Rural Capability Enhancement: Lessons from the Ilaw ng Buhay (Light of Life) Movement *
By: NESTOR M. PESTELOS
Resident
Director
Ilaw
International Center
A INTRODUCTION
The
Problem. In a seminar on “Social
Problems Created by Rapid
Social Change,” 1/representative from the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) stated in their final report:
Development
planning procedures have effectively excluded the people from participating in the planning
process. The top-to-bottom approach
engendered by a central authority base is still the prevalent mode although
there is growing recognition of the
need for effective grassroots mobilization.
The
seminar recommended that planners makers be aware of and recognize the
necessity “to include the basic needs rather than a purely growth-oriented
planning approach to development”.
While they
generally agree with the
recommendation, many planners and
policy makers in the region are still at a loss on how best to implement it.
There are still tremendous
constraints to overcome.
One such
constraints is geographic
isolation. In the
Philippines, more than 30 million
Filipinos live in remote rural communities scattered in an archipelago of 7,110
islands. Most rural families site their
houses on the land they till wherever it may be located, on a mountain top or in a valley. A significant number congregate near
sources of water, along river
banks, or in isolated coastal
communities where the sea is the primary source of food and income.
Paper to
be delivered for discussions at the Regional (East Asia/Pacific) Conference on Policy Problems and
Issues in Rural Development.
Sponsored
by the International Associations of Hubert H. Humphrey
Fellows
(Philippines), 10 December 1988, Thomas Jefferson Cultural
Center, Makati,
Metro Manila
The people
have to be reached first before they can
be motivated to participate in development. Despite massive efforts by the government and non-government
organizations, services tend to be
concentrated only within a radius of 5 kilometers from the poblacion of town
center.
From
Experiment to A Movement. It was
in attempting to help solve this basic problem that a project in the Philippines
evolved from being an experiment in improving service delivery to a Movement
aimed at drawing popular participation in social development planning and
implementation.
That
movement is known as “Ilaw ng Buhay” or
“Light of Life” which symbolizes knowledge and its power to redirect life
against the “darkness that breeds poverty,
disease, and death”. 2/
Launched
in May 1978 in a few pilot areas, the
Movement has since expanded to cover other municipalities and cities, recruiting and training a total membership
of more than one million people. Its
unique approach to generating popular participation in local development, planning and implementation has merited
close attention and support from international organizations, such as the United Nations Children’s fund (UNICEF), United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), and the World
Bank. The National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) considers
Ilaw ng Buhay as one of the most effective approaches to “socially-preparing” communities to act as partners of government
in development.
Faced
with the inevitable task of scaling up operations, and to subject the approach to wider replication, the Movement established in 1983 a training and research institutions in Bool, Tagbilaran City. It serves as repository of Ilaw experience, converting lessons into training
methodologies and field operations strategies in support of the reach as many
remote families as possible and draw
them into the mainstream of development .
This
paper seeks to focus on lessons learned by the Ilaw ng Buhay Movement in its
efforts to forge closer community-government partnership towards enhancing
local capabilities for planning and implementing programs and projects “with
the context of people-powered development,”
as stated in the invitation to this conference.
B. PARTICIPATORY
APPROACHES TO SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
In social
Development, as it is in other
sectors, the need for eliciting popular
participation has been keenly felt and responded to during the past few
decades. The trend has been partly
influenced by international funding agencies which have intensified over years
their advocacy for participatory approaches.
The UNICEF
Executive Board, at its 1976 session,
advocated the Basic Services Strategy which stresses community participation in
the community participation in the identification of children’s needs and the
provision of appropriate services to meet those needs. During the same year, the World Employment Conference sponsored by the International
Labor Organization focused on the basic
needs approach to development which also stresses community participation. Other Un bodies have established special
units with research and action on participatory approaches. In 1978,
the World health Organization (WHO)
sponsored the Alma-Ata Conference on Primary Health Care which
emphasized the role of communities in
providing for their own health care.
More than a decade earlier, in
1966, the US Foreign Assistance Act
mandated the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to
build in participatory approaches in foreign development programs.
