The Program Implementation:

Transcription

1 The Program Implementation: Realities, Gains, and Constraints (The Implementers Perspective) Magdalena C. Cabaraban, Ph.D. Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU) Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City With support from Upland Development Programme (UDP) for Southern Mindanao

2 Table of Contents CONTENT PAGE Face Leaf The Rationale The Objectives The Methodology The Design and Methods of Data Collection The Instrument The Findings of the Study A. Partnership and Linkages B. The Program Components: Changes, Gains and Constraints 1. Sustainable Agricultural Development (SAD) 2. Resource Management (RM) Component 3. Community Institutional Development and Extension (CIDE) 4. The Rural Finance Services (RFS) 5. Marketing and Enterprise Development (MED) 6. Agricultural Infrastructure Support (AIS) Summary, Implications, and Recommendations Summary References Implications and Recommendations Appendix (Matrix of Implementers Responses)

3 The Rationale The Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao (UDP) is a seven-year endeavor, a joint undertaking of the European Union (EU) and the Department of Agriculture (DA) of the Philippine government. Taking its leverage from the earlier efforts of the Southern Mindanao Agricultural Programme (SMAP), the programme took benchmark feature of the latter and grafted methodologies that were seen to work well in the upland setting. The UDP lifespan began in 1999; however, actual intervention began in late 2000 with a trickle of inputs, then the take-off in The initial two years were the preparatory stage--building partnerships, fine-tuning strategies, and recruitment of personnel. The generic goal of the programme is to develop a replicable model for sustaining the upland resource base and improving the quality of life of upland communities. The thrust to realize this broad aim is through participatory community-based approach. The approach demands participation of different stakeholders and partners. Implicit to this is the need for commitment and support from local government units, civil societies, and the upland people themselves.

4 The drawing of commitment and support is anticipated to be a slow process of trust-building eventuating to the acceptance of UDP and its various projects. At the outset, the management designed six project components of the programme which include: community institutional development and extension (CIDE); resource management (RM); sustainable agriculture development (SAD); rural financial services (RFS); marketing and enterprise development (MED); and agricultural infrastructure support (AIS). The components are viewed as pathways to realize the aims of the programme and since these pathways will converge into a broader arena, the inputs are not considered as exclusive to a particular project. Rather the various inputs are part of overarching efforts to realize the aims of the UDP. This report is part of a larger evaluation study on the impact of UDP on the lives of upland people. The main focus of this paper is on the process of implementation of various project components as seen through the implementers lens. Process evaluation is concerned with the how and the what of the projects. Ideally, this type of evaluation requires firsthand information through observation and examination of service records to determine the manner of delivery of intervention inputs, the target beneficiaries utilization of such inputs, and the nurturance and the effect of these on their lives. In relation to the aforementioned requirement, a word of caution is given for potential users of the report. The information described herein are culled from responses of high level management and community-based 2

5 implementers, information which rely mostly on the recall of events and their impression shaped by those events. The Objectives The larger impact study enunciates the following objectives: 1. to determine significant social and economic changes in the before and after conditions with special emphasis on agricultural activities between intervention and non-intervention upland households; 2. to investigate differences on the before and after conditions of intervention and non-intervention communities and to determine significant changes in their demographic and economic activities; 3. to document perceived gains and constraints and to present upland realities as observed during the process of implementation; and 4. to determine changes among community-based organizations (CBOs) before and after the UDP projects. These objectives generate four separate analyses. The first objective deals with UDP impact on upland households; the second objective examines differences between communities which are both UDP recipients and nonrecipients. The third objective is the concern of this paper, namely, to look at the process of implementation from the implementers perspective. The fourth objective deals with changes among community-based organizations after UDP projects were implemented. 3

6 The Methodology The Design and Methods of Data Collection. The UDP impact evaluation study utilizes the quantitative-qualitative research mode. The quantitative component of the study follows a quasi-experimental design which examines the before and after condition on both with and without intervention communities. The triangulation of data collection methods was employed which include household interview, Focus Group Interview (FGI), and in-depth interview of key informants. This aspect of the study deals with process evaluation and confines itself to qualitative inquiry on how the UDP projects were implemented. A total of 20 UDP implementers composed of 11 upper level management (provincial project managers and component coordinators) and 9 community-based (agricultural technicians) personnel were selected as key informants. The Instrument. Structured guide questions were formulated and were arranged according to blocks of topics: a) partnership and linkages-building; and b) project components such as: sustainable agriculture development (SAD); resource management (RM); community institutional development and extension (CIDE); marketing and enterprise development (MED); rural financial services (RFS); and agricultural infrastructure support (AIS). The partnership and linkages block delved into experiences of implementers not only on building linkages but also on the nurturance of the relationships, 4

7 the snags that could erode trust and openness among stakeholders as well as perceptions on the participatory nature of the programme. A battery of questions was asked under specific project component, questions which deal with the acceptability of various schemes, strategies, and project activities. Considerable probing was done to gain deeper insights from respondents. The instrument was reviewed by peers, and fine-tuned and revised prior to administration. 5

