Participation of Vulnerable Sectors towards Empowerment in Local Governance (PH0074)

Brief Description of the Commitment

At the heart of effective local governance lies the commitment to deliver better and more efficient services to its constituents. The initiative, “DRIVE: Driving Responsive and Innovative Participation of Vulnerable Sectors towards Empowerment in Local Governance” is dedicated to deepening and scaling up the involvement of civil society organizations (CSOs), primarily by empowering these organizations, especially those from the vulnerable sectors, to facilitate responsiveness of local government units (LGUs) thereby improving local service delivery. By fostering an environment that values and welcomes public participation in local processes, CSOs transition from passive observers to active and influential partners in local governance.

Problem Definition

1. What problem does the commitment aim to address? Context: People’s participation at all levels of government is a right guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution and fortified by various laws and policies. Section 16, Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides the right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decisionmaking shall not be abridged. The Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 mandates the creation of local participatory bodies, including the Local Development Council, which functions as the primary policy planning, and implementation monitoring and evaluation mechanism in the local government units (LGUs). Each LDC creates the medium-term and annual comprehensive development plans of the LGU and performs monitoring and evaluation for effective and efficient use of public resources. The LGC’s implementing rules further mandates that the LDC composition shall include representatives from duly accredited people’s organizations (POs), non-government organizations (NGOs), and the private sector operating locally, comprising not less than 25% of the fully organized council. Furthermore, the Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028 identifies the practice of good governance at all government levels as a key outcome area for the socio-economic transformation. The Philippine government commits to ensuring sufficient and functional participating spaces and improving the quality of participation as strategies for deepening participatory governance. At the core of these policies is decentralization’s theory of change, that governance becomes more responsive, accountable, and effective when exercised closest to the people whose interests and welfare local governments should serve. This pathway for change is confidently pursued with a vibrant and robust civil society that has historically shaped democratic governance reforms, boasting a diverse network of civil society organizations (CSOs) with various advocacies, functions, and sectoral representation. Problem: Despite being ensured and protected by national policies, local participatory spaces are still underutilized in deepening the quality of participation and empowering civil society’s influence in local governance. Per the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)’s 2022 data, 67.93% of LGUs have complied with constituting the LDCs, with the average percentage of CSO composition at 30%. However, these spaces are still largely seen as ‘captured’ spaces of local political elites that exercise discretion in selecting their preferred CSOs as LDC members, resulting in tokenistic or co-opted participation. Bright spots in local participatory practices are often attributed to the active engagements of highly organized and capable CSO networks. However, these empowered CSO networks are not present in all 1715 LGUs (provinces, cities, and municipalities), and those in resource-challenged areas often lack the social capital, organizational and financial capacities, human resources, and knowledge and skill sets to advance their collective agenda. The heterogeneity of CSOs’ capacity affects the vulnerable sectors the most, further compounding their vulnerabilities by the inability to shape LGU policies to demand satisfactory service delivery, efficient government responsiveness, and effective social accountability. Hence, the problem is not about the lack of participatory governance spaces (platforms and mechanisms) at the local level. The problem, instead, is their substantive functionality towards deepening the quality of participation to facilitate LGU responsiveness and improve service delivery. This commitment deems it necessary to address this problem both on the government (supply) and civil society (demand) dimensions.

2. What are the causes of the problem? The problem of improving the quality of participatory governance may be explained in terms of supply and demand. On the government (supply) side, the problem emerges from three causes:

(a) Lack of tools to diagnose and assess quality of participation. There is a need to conduct a systematic analysis of the actual depth of participatory governance in local governance institutions, particularly in LDCs. Analysis of the “functionality” of participatory governance mechanisms has often been limited to questioning the performance presence or absence of CSOs in the process. It is important to evaluate the quality of civic participation as it allows theoretical frameworks like Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation and the International Association of Public Participation’s (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation to assess and prescribe possible recommendations on how to improve the engagement.