As a result of such vigorous advocacy, various projects have evolved in the sector which apply either on pilot or
standard operations basis elements of
community-based approaches. These
approaches are essentially designed to reach more families with services and to
improve their capability to sustain such services. I effect, the various
projects can be according to the kind of approach they apply in effecting
service delivery. Broadly, these approaches can be categorized as
follows:
a. Community Development (CD) Approach. This earlier approach concentrates mainly
in improving service delivery. Thus the
thrust is to build infrastructure, such
as rural health centers, to serve as
distribution channels for services and commodities. The recruitment,
training, and employment of
volunteers drawn from the community itself to serve as providers of services is
part of this thrust. These “barefoot
workers” carry the services beyond the
clinic or center to the very doorstep of the rural family.
Most government-initiated projects are of this type. Its limitation is the difficulty of
sustaining the infrastructure and the services. When supplies dry up, the
services volunteers dropout, having
been primarily trained as mere extenders
of commodities. It is sometimes
perceived as encouraging dependency.
Examples of this type of projects are:
the population outreach program with its use of barangay supply points
for contraceptives and a host of paraprofessionals and volunteers, such as the Full-Time Outreach Worker
(FTOW), the Barangay Supply Point
Officer (BSPO), etc; the nutrition program with its use of
Barangay Nutrition Scholars; the
day-care center services of both the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) and the Bureau of Agriculture Extension (BAEX); the primary health care program with its
community-based clinics, barangay
health aides, mothers’ clubs.
b. Community Organization
(CO) Approach. Projects under this
category are primarily interested in building people’s organizations. Service delivery is to strengthen the
credibility of organizers. The emphasis
is on building decision-making capability.
Although the approach is popular among NGOs, some government agencies,
such as the National Housing Authority (NHA), the National Irrigation Authority (NIA), and a few
others, have tried their own
versions of the approach.
This approach utilizes
conflict-confrontation as a tactic to build and strengthened people’s
organizations. The organizers stirs the
people to action by motivating them to anger.
The organizers observe a no-linkage policy with the government. The people are trained through role plays on
how to present their demand.
A criticism aired about the approach is that it tends to encourage
people to perceive government as the enemy and that the confrontation often
leads to violence.
Proposed of the approach, on the
other hand, contend that the methods
used are legal and non-violent. They
assert:
Demystification of
power holders and systems
is an important part of
the organizing process. 3/
And they also cite the fact that features of the approach, particularly the building of people’s
organization, have been successfully
applied in development programs.
c. CD-CO or Social Planning
Approach. In contrast to the CO
approach, this approach encourages
local governments and community organizations to work harmoniously together
towards common goals. Rather than behave
as adversaries, they act as partners in
the development process. It is actually
another approach to community organization premised on people’s ability to
organize themselves into self-reliant collective in the pursuit of their own
goal.4/
The approach is further described thus:
The
organizing style is motivational and highlights the strength of collective
efforts in achieving commonly goals.
Self-reliance is stressed and governments are viewed as potential
resources that can help communities achieve their collective goals. Under this approach, people’s
capacity to participate in the development process is strengthened
through information,
communication, and
training. At the same time, government’s capacity to listen to people’s
views and respond to their needs is enhanced through a combined process of
sensitization, social preparation and
reorientation. Channels for effective
dialogue and exchange of views between government functionaries and people’s organization are opened and
opportunities for collaborative and cooperative efforts are supported and
demonstrated. This approach differs
from the first in that instead of seeking the enemy, it seeks the resources and instead of confronting a problem or
obstacle, it seeks to achieve a desired
goal. It also motivates people to help themselves rather than simply make demands
on government, and where
necessary, equip them with the ability
to negotiate with governments in a more harmonious manner. 5/
The
approach has been criticized as slow or tedious requiring intensive
training activities at both community and government levels. Successful application of the approach over
a relatively longer period requires institutional policy support in terms of
decentralized decision-making, as well
as modification of restrictive administrative procedures, which do not facilitate community
involvement.
The
results, however, are “often worthwhile”.
The
approach has been proven more effective
in mobilizing community and local government resources to support locally
identified programs/projects. It has
also been quite effective in redirecting efforts of national extension
programs/services to make them better suited to local needs and priorities. In some cases where centrally identified
programs/projects were seen as detrimental to local welfare, local government’s active support had
strengthened people’s ability to resist or negotiate for the withdrawal of such
programs/projects. 6/
The
elements common to all three approaches are as follows:
a.
use of indigenous community workers;
b.
efforts to involve communities in identification of needs,
planning, project implementations;
c.
use of referral of monitoring system whether only
internally, or linked to government;
d.
efforts to deliver integrated services.