8 The Findings of the Study The analytical description of this section pertains to the data collected from upper level management and community-based implementers. Emphasis is on present realities that either promote or hinder ways of implementation. The participatory thrust of UDP requires imperatives, one of which is partnership and linkages building. Moreover, the relationship built during the initial stage of implementation has to be nurtured, sustained and infused constantly with openness and trust. A. Partnership and Linkages The identification of and the building of relationship among partners cut across different sectors: the local focal persons or the critical mass in upland communities, the local government leaders and executives, the business sector, and the civil society which include the non-government organizations. Partnership with the Upland Beneficiaries. The overall consensus of implementers is that UDP was welcomed by the upland people. During the orientation stage, a marked demonstration of excitement was manifested in most of the identified target areas. This was exacerbated by the presence of local officials and by the idea that they are the chosen ones among the many upland communities. The degree of acceptance of UDP, however, varies; less accessible communities and those with predominantly indigenous population demonstrated reluctance at the beginning. Other communities had high expectations and enthusiasm but with a steep dole out orientation. 6

9 Implementers also observed a demonstration of hesitation and apprehension towards UDP. Indication of wariness and expression of doubt assailed some upland people (Box 1). The predominant sentiment of the doubting residents hinges on the fear that their land will be taken from them. Hesitancy to outrightly accept the UDP program was also manifested through a lackadaisical attitude--a wait and see stance bordering on indifference. The communitybased implementers estimated that thirty percent (30%) of people are non-receptive of the program during this early stage. Implementers anticipated the need for longer time of extension workers involving promotion of the program. Box 1. Expression of Peoples Apprehension Culled from Interviews with UDP Program Implementers Ang area layo, kasagaran sa mga tawo gamay ra ang nakaeskuwela gyud. Naa silay lahi-lahi nga perception sa programa. Basin daw kuhaon ang yuta nila, then sa water system basin daw pabayron sila. (Most of the areas are farflung and there are only a few who have gone to school. So naturally they have different views and perception regarding the project. There are those who think that the ultimate aim of all this is to grab their lands and there are also those who think that they have to pay for the installation of the water system.) Agriculture technician, Davao Oriental Sa pagsulod man gud sa UDP sa area mismo an first reaction sa mga tawo mao nga ang UDP ang mag-dominate sa area. Naay instinct nila nga after sa programa, bawi-on o kuhaon sa UDP ang yuta nila. Apprehensive sila. (When UDP entered the areas, the first reaction of the inhabitants was that UDP will lord over the area. They have this notion that after the program their lands will be taken away from them by UDP. That is why they are apprehensive.) Agriculture technician, Sarangani Province May mga doubts din yung mga tao, ang iba hindi nila maintindihan na mayroon pa palang process. Kasi pagsinabing project ang akala nila bigyan sila ng insfrastructure. (People have doubts; there are those who don t understand why there is a need for processes because when you say projects they will automatically assume that they will be recipient of infrastructure.) Component coordinator People, especially those living in far-flung places and those from the indigenous communities were slow to respond. Provincial manager The initial negative response, however, diminished over time through vigorous community organizing efforts, education-information, delivery of services and inputs, and through follow-ups and monitoring of communitybased implementers. To offset the negative perception and to draw greater involvement, the management and implementers instituted a local network scheme which is 7

10 pyramidal in structure. Organizing and mobilizing people in sitios through a core group of leaders and members (upland community organization, UCO), the scheme creates a critical mass that works as agents of change. Several groups of UCOs form an Upland Barangay Association (UBA), hence creating a network. Partnership with the LGU and Line Agencies. Generally, officials and leaders of local government units are receptive of the program. The reception was described as warm and thankful ; assurance of full support was given at the outset. The relationship is characterized as consultative, supportive, and symbiotic. Moreover, the interaction placed into center-stage of the relationship the concepts of equity, accountability, and transparency. The complementation scheme as implemented resulted to enhancement of partnership. All LGUs agreed and committed themselves. Responsibilities and roles were defined albeit the specific counterpart requirements were either not fully realized or were delayed in delivery. On the belief that the shared efforts and the low profile of the UDP management will provide a sense of ownership, the LGU indeed committed and delivered what they pledge as complement to the UDP assistance. Aside from the monetary commitment and technical staff to augment manpower for the project, LGU also provided support in the form of equipment (especially in infrastructure), providing logistics (food and materials) during meetings, support the attendance of LGU-based staff during trainings by giving transportation allowance, providing moral support, and by supporting advocacy efforts. 8