(b) Underutilized mechanisms for government support to participatory activities. Local CSOs have continuously underscored the need for government to support the operational costs of participatory activities, e.g., traveling from far-flung areas to LGU offices, conducting field visits to monitor project implementation, and convening smaller organizations right to the village level. Government (national and local) offices have been cautious of transferring funds to CSOs because of audit requirements and to avoid being perceived as co-opting CSO participation. However, policies such as (1) COA Circular No. 2007-02 which provides the revised guidelines in the granting, utilization, accounting, and auditing of the funds released to NGOs/POs; (2) Section 4, “Annex A” of the GPPB Resolution No. 12-007 which outlines the general guidelines on non-governmental organization participation in the public procurement; and (3) Section 53.11 of the 2016 Revised IRR of R.A 9184, among others, enable and support government agencies to transact with CSOs in providing financial remuneration to compensate their services, subject to budgeting, accounting, and auditing rules of the government. DILG piloted these mechanisms in 2022 and 2023 as the Third-Party Monitoring project with relative success (to be elaborated in the next section). If these mechanisms are better communicated and implemented, more financial and operational support could be provided for accredited CSOs.

(c) Limited Opportunities to Co-implement Monitoring of Government Programs. Local participatory practices have focused mostly on consulting communities and CSOs for inputs to local plans and policies. However, the legal anchors specify that citizen participation should also expand to monitoring and evaluating government programs and projects, including those related to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), not just to ensure the integrity of the use of public funds, but also to consolidate feedback on improving service delivery and government response. As such, creating more avenues and spaces where CSOs can participate in the monitoring and implementation of government initiatives is deemed crucial to strengthen citizen participation, and enhance the overall accountability and transparency of government programs.

On the civil society (demand) side of the problem, the problem emerges from three causes:

(a) Insufficient practical knowledge of local participation opportunities. The most apparent gap is that CSOs are insufficiently informed of the mechanisms and platforms to engage their LGUs. While knowledge products (manuals, education materials, and online references) have accumulated through the years, these do not replace the foundational value of CSOs convening themselves, learning from each other’s experiences, and dialoguing with government representatives (from national and local) to be updated of the open spaces and opportunities for engagement. This knowledge barrier is helped by online information sharing but is more effectively addressed when local CSO networks are actively convened.

(b) Varying capacities and resources among CSOs and CSO networks. In the Philippines, the accreditation process for CSOs plays a vital role in ensuring transparency, accountability, and integrity in the utilization of public funds. This process not only grants CSOs access and opportunities as partners or beneficiaries of government projects but also establishes a framework for responsible engagement. Nevertheless, the challenge of varying organizational and operational capacities among CSOs hinders the realization of meaningful involvement beyond the “usual suspects.” Some CSOs, despite their eagerness to participate in public affairs, encounter obstacles due to insufficient organizational (social capital) and operational (resources, skills, experience) capacities required for accreditation, not to mention the tedious process and voluminous requirements set under the CSO accreditation process. Recognizing this hurdle, there is a pressing need to streamline the accreditation process and simultaneously, focus on enhancing the capacities of CSOs to strengthen their networking and convening capabilities. This way, CSOs can select their own representatives and assert their influence when LGUs exercise political discretion.

(c) Readiness gaps to strategically engage various local participatory spaces. Taking off the earlier points that refer to organizational and network capacities, this issue underscores the maturity of CSOs (as organizations and as local networks) to maximize local participatory spaces to a point that such spaces could move from being “closed” to “invited” to “claimed”10. Readiness can have multiple composite variables depending on the local CSOs’ capacity baselines and political realities, e.g., articulation of the citizens’ agenda (or collective CSO agenda), use of innovative technologies and approaches (civic tech), and the agility of CSO networks to pool technical and social capital to engage emergent local policy issues. These strategic capacities are observed in more advanced and empowered local participatory engagements in some localities and are envisioned to be practiced in more sites and sector-specific issues. These supply and demand issues, taken together, demand a medium-term package of interventions that coherently address policy reforms and civil society empowerment.

