be spent, and when people come in with their own counterparts. You have witnessed how powerful that is and how these projects have really been maintained and sustained by the people. Being progressive as local government units is also good politics because people appreciate and see you as progressive, not in a negative but in a very positive sense. And that participatory local governance is alive.

On the part of DSWD and other national government agencies under the bottom-up process of budgeting that we have just undertaken it is very important that the engagement is meaningful and that we are able to establish mechanisms where citizens, local chief executives, and local government units and the national government agencies actually make sure that we are working together. Because these strengthened efforts of integrating and unifying our response to the needs as articulated by the different citizens with their local chief executives in the bottom-up budget process obviously makes us better responders to your needs. So this is not just DILG, DBM, NAPC and DSWD. Together with us are DOLE, DA, DENR, DAR, DOE, DepEd and DOH. These are the NGAs who were and are participating in the bottom-up budgeting process and in a while, I will be explaining how that works. Let me highlight the strategy. Basically, the strategy is that we have the bottom-up planning, the community-driven development that we want to scale up into a national community-driven development program, which we believe will ensure two things: people empowerment and poverty reduction. Kasi alam naman nating lahat na ang ating Pangulo ngayon, kanyang mahigpit na pinaninindigan na kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap. At makikita natin yan sa ngayon sa laki ng pondong inilalagay sa social services kasi nga yung mga pondong hindi nakikita noon, maliwanag na nakikita sa ating mga batayang serbisyo. And just to give you an example, I think that 31% to 32% of the national budget for 2012, is all for social services. The biggest share goes to DepEd, and followed by DOH and DSWD which have almost an equal share because of the universal health provision, PhilHealth, and later in the day, we can discuss that. I see Dr. JP Perez from DOH who is the Chief of Staff of Secretary Ona, and we still need to work out and we can discuss with you the details of the PhilHealth cards' universal coverage of Pangtawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program and those under the national household targeting system. So, if we put together the Bottom-up Planning Process for budget and your experience in community-driven development

27

(so, that's really coming from the bottom), we can have a national community-driven development strategy being employed by the local government units as you have and are already doing. The national government agencies should take a look at that and also try to work out that the processes in our programs will follow the principles of community-driven development, which some programs are having already the same or some elements that we have done in KALAHI-CIDSS, such as the MRDP and the ARCP of the Department of Agrarian Reform, all of which are in your different municipalities.

Now, let me just do a quick review on KALAHI-CIDSS. I think this is very clear -- something that you know by heart because all of you are partners at one time or another. It's really the three point agenda of empowering communities, improving local governance and reducing the poverty incidence. But I think, I just want to highlight the salient features of KALAHI-CIDSS that will be useful to reflect upon and see how that influences the bottom-up process and how that will influence the national government, other national government agency programs that are being implemented in your municipalities. You all know that it's an open menu system. The subproject approval is done through a community assembly and a municipal assembly that you facilitate. It's a one-fund concept which means that the fund is put together and is brought to the level of the barangay under the management of the barangay subproject committee. There is a grievance redress system and an institutionalization framework which is the Makamasang Tugon as a result of that and the promotion of transparency. Now, to highlight the open menu system and the subproject approval, I just want to mention two things here -- that this is something that comes from the bottom and is worked into with your local development plans and in the bottom-up budgeting process that was undertaken in the last 3 to 4 months. These are key elements that should have been brought into that process and we hope that that was true in terms of your own experiences. That the barangay assemblies that you have already been conducting in the past, the participatory situational analysis, and eventually, the choice of the subprojects that will be funded by the people with you help in the bottom-up budget process that you have all, or most of you, have been part of.

Moving on, I think it is also important to note that what we hope in the long run are self-propelling communities in high poverty incidence areas in the countryside and that people actively participate in development activities to improve the quality of their lives. So what we hope to do is achieve what we are saying as the meeting of two important aspects: reducing poverty by increasing participation, because we believe that, as the President always reminds us, no one should be left behind. And the main strategy to ensure that no one is left behind is by way of everyone participating in the process. And this is why he really supported this first step of engaging the people in a national planning process by the bottom-up planning or the bottom-up budget process. So what we were doing and hoping to achieve is that citizens participate with the local government units to influence the budget and therefore, if that is now becoming a reality, that means people are truly empowered. Now, where we are in terms of this is putting together the organized experience in purposeful collective action which is the KALAHI-CIDSS Makamasang Tugon experience and then systematically mobilizing the capacity of the local people to prioritize their development needs and influence not just the local government unit, but the national government agencies' budget, so that we are able to really say that the budget is