11 The full and at times over-compliance of the complementation agreement by the majority of the LGUs was greatly appreciated by the upper level and community-based implementers. However, such appreciation was blunted by their articulation of snags and difficulties. For instance, the co-sharing A few LGUs have low compliance rating, slow in giving arrangement although generally their counterpart especially in adhered to and realized, has its places where political enmity downside. It does not work well in seeped into the decision-making. some LGUs. Implementers estimated that about twenty percent (20%) of LGUs in the covered areas failed somehow to realize what they pledged and agreed. A few LGUs have low compliance rating, slow in giving their counterpart especially in places where political enmity seeped into the decision-making. Confluences of reasons were given by implementers. The monetary counterpart can either be delayed or the amount released is insufficient due to lack of funds. This is unavoidable, considering the meager Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA) of the local government unit which has to be apportioned to competing priorities. Specific instances in lapses of LGU were mentioned, notably the failure to provide transportation for the delivery of seedlings. Dumped in nearby vacant area, the seedlings never reached the beneficiaries (Box 2). Snags in the delivery of inputs and assistance are attributed to bureaucratic red tape in the LGU level. Adherence to required procedures caused delays. Moreover, government policies and UDP requirements had to be tailor-fit with each other and the process of satisfying these requirements and imperatives demand time and considerable compromises. 9

12 Box 2. Implementers explanations on why there was a delay in the delivery of farm and livestock inputs Due siguro sa mga papeles. Siyempre, paliton pa man na naay mga requirements, tapos pag-deliver sa area. Ang nag-palit [maoy sad-an] kay wala man didto na-timing. Usahay kung mo-ulan napud, magbaha, dili napud kasulod ang truck, dili ka-deliver didto sa area. Mag-sulod man siya pero layo sa lugar nga adtoan. Ikarga nimo to, tamang-tama pag-abot nimo didto dili na mapuslan. Through the experience, sa ako lang barangay, naa na koy payag-payag sa kanding, nagbangag na. Magsaka ako didto, ako may front dili man sila. Mao man puy instruction nga mag-bangag, mabuhat ug payag-payag sa kanding. Ako ang naa sa front nga nag-ingon mao ni ang date sa pag-deliver, pag-abot sa date wala man. Sala nila, sala sa UDP. Pag-action plan namo didto sa Don Bosco, naka-hilira na tanan, unsang pitsaha, unsang orasa, unsa imong himuon, pag-abot sa panahon kinsay gina-bombahan, kami mga ATs. Sila wala, kay kami man ang naa didto (sa area), naa mi sa field. Sige lang pud mi g ingon agwanta lang sa kay wala pa. Inig lakaw namo istoryahan napud mi nila. Dili namo sala, pero kami ang kanunay naa didto, kami ang mabothan. (Maybe it is due to paper work or maybe because they have to be purchased, then there are requirements [to be complied] before it can be delivered to the area. Maybe it is the fault of the purchaser because they bought it during non-planting season or off-timing. There are also times when the inputs cannot be delivered to the area because of flood. These are also far-flung areas and it will take a long time for the truck to reach it and upon reaching the area the seedlings are already wilted and cannot be planted anymore. From my own experience in my assigned barangay I and the beneficiaries were told to have the seedling beds and the goat shed ready. So we had everything ready for the expected date of delivery. When that date came no delivery of inputs were made. So I think it is the fault of UDP. When we had our action planning in Don Bosco, we had everything lined-up, the date and the time of delivery and what to do with the inputs. When no delivery was made, we ATs were blamed not them [UDP] because we are the ones at the frontline, the ones they see and interact with. What we were able to do after the fiasco was that we assured the beneficiaries to just wait and have patience. We know that after we leave, they [beneficiaries] will talk among themselves and blame us not them [UDP]. We were made to take all the blame simply because we are the ones in the field.) Agricultural technician, Sarangani Province Tinuod na siya katong sa akong time, na-abot jud ang among planting materials towards summer nga init jud kaayo. Nga dako ang mortality gani. Ang pag-approve sa proposal kay dugay man siya na-approve kay natiming pagka-approve nga dapat na e-deliver ting-init. Masulti gyud namo nga program kay kami gihimo gyud namo kung unsa ang ilang i-kuan (isulti) sa proposal, requirements. Kay ang nahitabo man gud sa DFS, submit, balik, submit. Ang uban nawala kay lain napu ingani, so na-abot gyud sa point nga gikapoy na, kami sa part sa amoa dili namo ma-kuan ang lain namo nga priority, maghimo na lang ug proposal o bag-o nga requirements. Then, sa farmers pul-an napud nga sige g hulat ana. Mao to ang reason pud nga timing siya nga ting-init. [Ga-ilis ilisan ang requirements sauna] though karon simple na, ang ilang requirements nga gipangayo dili naman kaayo kay murag na-learn na siguro nga in-ato. Pero, sa among part mura napud mig nagsugod sa area kay unsaon napud namo pag convene ang mga tao pag-convince sa ila nga in-ani na. Ang pag-submit sa proposal karon dili na dugay pero nakalisod sa amoa pag-reestablish napud sa trust then ang participation sa farmers. (That is true because in our case the planting materials were delivered during summer, it was so hot that mortality of the seedlings was high. It took them a long time to approve the proposal and when it was finally approved and delivered it was already summer. We can surely say that the delay was due to the program because we complied with all the needed requirements. What happened with the DFS was that we submit, and then there was a change in their requirement so we have to start all over again. It came to the point where the farmers became tired of waiting and in doing all the changes that had to be made. After it was finally approved and ready for delivery, it was already dry season. Maybe they [UDP] learned their lesson after that because the requirements were made simpler as of now. But the problem is that how to convene and convince the farmers in the areas to submit a proposal again. Convince them that the requirement is not complicated anymore. So we had a hard time reestablishing trust and convincing farmers to participate again.) Agricultural technician, Davao Oriental 10