The
approaches differ basically on the following:
a. methods
applied to prime up or organize the community;
b. the degree
of organizing done, whether the people
are organized as community groups capable of decision-making, or merely as adjunct of the government’s
extension system;
c. the mode
of service delivery, whether simple or
an integration; and
d. the
support to local institution-building.
Facilitate
Factors. This trend to look
for effective ways to implement programs through participatory approaches has
been triggered by adverse criticism against the community development
approach. While it can expand the
outreach of programs, and even motivate
villages to undertake projects, the
approach seems to fail in sustaining development efforts. People abandon the out-of-order water
pump, for instance, and just wait for government to repair
it. The CD worker is perceived more as
benevolent benefactor, rather than as a
change agent.
Voluminous
studies have identified various factors which can facilitate popular
participation in development. They are
as follows:
a. Integration of services. Integrated delivery of services, as
against the sectoral, provides the
change agent various entry points to facilitate community participation. Moreover,
it approximates reality batter:
Integration
fits the reality faced by an individual,
family community, or field
implementation of projects. For
example, a health program cannot be
developed, say, by the building of village latrines,
because, without an economic
program there may be no land to build even a latrine…; without an educational program, the people may not be motivated and trained
to use the latrines, and without the cultural or social
program, the cultural or social
patterns of behavior may be incongruous with the use of latrines. Although different inter-related needs
required diverse programs especially tailored to suit the exigencies at
hand, the needs are inextricably interwoven with one another and the solution of one
depends on the solution of others. 7/
b. Decentralization. Devolution of authority to the local level
facilitates prompt decisions responsive
to local needs. Meaningful integration
becomes virtually impossible to sustain.
Decentralization can lead to popular participation in local level
planning:
It is often a prerequisite for
increasing citizen participation in the process of development planning.
Widespread participation requires mechanisms and channels through which
the people can express their demands to decision-makers at various levels of
government. The existence of viable
mechanisms for participation also leads to increased accountability by government
agencies at the regional and sub-regional levels. 8/
c. Local Organizations. More than 30 years of community development
experience in many countries confirms the ineluctable fact that before people
can claim a just share in the fruits of development, they first must get organized.
Organization is knowledge since through it, the people become part of the mainstream which feeds the
information, nourishes them with
collective expertise and wisdom.
Organization is power; through
it, the poor can wield their weapon –
their voice, which has been for too
long frozen, silenced as it were by a
brutal winter of apathy only the poor are heir to.
But
organizing the poor is no picnic:
In most
Asian countries, traditional village
organizations have been supplemented by those
introduced by governments. The
experience of the rural poor with these organizations is not generally
pleasant. These new-type organizations
have become extension of the bureaucracy which has its own sectoral
priorities that do not coincide with
popular needs and with a work-style
which normally ignores that of the village.
In most instances, they have
channeled more resources to the rural cities.
9/
The
implication is that organizers “who now market the idea of participation to the rural poor must contend not only with traditional village resistance, but
they have to be highly outright rejection, which seems almost a cultural reflex against foreign intrusions
in some communities”. 10/
It has to be recognized that majority of the rural poor are still outside the change process
although many villages “have been penetrated by the market economy, by mass communication technology, by external agents, and on the whole, by a world-view which that it is within their power to change
nature and social reality”. 11/
They are still inert:
On their
own, they grapple with life’s
perplexities. Among themselves, they have evolved forms of popular
participation in response to sickness,
disasters, celebration of
harvests, inter-family conflicts. Their self-reliance has made their
communities survive wars, famine, earthquakes, political regimes, and
all sorts of anti-poverty schemes. 12/
And the question remains:
How can
they be involved in a change process,
which is in itself liberative,
so that in participating, they
lay the groundwork for strengthening local institutions, sustaining services, and on the whole ensuring mutuality of purpose and interests with
their own government. 13/
d. Political
Will. The following question has
pre-occupied development planners,
government leaders, and project
implementers. For this question doing
development has become high adventure.
It is no longer a simple matter of installing a water pump, a latrine;
building a clinic and prescribing drugs; campaigning for immunization;
propagating high-yielding varieties;
digging irrigation canals. Doing
all these things involves selling a point of view which everybody, despite stations in life must buy. In the final analysis, the degree , scope, magnitude and
overall quality of popular participation is determined largely by the interplay
of dominant interests and the
legitimate demand for the alleviation of poverty. Perception on how this apparent contradiction will be resolved
guides the fashioning of a political will which either supports of hinders
aspirations for genuine people’s involvement
in development
A second
look at non-governmental organizations.