Commitment description

1. What has been done so far to solve the problem? During the 5th PH-OGP National Action Plan (NAP), the commitment holders focused on: (a) creating and improving spaces for citizen participation, (b) developing capacities of local CSOs, and (c) developing a tool for diagnosing the quality of local participation.

(a) Creating and improving spaces for citizen participation ● A pilot was conducted in 2021-2022 on engaging CSOs as formally contracted implementers of Third-Party Monitoring (TPM) of state-funded projects. TPM is defined as “monitoring by parties that are external to the project or program’s direct beneficiary chain or management structure to assess whether intended outputs, outcomes, and impacts have been achieved by the project. TPM is mainly used to provide an independent perspective on project or government performance11. As such, the CSOs (as service providers and members of the Technical Working Group) were successfully transferred funds to conduct independent assessments of the local projects and were empowered to tailor-fit a basic project assessment framework to become more relevant and responsive to the priorities of the communities where the projects were located. The pilot provided the proof of concept that such a direct support mechanism is possible as a policy instrument and highlighted the need to close feedback loops for the findings and recommendations that CSO service providers identify in their reports. The TPM model also created new spaces for the monitoring functions of CSOs in local participation. ● The DILG has also made efforts in protecting and widening civic space for CSOs by issuing several policy guidelines that provide opportunities for CSOs to engage and participate in programs and processes of national and local governments. Some of these are DILG Memorandum Circular 2022-0812 which provides guidelines on CSO accreditation and selection of representatives to the local special bodies, which include local development councils (LDCs), local health board (LHB), local school board (LScB), and local peace and order council (LPOC); and DILG Memorandum Circular 2021 - 01213 establishing a CSO Desk to handle CSO-related concerns and institutionalizing Local People’s Councils in LGUs.

(b) Developing capacities of local CSOs ● The DILG developed a capacity building program for accredited CSO members in LSBs meant to provide them with the necessary information and skills to effectively perform their mandated functions as members of LSBs. Complementing this initiative is the conduct of a capacity building program for CSO Desk Officers to orient them on how they can better engage CSOs to participate in local governance.

(c) Developing a tool for diagnosing the quality of local participation ● The DILG has also co-developed the Participatory Governance Metrics (PGM)14 which aims to evaluate the quality of citizen participation in government programs and projects. It aims to assess them through three dimensions: (1) The space, or the environment of the participation; (2) The engagement, or the process of participation; and (3) The outcomes, or the results of participation. DILG’s CSO partners shaped the customization of the PGM’s research instrument specific for the LDCs, while local CSO partners conducted field tests of the tool for a final scale-ready version in 2022. Results of the pilot test affirmed the relevance and potential of the PGM tool to diagnose participation gaps, collate feedback, and identify concrete points of improvement in local participatory practices.

2. What solution are you proposing? The commitment is comprised of four (4) integrated solutions such as (a) scaling up the implementation of Participatory Governance Metrics (PGM), (b) expanding the Third-Party Monitoring (TPM) implementation, (c) enhancing convening and networking capacities of CSOs using innovative approaches, and (d) conduct of M&E research and policy development support to institutionalize gains.

1) Scaling up implementation of PGM to close feedback loops Given the result from the pilot testing of PGM implementation in 2022, a scaled-up version of the PGM will be deployed to a wider range and targeted LGUs and with the aim of closing the feedback loop based on the results and the state of participation in LDCs. By having a comprehensive understanding of these, targeted measures and specific interventions can be developed to address these issues to improve a more inclusive and participatory environment within LDCs

2) Expand TPM implementation (programs, localization, CSO implementers) The expansion of Third-Party Monitoring (TPM) implementation is envisioned in three (3) parts: Firstly, the expansion consists of an increase in the number of government projects and programs that will undergo TPM, including those that contribute to the achievement of SDGs. This signifies a broadened scope, where a greater array of initiatives will undergo external scrutiny to ensure transparency, accountability, and effective implementation. Secondly, it involves bringing the concept of TPM to local contexts tailoring TPM processes and frameworks to fit the specific needs and dynamics of a particular locality. This involves the adoption of TPM by regional line agencies as well as local government units in the monitoring and evaluation of local projects. Lastly, it involves an increase in the involvement of CSOs implementing TPM. This step aims to diversify the entities contributing to the monitoring process, bringing in more CSOs to participate as third-party monitors.