13 Strains in Partnership. Sustainability in partnership is believed by upper level implementers as shaky and fragile inspite of the reality that most of UDP project activities are currently LGU-led. Participation among partners is said to be high during the first and second years. LGUs demonstrated strong involvement; likewise community members were eager to learn the technologies introduced. A considerable number of trainings provided knowledge and skills to a wide range of people. From the implementers perspective, partnership with the LGUs and line agencies was nurtured and sustained albeit fragile. The fragility was attributed to the fact that the UDP model which needs further finetuning, is not mainstreamed into the established system of the LGU and From the implementers perspective, partnership with the LGUs and line agencies was nurtured and sustained albeit fragile. The fragility was attributed to the fact that the UDP model which needs further fine-tuning, is not mainstreamed into the established system of the LGU and the line agencies. the line agencies. Moreover, there is the issue of territoriality, that is, the concern about encroachment of one s area of responsibility. Alternative ways to sustain the partnership between UDP management/implementers and the chief local executives were experimented through the co-management scheme in one covered province. Initial assessment indicates the potential for success and a promise of sustainable relationship. The partnership with community members yielded success stories but there are also programmatic difficulties which put a strain on what could be an otherwise fruitful relationship. To quote a community-based implementer 11

14 Yong sobra na nang pagka-participatory na it takes three days to decide for a small need. (There is too much application of that so called participatory aspect that even deciding about small needs takes three days.) Conflict in time and interests seems to top the list. Conflict in terms of farmers time and that of the agricultural technicians (ATs) is viewed as delimitation to teaching-learning interaction. Farmers have to go and work in the farm located several kilometers from the community center. Frequent interaction is desirable but cannot be realized given the work and distance constraints. Attendance in meetings is also hampered by time and interest. Nonbeneficiaries have low attendance rate compared with their beneficiary counterpart. Participation of non-owner farmers is evidently low too. The priority of all poor upland farmers revolves around survival, that is, to earn and live for the day. In the language of the poor, it is isang kahig, isang tuka (hand-to-mouth existence). Foresight for economic improvement is not a strong suit for those who have to work in order to put food in the table. The community-based implementers are not strangers to this reality, Congruent to this is the realization that the strain in relationship emanates mostly among community members themselves. Rivalry and envy spawn a host of negative results. Community leaders, according to implementers, are not all cause-oriented; some tend to exercise power over the other members. 12

15 B. The Program Components: Changes, Gains and Constraints This section delves into the minds of implementers as they recall events, draws a current picture of the upland landscape on the basis of observations, and records perceived changes and gains. It likewise presents perceived constraints that posed as impediments during the implementation. The six components are designed to support each other; it can be likened to spokes of a wheel, each equally important in order to perform well. In the UDP model, they are pathways to improve upland communities and to increase the income of upland farmers. Cognizant to the interrelatedness of components, this paper however, treats each component separately to highlight gains and to pinpoint programmatic issues that may constitute as lessons learned. 1. The Sustainable Agriculture Development (SAD) Upper level implementers believe that SAD will definitely be the legacy of the UDP, notwithstanding the fact that UDP cannot be attributed as the trailblazer of this component. Upper level implementers believe that SAD will definitely be the legacy of the UDP, notwithstanding the fact that UDP cannot be attributed as the trailblazer of this component Rather, UDP did a rigorous promotion of SAD and had utilized various schemes to integrate SAD into the upland way of life. The popular and highly visible strategy to realize sustainable agriculture development is the promotion and adoption of diversified farming system (DFS). The promotion aspect presupposes knowledge of farm technologies which will eventuate to more production. It also follows that the concept of 13

16 sustainable development will be at the center stage of consciousness of upland people and the importance of protecting the resource base. Implementers enumerated a number of observed changes which include changes in the landscape, level of awareness and knowledge, attitude towards traditional farming ways, social skills in negotiation, leadership, decision-making and communication. Implementers enumerated a number of observed changes which include changes in the landscape, level of awareness and knowledge, attitude towards traditional farming ways, social skills in negotiation, leadership, decision-making, and To identify and highlight specific gains from this component, the following points are culled from transcribed interviews of key informants. The upland landscape now is no longer bald and bare although strips of gullies and eroded patches can still be seen in some areas. Fruit trees proliferate in intervention slopes. There is also an observed reduction in slash and burn practice. Establishing hedgerow has been popularly accepted and adopted by those who understand better. At the outset, reluctance to adopt was manifested; it was thought to be an additional burden. Over time, when the benefit was seen to outweigh the labor, farmers, both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries began to practice constructing of the hedgerows. The acceptance of hedgerow as a technology to prevent further soil erosion is highlighted by one barangay which integrates into their development agenda the acceptance, promotion, and practice of establishing hedgerows. 14