It is generally recognized that NGOs have a vital role to play in
building popular participation in development programs. They have a flexibility not often found in
government structures; hence, they can catalyze local energy and knowledge
quite successfully. Moreover, it is often observed that their
effectiveness is due mainly to the commitment and vision of their individual
leaders and personnel. Their innovativeness and pioneering spirit
“represent a countervailing force in society in contrast to the centralizing
tendencies of political forces, whether
of governments or of political-ideological oriented groups and parties.”
Government, their strength is in their smallness. They are involved in small projects which
are relatively easy to replicate.
Lacking the vast resources of
government, they flounder when they
scale up operations. Granted that they
can expand despite tremendous odds,
their new profile tends to threaten government, which now may be tempted to restrict some of
their activities.
Government
agencies tend to view NGOs as unnecessarily duplicating their activities. In a sense,
NGOs represent a threat to either existence of sense of confidence. On account of their flexibility and
smallness, NGOs can concentrate their meager resources in an area and make it
shine, putting to shame previous
government attempts. Then they get a
bigger share of donor’s assistance. On
the other hand, without the venturesome
spirit of NGOs and the moral and financial assistance of donor agencies, some of the best development approaches will
forever not see the light of day at all.
These
days, however, NGOs are passing through a critical period
of self-examination:
While
NGOs are dedicated to a vision of social change, most of them lack the skills
for broader social analysis to cope with situational exigencies. They are often confined to their narrow community concerns and projects, and don not include in their purview the
macro realities which affect them. Many
NGOs fail to understand the broader context of their work, or to situate their activities within the overall national development
effort. Rather, they tend to compete against each other’s
action. In the absence of long-term
goals, NGOs tend to be apologetic about their work and eventually become
frustrated, especially when faced with
situations where their basic survival is threatened.
Today, some NGOs are thus beginning to feel that it
is only the political groups that are
making the dents. For those who are
aware of the macro realities are often the more ideological groups who have
better-defined long-term goals, are
better organized, and thus able to make
their impact felt on a larger scale.
Among
the few who manage to incorporate social analysis, however, the approaches
towards structural change tend to go along the lines of adversary – oriented notions: government vs. people, rich vs. poor, management vs. labor.
Without
discounting the reality of conflict and the need for confrontation with power
groups, other viable alternatives that
bring about radical change through the development of social conscience –
rather than direct confrontation - among the different sectors in society, have yet to be fully explored, systematically tested and disseminated by
NGOs. One such approach involves
dialoguing with or influencing government,
so that government programs could be directed to benefit the intended
target groups and available resources could be more fully utilized to serve the
poorest groups. 15/
An
assessment of the role of NGOs has been by the Second
Country
Program for Children:
The
emerging lesson is that, on the one hand,
where NGOs and government organizations (GOs) work together in the
delivery of basic services for children,
positive results are generated,
the program reaches out
farther, and the impact is
greater. On the other hand, where NGOs and government agencies do not
understand each other’s work, service
delivery is affected. 14/
NGOs
contribute not only voluntary services but also “community resources and
valuable experiences in social engineering”.
Thus NGOs succeed in affecting “widespread mobilization”. 16/
Closer
linkage between NGOs and GOs is suggested:
Increasingly, government should play a largely supportive
role. NGOs can assume greater
responsibilities for social preparation,
community mobilization,
monitoring the effectiveness of service delivery … For example, coordination of barangay level integrated services for children
is a role that NGOs can ably perform.
17/
The
role of NGOs in pioneering approaches is acknowledged:
NGOs
have been pioneering in approaches that make service delivery more effective. A serious effort to document the processes and factors associated
with their success will enhance the replicability of their experiences. Insights documented will serve as useful guides
in the programming of government projects and in the training of field level
functionaries of government. 18/
C. THE ILAW NG BUHAY MOVEMENT
1. History/Background
Experimental
Approach. In November
1975, a project assisted by the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) was
launched in 9 provinces which sought to experiment on improving service
delivery to rural households. Patterned
after the Chinese model, noted for
close linkage between organized communities (communes, brigades)
and the government structure,
the project organized 20-family units and proceeded to train unit
leaders as extenders of services and commodities to target rural households.