3) Enhance CSO/CSO network capacities and innovative approaches Addressing the problem of CSO’s substantive functionality in deepening their quality of participation involves a strategic focus on capacity development. This means implementing targeted initiative that will strengthen their organizational and operational capacities to engage with the government (CSO accreditation). In addition, providing training and support to local CSOs will empower them with the skills and knowledge needed to actively engage, contribute, and advocate within the context of local governance. This includes training, workshops, and other innovative participatory approaches for CSO members in local people’s councils to empower them as valuable contributors to community decision-making processes.

4) M&E research and policy development support to institutionalize emerging gain Lastly, the solution also involves implementing M&E research and provision of policy development support to institutionalize emerging gains from the implementation of the commitment. M&E research serves as a critical tool to systematically and holistically assess the impact of initiatives aimed at empowering CSOs local governance. By gathering data on the effectiveness and outcomes of various strategies employed in this commitment, M&E research will provide valuable insights into what works and what needs improvement. This information is crucial for evidence-based decision-making and to policy development. Furthermore, translating the lessons learned and successes identified in the implementation of the commitment into tangible policy enhancements and/or refinement indicates a proactive commitment to close feedback loops by incorporating insights gained into the policymaking processes.

3. What results do we want to achieve by implementing this commitment? By the end of the action plan implementation, this commitment will:

1. Know the current state of participation in Local Development Councils (LDCs) by looking into the status of the levels, patterns, and dynamics of participation (in LDC), and recommend targeted measures and specific interventions to resolve any issues identified, if there are any. (Scaled up PGM)

2. Increase the number of projects subjected to third-party monitoring (TPM) to address the underutilization of existing mechanisms for government support to participatory activities. This establishes a more inclusive and dynamic framework, involving a wider range of CSOs to actively engage in government programs and local processes while simultaneously ensuring robust oversight through TPM. (Underutilized mechanism problem)

3. Improve and enhance service delivery through the institutionalization of TPM implementation to national and regional line agencies as well as to local government units in the M&E of their respective projects and programs, including SDG-related projects in partnership with the National Economic and Development Authority. This aligns with the goal of empowering CSOs belonging to or representing the vulnerable sectors and ensuring their active participation and representation in national and local governance initiatives. Moreover, this guarantees that projects and programs of the government are monitored and evaluated using the TPM framework15 which focuses on the assessment of the following areas: (a) governance and oversight; (b) process implementation; and (c) result. (Expand TPM implementation)

4. Elevate the maturity level of CSO participation as shown by the increased number of CSOs with the capacity to undergo the accreditation process and elevate CSO participation through the establishment of local people’s councils for a broader and more diverse range of organizations involved in local processes. This entails continuous conduct of capacity development initiatives and interventions for CSOs to enhance their networking and convening capacities needed for them to actively participate in governance. (Enhance CSO/CSO network capacities and innovative approaches)

5. Generate valuable insights and data to enhance the Department's policy development and program implementation. This encompasses the creation of knowledge products, models and framework, policy guidelines, etc. This guarantees that lessons learned, and insights gained from the outcomes of this commitment contribute to the broader discourse on effective local governance and citizen empowerment. (M&E research and policy development support)