17 Widespread application of diversified farming system in intervention areas is observed. All beneficiaries are practicing DFS and nonbeneficiaries are showing interest by slowly adopting the technology. More upland farmers are shifting from mono-cropping to multicropping. Congruent to this, is the farmers awareness on the benefits of minimum tillage and reduction in the use of fertilizer. A considerable number of farmer beneficiaries are intercropping long term, medium and short-term crops. Fruit and forest trees, notably mangoes and durian for the former are the preference for the long-term crops. High valued short-term crops like ampalaya, tomatoes, and corn are intercropped with both medium and longterm crops. Change in mindset is also evident. Upland people do not exercise foresight, neither do they set goals. The long years of living in a cycle of poverty, powerlessness, and helplessness have inured them to live for the day and to have immediate gratification of their needs. Somehow, this mindset has been shaken and perhaps they begin to question whether or not they can change the course of their life. The training received, the skills learned and the empowering environment that encouraged participation and decision-making have changed their outlook. For instance, the promotion to plant long-term crops is an advocacy strategy which emphasizes future economic and social security, the foresight to provide for old-age security, for children s education, and the investment of time to 15

18 ensure a source of income when the farmer is already feeble and unproductive. The exposure of beneficiaries to learning sites and knowledge of success stories provided an impetus and a resolve to move out from poverty through adoption of various technologies. Implementers were at variance on the usefulness of farm plans developed by farmers themselves. One group averred that majority of farmers follow the plans that they formulate; that farmers learn how to match appropriate crops with the right soil. Another group of implementers believe otherwise. Formulating farm plans, according to them raise false hopes, that farmers are doing it because it is a requirement, and generally they do not follow the plan. The integration of land use planning has found its way to the barangay development plan. This is, however, not true to all barangays. There are UDP covered areas that are just beginning to appreciate the importance of land use planning. A lot of implementing pains went with the achieved gains enumerated above. The process of program implementation is fraught with impediments, albeit it generates lessons learned and insights gained on the why or the wherefore of program success and failure. Problems which are social and cultural in nature constitute a large majority of constraints. The traditional mindset of upland people steeped in unscientific knowledge of farm production and the kind of attitude that disregards the protection of resource base pose a major challenge to the implementers. 16

19 The general observation which cuts across both the upper level and community implementers is that better educated farmers can readily learn and adopt farm technology. In comparison, the low educated and the nonbeneficiaries are reluctant and refuse to immediately adopt the suggested ways. Currently, a large number are in an ambivalent stage--weighing the pros and cons, observing results, and needing more evidence to warrant their acceptance. The STOP (Slope Treatment-Oriented Practices) technology for instance, is acknowledged as simple by the upper level implementers but farmers find it difficult to implement and to follow. The reluctance may stem from the fact that the introduction of STOP as a replacement for the contouring requirement ushered disappointments and frustration on the part of the farmers. The same sentiment is shared by community-based implementers as reflected in selected vignettes: Maglisod mi sa DFS nga programa kay dili namo makuha kung unsa ang gusto sa UDP ipahimo sa amoa. Sa una promote mi ug contour regardless kung unsa ka slope ang uma. Na implement namo then comes another requirement. (We had a hard time with the DFS [component] because we can t grasp what UDP really wants us to do. At first we promote contour regardless of the degree of the land s slope and we were able to implement it. Then here comes another requirement.) Aduna na uban farmers na naka-establish na ang contour maskin na more than 45 slope. Human na, unya nalain ang requirement. Ang problema kay naka promise na tagaan sa input but natagak tungod sa STOP requirement. Kami nga technician ang naipit. (There are farmers [beneficiaries] who were able to establish contour even if their land had a slope of more than 45 degrees. After that, the requirement was suddenly changed. The problem there is that they were already promised inputs. Accordingly, they failed because of the STOP requirement. So we, the technicians were placed in an impossible position.) 17

20 Another cause for non-receptivity of STOP is the perception of farmers that their farm areas will be reduced. Congruent to the expression of dissatisfaction on the unclear cut-off point on the applicability of contour requirement and the sudden replacement of STOP technology, the frustration on the delayed approval of proposals is a widespread clamor as gleaned from the following quotes culled from community implementers responses: Masyadong delay. One or two years before a proposal could be approved. (There is too much delay. It will take one or two years before a proposal can be approved.) This is an issue regarding management decision to change policies, resulting in delay. Dakung efforts ang nahimo, sige usab-usab. Ang AT are made to look like they are lying, (Too much effort had already been expended because of the so many changes. Because of this, the ATs are made to look like they are lying.) The long delay in the proposal acceptance and difficulty in complying with the requirements compounded sometimes by sudden changes in requirements resulted to frustration for both applicants and agricultural technicians. Another downside of the program implementation is the persistence of some farmers to adhere to traditional ways and to cling to beliefs/practices which are detrimental to sustainable agriculture, such as the practice of kaingin and the planting of cassava. Resource Management (RM) Component Watershed management and land use planning are the core approaches. The acquisition and application of geographical information system (GIS) as a management tool enhances the capability of local governance to implement 18