28

not done by your development planners, is not done by national government agencies from the region, but it is really done with the information and the participation and people deciding together with you, the local government units, on what is important for that particular municipality in relation to education, health, social protection, agrarian reform, agriculture, energy. That's where most, if not all of you, had tried to influence this budget. I'm sure you knew that there was a menu, as you saw, it is 10% of the national government agencies' budget for 2013. What does that mean? It means that 10% of my budget of the agencies that I mentioned is going to be from the proposals that you have made, those who participated in the bottom-up budget planning process. Now, why are we saying that the Makamasang Tugon areas and the KALAHI-CIDSS areas are important in this process? Because you have had your experience and as you can see, from 42, we are in 48 provinces. From 184, we are in 413 municipalities covering 9,499 barangays. And we are moving even from community to municipality and trying to work, at least on a pilot basis, on the provincial level. And I do want to get your feedback there. What you think of KALAHI-CIDSS engaging at the level of the province. There might be some questions about these because the province, I think, has its advantage because they can take a look at a wider geographical area. At the same time, we are aware of political realities and yet we do want to encourage us to look for ways to rise above the probable differences that we may have politically but that we can think about the development of our municipality and the province together. As I said, this is an experiment that we still would like to look at in three provinces. And of course, we have already improved on our sector engagement particularly mainstreaming gender and disaster risk reduction which is, I think, a very clear and present challenge for all of us. Disaster risk reduction is key because climate change, we cannot stop but we can mitigate the effects of climate change and all of you has had, at some point, experienced the impact of climate change by way of landslides, floods, and for our colleagues in Region VII in Negros Oriental, an earthquake which they did not ever experience in the past. It is clear and it is present. Last Saturday night, there was a landslide between Sagada and Bontoc and they had to clear it so all of us who were in Sagada could go home. That landslide was only brought on by strong rain-- no typhoon, no nothing, just strong rain. That is what climate change is all about and we really need to look at disaster risk mitigation.

Finally, our achievement is that, through your advocacy as Raul has said, one year ago most of you made a resolution to the President that you wanted to make the community-driven development as national strategy. We are now on the cusp of getting things moving because the Human Development Cluster for Poverty Reduction actually has adopted the national community-driven development as a strategy and we're trying to develop now the ways that it can be implemented as a national scale-up. We hope that this year will be a transition year looking at 2 very important aspects: the bottom-up planning process for 2014 but also monitoring and looking at how the budget that was influenced -- the 2013 budget -- how that is implemented in your municipalities. We really believe that it is promoting still the concepts of KALAHI-CIDSS at a national level. It's promoting what Makamasang Tugon has done in a national level in a wider scale. So we are looking at, for national coverage, 941 municipalities. As I understand, you are 160 today here in this room. We hope to have, in the next 3 to 4 years, more municipalities engaging in community-driven development. Obviously those who are poor

29

are given priorities, 75 provinces in the country and all regions except NCR, and we hope to do this 2013 to 2017.

Again, I would like to invite you to think that this is something that, we believe, goes across administrations because we believe development work and poverty reduction is everyone's concern. We hope that beyond 2016, it will continue to be implemented. As you have seen, we have gone through 2 administrations already of KALAHI-CIDSS and we will continue to do so. Most of our DSWD programs, as you know, have always been going through administrations and it is because we believe that development serving the people goes beyond political boundaries. I think that is true for more of the basic social services, organizations, agencies in the government -- DOLE, DOH, DepEd, DILG—we go through different administrations. Now, our framework is something that we believe have been going on in your communities. This is something that the NCDDP already had agreed to do in technical working group level. We believe that communities in poor municipalities must have increased capacity to realize their priorities, especially for 4th and 5th class municipalities. Many of you will always tell us “our priority always falls through the cracks because it really is the farm-to-market route that leads to connect”. It's the foot path that needs to connect from the mountain barangay to the main road, which you feel, sometimes, is not part of an overall plan and that's why we believe that it has to be always something from the communities and in the municipalities; that LGUs in poor municipalities have improved capacities to respond to community priorities. And Makamasang Tugon has proven that and more efficient and responsive NGAs mechanisms for giving support to community priorities. This is what we're trying to work on -- that national government agencies will not come to your municipalities and say “eto po yung aming bagong programa mayor, eto po yung gagawin ninyo, ito po yung counterpart nyo, ito yung perang dadalhin namin tapos darating yung susunod na national government agency, ito naman ho yung aming gagawin at ito yung mga kailangan ninyong gawin para makuha nyo yung perang yan”. We are trying to reverse that process. We want to be more responsive to you as opposed to having national programs that have been planned by us but had very little, if no consultation at all with you. Therefore, what do we see in the future? Because of Matuwid na Daan, we will have community-driven development -- development as defined, as identified, as undertaken by the citizens with you. We will have responsive and good governance of the local government units and the national government agencies working together and therefore, beyond all of us we will have sustained governance reform which means a better life for the next generation and a better future for our country. We are now in a position to make a major contribution to this and therefore I enjoin you to reflect with us, how we can make this happen in detail, because you have been living through the details of governance and you have been living through the challenges and responding with many of us in sometimes very good ways, sometimes not in a good way. Let us learn the lessons from our work together and move forward so that indeed, we will have a country that is just, compassionate and happy.