Additional Information

 Third-Party Monitoring was mentioned as a component in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2023-2028 under Chapter 14: “Practice Good Governance and Improve Bureaucratic Efficiency” as one of DILG’s commitments to the PDP ● The DILG developed a Field Implementation Guide and provided guidelines for the implementation of the Third-Party Monitoring of projects under the Local Government Support Fund-Support to the Barangay Development Program (LGSF-SBDP)16 ● At the local level, the DILG will monitor the functionality and responsiveness of feedback mechanisms, including the CSO desks and Barangay Violence Against Women helpdesks; improve the Citizen Satisfaction Index System implementation with CSOs; and pursue third-party monitoring of state-funded projects. Moreover, digital technologies will be used to augment the implementation of these mechanisms with due emphasis on access, inclusion, context-sensitivity, and empowerment of marginalized sectors. (p. 342, “Intensify transparency in public spending” under Outcome 2: Public accountability and integrity bolstered) ● The Participatory Governance Metrics (PGM) was also cited in PDP 2023-2028 Chapter 14: To improve the quality of participation, the DBM and DILG, with PH-OGP partner agencies, will mainstream the implementation of Participatory Governance Metrics (p. 341, “Improve the quality of participation” under Outcome 1: Participatory governance deepened) ● The PGM tool (for LDCs) accounts for the Magna Carta for Women and Indigenous People Rights Act (IPRA) provisions to monitor the mandatory representation of the concerned groups 17 ● The sample PGM tool (for LDCs) can be seen on p.19, A1.3 of the Participatory Governance Metrics for Local Special Bodies: Lessons from Expanded Implementation18 ● The commitment is also aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions particularly Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels, and Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels ● Section 3 of Republic Act 8425 or the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act in 1997 defines the 14 basic sectors as the disadvantaged or marginalized sectors in the Philippines. These are comprised of: artisanal fisherfolk; children; cooperatives; formal labor and migrant workers; indigenous peoples; farmers and landless workers; non-government organizations; senior citizens; differently-abled persons; urban poor; victims of disasters and calamities; women; workers in the informal sector; and youth and students. ● This commitment is also supported by Section 75 of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 which allows national government agencies to partner with Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in implementing certain programs and projects. The 2023 GAA also provides the conditions on transferring public funds to a CSO in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations.

Commitment Analysis

1. How will the commitment promote transparency? For this commitment transparency means an obligation to be open and accountable with citizens as to how the government implements its programs, projects, and activities. Prior to this commitment, the Department did not have clear protocols on information sharing and outlining procedures for CSOs to access pertinent data and information in the monitoring of local projects. Through this commitment, CSOs who will become part of and participants in the Technical Working Group (TWG) of Third-Party Monitoring initiatives will have the privilege of having firsthand access to data on the programs, projects, and/or activities from the initial planning stages, execution, up to the evaluation and assessment stages. In addition, they are not only informed, but also consulted with based on the feedback that will be gathered from the TPM implementation.

2. How will the commitment help foster accountability? For this commitment, accountability means closing the feedback loop. This implies that fostering accountability involves actively seeking and incorporating feedback throughout the process of this commitment. Lessons learned and insights gained are acknowledged and used to refine future strategies, policies, and actions of the Department. Prior to this commitment, the DILG did not have established mechanisms to close feedback loops in the monitoring and evaluation of local projects. In the past, the DILG implemented DevLIVE – an online tool which aims to gather citizen’s satisfaction feedback on the quality and implementation of government's local infrastructure projects. However, certain limitations in closing the feedback loop were present which was the absence of a mechanism to incorporate the responses of the concerned LGUs or stakeholders to particular feedback. Through this commitment, the mechanisms employed under the TPM shall ensure that feedback loops will be closed, improve government response, and shall move forward to the effective and efficient local service delivery to the actual beneficiaries.

3. How will the commitment improve citizen participation in defining, implementing, and monitoring solutions? For this commitment, citizen participation means establishing a higher maturity level of CSO participation with CSOs in the implementation of the government programs and projects. This also encompasses the formulation of interventions and incorporation of recommendations into the decisions of the government. Prior to the commitment, CSOs are usually involved in a consultative capacity such as during vetting of policies and review of program and project implementations, among others. Through this commitment, CSOs are tapped as active partners of the government in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of local projects. This means their perspectives, insights, and/or feedback through the reports from TPM implementation and PGM deployment, are not only considered but also integrated into the formulation of policies and/or development of new programs and initiatives of the Department.

See action plan for commitment milestones and expected outputs.