21 rational activities of this component. Implementers are in unison to claim that there is high awareness about the importance of protecting watershed areas among farmer beneficiaries as well as non-beneficiaries. The knowledge of ways on preserving watershed areas is not, however, fully translated to practice. Concrete gains, however, are observed and manifested in several projects and activities undertaken and on the integration of the concern in their barangay development agenda and in the promulgation of ordinances to protect the resource base. The watershed project was accepted with great enthusiasm by both the community members and local officials. Nearly all communities were able to implement their watershed activities, notably in areas where water is a priority concern. A few upland places have development plans which integrate land use planning, but are either not implemented or are at a loss on how to integrate resource management into the plans. The GIS is acknowledged by the community-based implementers to be an effective management tool to establish boundaries and land use. It is reliable and easy to learn. Not all intervention areas though have acquired or are using GIS in their resource management. Specific gains under this rubric include: Promulgation of ordinances prohibiting the practice of kaingin; Practice of contouring as a requirement for issuance of clearance certificate from barangay official; Resolution and operationalization of barangay forest protection 19

22 schemes and declaring specific areas as watershed areas; Introduction of measures for water conservation; and Establishment of a tree nursery, riverbank stabilization, and planting of trees in watershed areas are practiced in various upland communities. Problems encountered during the implementation of this component do not outweigh the gains observed but they do hamper in some ways the implementation process. These impediments can be categorized into two types: farmers-related and implementers-related and listed as follows: Beneficiaries-related; Conflict related to delineation of boundary between barangays and between tribal and migrants Non-attendance in orientation meetings. In some cases, wives were sent to attend. Persistence of some farmers to continue the slash and burn practice and the illegal cutting of trees. There are a number who still stick to mono cropping and are insistent to cultivate and plant corn above the 55-degree slope. Until now, quite a large number of farmers cannot fully appreciate the need to protect watershed areas. Inputs given in the form of seedling were not planted. Quite a handful of farmers still engage in activities detrimental to resource management, e.g. cutting of trees for commercial wood fuel, indiscriminate cutting of hardwood trees for boat-building, and 20

23 persistent planting of cassava. Management/Implementation-related; UDP management keeps changing policies and procedures. Farmer beneficiaries were confused; community-based implementers were frustrated especially when a lot of activities were already about to have its take-off. One agricultural technician quipped: Well that was always the case. The one who owns the gold makes the rule. Moreover, varied activities and diverse methodologies were attributed to having too many consultants. Delays in the delivery of inputs supplied by LGUs. Reasons for delay include: - purchase of inputs/materials follows a bureaucratic procedure - reluctance of LGU finance officers to release funds - personnel in-charge of material release has to be bribed Lack or inadequate resources of community to successfully implement projects/programs. Community Institutional Development and Extension(CIDE) Under this component, probe questions asked of the implementers are confined to their assessment whether or not a great number of trainings are translated to practice, problems encountered during community organizing, assessment of the training module in general, and perception on the performance of Upland Barangay Association and the Barangay Extension Workers as partners in community organizing. 21

24 The trainings cover a wide range of skills and capability-building from technical, to values formation, community organizing, leadership and planning, as well as networking. To expect immediate change of behavior after training or a series of training is unrealistic. As one of the community-based implementers says Kinahanglan pa sila ug mga trainings, mga pagpasabot, mga pagbansaybansay, dili na one shot lang. (They need more trainings, more exposure to better understand [the program]. This should not be a one-shot deal.) The expectation of change is maybe too premature; knowledge obtained from these trainings has to be internalized and allowed to grow in the minds and in the psyche of upland farmers. The various skills trainings are viewed by implementers in a positive light regardless of slow translation to practice. The introduction of concepts alien to upland farmers and different from what they are used to is not easy to accept and to put into practice. However, all implementers are in unison to agree that the trainings have made direct and indirect impacts in the lives of farmers. For one, the trainings provided learning experiences, built confidence, and created interactive opportunities for social bonding between implementers and beneficiaries. As an offshoot, upland farmers were able to learn how to communicate, how to assist and organize themselves and to put to test whatever skills they learned. A few implementers, however, observed the ningas-cogon attitude of a 22