Thank you and good morning.

30

B. WELCOME REMARKS -DILG Undersecretary Austere Panadero

Sa ating mga mayors, sa mga lahat ng mga local chief executives who are here and the other officials from the local government, magandang umaga po sa inyong lahat.

First of all, I should congratulate you for being first a part of this process. Mahabang proseso ito, alam ni Mayor Maxino, kung saan ina-advocate natin na patuloy na gagawin ang CDD as a national strategy. And I think we are in that stage now as Secretary Soliman has said that we're about to scale up and cover as many of LGUs in the country to adopt the CDD approach. But then I think to a very large extent, the success of this entire process really depends on the ability of the LGUs to implement this, the way it is being envisioned. Secretary Soliman outlined to us what sort of images we want to see in the future. And I think lahat tayo ay sang-ayon doon. Ngunit kung paano ho mangyayari iyon ay nakasalalay sa ating lahat, lalong lalo na sa ating mga pinuno sa ating mga local government units all over the country. So I think this process is a good opportunity for those of you, especially those who have been successful in the implementation of the KALAHI-CIDSS. Hindi ho tayo nandito kung wala ang inyong ika nga 'very rich experience' and now on the verge of putting together what I would probably say as an innovative way of doing this on a national scale.

In the past, kadalasan ay pilot-pilot tayo. Ngunit ang pilot po ay hindi na sapat ngayon. Kailangan i-scale up natin nang husto, cover as many as we can and make the benefits really felt by almost everyone that needs the interventions of this program. Our local government units today, I think, are better positioned to deal with these issues. Twenty years of the Code, I think there are still challenges. But I would say there are a lot of experiences and insights that have been realized. At sapat na ho siguro iyon upang mabigyan ng karampatang mga stratehiya upang malunasan ang kahirapan sa ating mga kanayunan. Marami hong mga 5th, 6th class towns, na ang sabi natin noon, ay hindi kayang gawin na malunasan ang kahirapan but we know quite a number of 5th and 6th class towns that are indeed successful or even surpassed expectations in dealing with these problems. And that is no reason why others cannot do it as well.

So ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the DILG, we're very glad to be a partner of DSWD in this effort together with you. I'd like to welcome everyone and certainly wish you a very successful workshop. Yung ating mga mungkahi ay dapat nating ipaalam sa lahat at upang ito ay mabigyan ng kaganapan.

Maraming salamat po uli at magandang umaga.

31

C. WELCOME REMARKS -NEDA Deputy Director-General Ruperto P. Majuca

Good Morning!

On behalf of the National Economic and Development Authority, I would like to commend the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) for persistently pushing through with all the needed participatory processes to formulate the National Community Driven Development Program (NCDDP). Because of the efforts, I am now privileged to welcome all of you, the participants to this National Conference on NCDDP.

This activity, which primarily seeks the inputs of local government units (LGUs) in

developing the NCDDP, is a clear indication of this government’s earnest pursuit of participatory governance. Furthermore, this initiative is a step forward in achieving our overall goals of inclusive growth and poverty reduction.

CDD is an integral aspect of our antipoverty campaign. And as the name suggests, it requires the active participation of the community – the beneficiaries themselves – in the identification of societal issues and the interventions needed to respond to these concerns. Given that you, our LGU partners, are the end takers of these initiatives, you would know best what your communities need and what design would work best for your people. Hence, sharing your insights now would be crucial so we can develop a program that would be best suited for you.

The Kapit-bisig laban sa Kahirapan – Comprehensive and integrated delivery of social services (KALAHI-CIDSS) Project, the precursor of this proposed NCDDP has been very inspirational. Initial evaluation shows that it has resulted to high participation of households and local officials, increased financial commitment of LGUs as shown in their planning and budgeting processes, improved basic service delivery, and minimized elite capture, among others. These results are what we have stated in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP), thus, we aim to sustain and expand such gains achieved from the CDD projects. This is why in developing the NCDDP, we want to ensure that CDD is institutionalized and sustained in current KALAHI-CIDSS areas and in the proposed expansion to other LGUs.

Our activity today is the cornerstone in the development of the proposed NCDDP. Your inputs as first hand implementers and beneficiaries will give us information on what really happens on the ground. These would provide us with the key factors in determining possible social, political and institutional issues, as well as the financial and economic viability of the program. Answering such concerns now will help us in attaining NEDA-ICC endorsement, and thus facilitate program implementation.

Thus, for the success of CDD and in pursuit of our PDP goals and objectives, we encourage everyone to be as candid and comprehensive as possible during the discussions later today.

Thank you and good morning to all of us.

32