25 handful of beneficiaries. Their enthusiasm to learn and to practice what they learn is skin-deep and therefore has no sustainability. They need constant follow-up and monitoring. To some extent, this breeds dependency on the community-based implementers. The upper level implementers noted the laxity of agricultural technicians to do the follow-up and strengthen the knowledge gained to avoid backsliding. Gleaned from implementers responses, the training on values formation somehow focused on debunking traditional values inimical to sustainable development and community-driven development. The stress was on conservation of resources (e.g. soil and water) and the necessary skills and ability for sustaining an improved community life. Hence, aside from strengthening the moral and spiritual values, skill-building on cooperativism, volunteerism, leadership, conflict management and networking were given due importance in training sessions. Moreover, heavy emphasis was on inculcating the value of sharing and the concept of cost-efficiency. One of the skills learned which is visibly translated into practice is planning and facilitating skills. There is a visible community involvement and participation when conducting UDP program-related activities. Beneficiary communities were able to demonstrate their ability to formulate plans notably in watershed management and in developing of a water system. The CIDE component garnered the most number of implementation problems/obstacles as enumerated by the implementers; although these problems were manageable, they either impede or delay the implementation process. Attendance was one big hindrance. Only a few interested individuals 23

26 attended; others preferred to work on the justification that they needed to earn in order to put food on the table. A handful of upland communities harbored negative views and attitudes, wary about the UDP program (previous experience with other flawed programs made them cautious) and indicated displeasure by way of non-attendance to training sessions or meetings. New People s Army (NPA) returnees in the community are believed to strongly manifest their reluctance. In some upland communities, attendance at the beginning was encouraging. Over time, the number of attendees dwindled; they needed inducement to attend generally in terms of provision of food (snacks). It is not uncommon to have drop-outs and membership mortality. As mentioned in other components, problems in organizing upland people lies in their attitude and adherence to a traditional agricultural practices. There are those who cannot accept the technology; they believe that accepting the new ways involves great risks. Such problem was exacerbated by their low educational attainment steeped in the fear of change. Another impediment is political in nature. This is particularly true when there is a change in political leadership, especially in a situation wherein newly elected officials are not keen to support UDP projects. However, a lot of them are supportive but they need to be oriented in all aspects of the six components. Cases of isolated conflict situation were reported by implementers, and some officers in the upper level management believe that the implementation of projects is highly politicized in all LGU levels. One of the visible strengths in the implementation of CIDE component as 24

27 observed by the community-based implementers is the networking and partnership-building within the community. This basically refers to the UCO and the UBA. Touted as an effective strategy, it has also its downside. Too many associations or groups in one community in which membership is composed of same people holding several positions created a clique of power. In some instances, they tend to exploit, placing at a disadvantage other vulnerable members. A group of implementers, both from the upper level management and the community-based, deplored the lack or dearth of qualified agricultural technicians who have the expertise and the commitment to work with upland farmers. While the UBAs and UCOs are visible and functioning, implementers are doubtful of their sustainability once UDP support will phase-out. Assessment of Community-Organizing Module. Nearly all of the implementers are in accord that the CO module is user-friendly, and gender and culture sensitive. They also mentioned that it emphasizes women s participation in development. Users (implementers) commended that the technical subject matters were ably reduced to a very understandable manner which is appropriate for unschooled target beneficiaries. The CO module is easy to use inspite of the fact that IP farmer beneficiaries were slow to pick up and demonstrated difficulty in understanding concepts. A handful of implementers/users, however, expressed negative views; they 25

28 consider the CO module as prepared from the engineering perspective. The Performance of the UBAs and the BEWs. The implementers were divided into two groups; one group, mostly community-based viewed favorably the UBAs performance, the other group cast doubt on the effectiveness of UBAs. The UBAs are considered a functional tool to gain entrance to a community particularly in instances when local leaders are uncooperative. It is also viewed as a vehicle to institutionalize the UDP program in the community life. A number of UBAs are active and facilitative. They have legal personality and are recognized by the Barangay Council. The usefulness of UBAs is outweighed by negative assessments. Implementers question its sustainability, their poor quality of leadership, and the general capacity of officers to handle their responsibility. Their low educational attainment limit their capacity to effectively manage and perform corporate tasks. Most UBAs have no economic activity to sustain their organization. Other implementers viewed UBAs as a structure which duplicates the administrative governance of barangays and sitios and as such are likewise laden with political undertones. The implementers also look with doubt on the UBAs composition of officers. They belong to different cultural subgroups (IPs, Muslims, and Christians) with different dialects spoken and some with long historical enmity with each 26

29 other. On occasions, manifestation of power play and domination were observed among the UBA officials. The same division of implementers perspective is seen in assessing the Barangay Extension Workers (BEWs). Implementers professed the usefulness of the BEW. They help a lot in fieldwork, facilitate project-related activities, and assist in community work. However, a considerable number of implementers adjudged that the BEWs are low performing workers, albeit there is recognition of the high performing BEWs, notably those receiving a small honorarium from the local government untis. Implementers also acknowledged the limitation of BEWs, their poor leadership qualities and their need to be motivated. The Rural Finance Services (RFS) The questions asked of implementers under this component revolve around their perception regarding access of farmers to loan services, the rationale and the response of upland farmers regarding the promotion of microenterprise and micro-financing, and on their assessment of the effectiveness of the Savings Loan Group and the Financial Service Center. Overall, implementers professed that RFS is a difficult component; it yielded few success stories. Access to loan service is easy for farmers, in general, notably from those in prosperous communities but difficult for upland farmers, in particular. It is 27

30 not an uncommon practice to obtain loans from traders, cooperatives, financiers, storeowners, and even from more affluent neighbors. The community-based implementers while in accord that access to loan is not difficult, yet, they stressed that upland farmers cannot access loans from financial institutions without collateral. Farmers are encouraged to engage in micro-enterprise, with the assurance of assistance from the partner financial institution. Yet farmers claimed they are planters, not businessmen. This, according to community implementers, is the rationalization of upland farmers. The promotion of micro financing to enable farmers to embark on an enterprise has possibility albeit such possibility hinges of agricultural production first. Says one implementer, Without agricultural production, there is nothing to trade, nothing to process. Is the Savings Loan Group effective? The overall observation is that most Savings and Loan Groups did not flourish. In terms of its effectiveness, the implementers were divided in their assessment. One-half had the belief that the SLG is indeed working well. An operational structure was provided when these groups were organized under the umbrella of the Financial Service Center. A sizeable number of dissenting implementers expressed the discouragement of farmers. The requirement of putting-up savings for six months before one can apply for a loan is deemed to be difficult to comply (Box 3). Moreover, the experience of having collection problems cast doubts on the effectiveness of this financial support. 28

31 Somehow, the accreditation of the Land Bank or/and the merging of the FSC with rural financial institutions can be a way of sustaining the efforts of bringing loan service within the easy reach of the upland people. Irrespective of these efforts, implementers were in accord in their observation that Partner Financial Institutions were discouraged; a very few pulled out because of poor return of investment and the high risk in farm production which most likely incapacitate farmers to pay their loans. 29

32 Box 3. A vignette on saving: overcoming initial difficulties We really drive hard the savings consciousness. Since the implementation stage, we have been really trying to inculcate the value of saving which took them a long time to comprehend. Others were just saving for one purpose, they put up their savings for reasons that they want to get credit. So the organizers had a hard time convincing them to save and had to mention the loan package as an incentive for them to save, like You have to put up some savings in order to be granted a loan immediately. So that was the come-on. Program Coordinator It is such a dilemma especially if the organizers themselves don t believe that these people can save. It is like How can you sell something which you don t believe in? The ones promoting it don t have a savings habit too. So the most difficult portion of the program is to instill the value of saving. There are so many reasons, purposes, or intentions why they save. This is true to all beneficiaries. The organizers also thought that if the beneficiaries were given capital, they can increase their production and earn more money. It is like the which come first the chicken or the egg argument. Pag hindi mo pauutangin hindi sila mag-save, hindi din sila pwede mangutang dahil walang savings. Save muna kayo para makautang kayo, para ma-capital ang agriculture ninyo, para maka-produce kayo ng marami, produce kayo ng pera. (If they can t get a loan they will not save, so they cannot get credit because they don t have savings. You have to save so you can avail of credit, will have capital for agriculture inputs, then you can produce more. But you have to shell out money first.) Provincial Manager There were also those who took almost two years to save the required amount and had already experienced fatigue by that time Ang tagal naman, ano ba? Totoo pa ba ito? Meron pa talaga na magkakaroon ng counterpart ang program? Kasi hindi rin kami nagbibigay ng counterpart capital unless meron kayo to show that you have investment rin. ( This is already too long, is the program true? Can we still avail of the counterpart loan as the program promised? The program will not give capital unless you have something to show that you re investing too.) There was fatigue on the part of people who cannot save the required amount in a shorter time period and there were others who backed-out. Agricultural Technician Davao Oriental That s why what we did is to have some flexibility. Instead of waiting for that much capital to build-up so we can counterpart the whole amount of 100,000 We said, okay if they have this amount, even this small, we will ratio our counterpart. So they were able to witness that we are willing to give the counterpart amount. Their first intention really was to avail of a loan. That was their main objective. Others later on saw the advantage of having their own savings even without the loan as added incentive. These are withdrawable savings, after some time, we allowed withdrawal. They saw the advantage of having an organization wherein they can save their little amount of money provided that it is accounted well. Provincial Manager Kasi meron namang ibang barangay na meron treasurer na hindi nire-record lahat, ginagamit yung pera. (In some barangays there were some instances wherein the treasurer did not record the savings and instead used the money for personal purposes.) But minus that, they were happy that despite their financial conditions, they were able to save. Maka-save lang sila ng five hundred or one thousand in one or two years, malaking bagay na para sa kanila (When they were able to save five hundred or one thousand in one or two years time they consider it as an achievement) because they never did it before, although they save some of their produce or what they harvested. The farmers had to really save, after harvest they save part of their crop for the next season, that s their form of saving. But for most of them, to save some cash in a semi-bank structure was their first time. Agricultural Technician Sarangani Province 30