These unit leaders constituted in effect
a single-channel barangay network to expand the outreach of technology and
services as provided by four programs,
namely, Green Revolution or
backyard food production, nutrition, population,
and environmental sanitation, which were integrated into a single
program at each project area.
This experiment on integrated delivery
of basic services was known as Project Compassion, carried out by a private
foundation working closely with relevant technical agencies and local
governments.
Accomplishments. In the first 11 months of field operations, after exhausting a budget of P 6
million, the project was able to train 67,000 unit leaders in 7,332 barangays
of 251 municipalities and 11 cities in 9 provinces. These unit leaders linked the various local governments and
technical agencies to 1,349,263 families in the coverage areas.
The results during the period showed
that sectoral programs integrated in Compassion-covered areas reached more
rural households and produced greater impact on community life than in areas
where the same programs were carried out in isolation and without a
village-level network.
In May 1977, the project gained international recognition as a highly
successful approach to social development.
It was the only Philippine project presented for discussion at the
Special Meeting on the Situation of Children in Asia held in Manila on May
17-19, 1977 under the auspices of the UNICEF Executive Board. Its operational strategy was considered a creative and comprehensive application
of the Basic Services concept and approach mandated by the UN General Assembly
in a resolution dated December 21,
1976. The resolution urges developing
countries to incorporate the Basic Services concept and approaches into their
development plans and strategies to enable more people in remote communities to
have access to essential services.
John Charnow, a delegate to the UNICEF Executive Board’s Meeting, commented after a visit to a project site:
For almost
20 years now, people in swivel chairs
in New York have been contemplating on this kind of approach. It is only now that I see this actually
being implemented. 19/
The remark more or less reflected
the observations of other delegates who visited Compassion-covered areas in May
1977.
Lessons from Experience. In his paper presented to the UNICEF meeting,
Ramon P. Binamira, president and project manager, summed up the Project Compassion
experience in these words:
The ideal mechanism to convey
the benefits of progress to the majority
of people residing in the rural areas has yet to be found. Whatever
it may essentially be, it is my strong
belief that it will have
to include the following principles: it
must actively involve the people themselves in
Planning and carrying out activities for their
welfare; make full use of indigenous
resources; be duplicate in
communities throughout the nation; and,
finally, be within a scale
which the country can afford. If
Project Compassion, in its
limited way, can help prove the soundness of this concept
it would have justified its existence. 20/
Thus he
defined, as it were, the “logic of the business” in this quest for an effective approach to
social development.
Largely
based on this logic, the project
conducted another in depth assessment of its experience after the UNICEF
meeting to draw lessons and further refine the approach.
As cited
in the paper “Lessons form Experience and New Directions” issued in early
January 1978, the salient findings from
this assessment are as follows:
1.
On the involvement of local government and the people
who are the specific
“makers”
of the project: “The
continuing enthusiasm and support of local governments and the people affected
by the project as evidenced by their
commitment of local resources to the program,
may be taken as a recognition of the pertinence of its activities to
local problems that they perceive. The
involvement of the private sector and the various religious groups in
developmental activities at community level has revealed the considerable skills and resources that could
be harnessed from this sector. Most
significantly, the project has elicited
the enthusiasm and support of, and
motivated into action, the end target
of all social development efforts – the members of the family.”
This
initial enthusiasm, however, could not be sustained due to certain
constraints. The paper cites the
“proliferation of local planning and coordinating bodies, with different names but led and composed of
the same individuals.” This phenomenon
has caused “confusion and disinterest among local officials, and scattered and inefficient efforts by the
various extension agencies.”
The project advocates that the
multisectoral local development council be utilized and strengthened in
planning and implementing “ only one development program” for the entire municipality. This body should “identify local problems, agree on priorities of action, and create a mechanism for giving credit to
the proper technical agencies.”
On sustaining community
involvement, the paper cities the need
for a “critical mass” right at the
starting phase to ensure implementation of an action plan. The paper also observes the “physical
limitation of extension agents to reach and convince only a few individuals
within a certain time period,”
and, hence, there is the need to build community
organizations which will serve as the “institution to garner the ‘critical
mass’ and initiate, motivate, and
monitor local development.”
2. On the use of scarce resources. The project found feeding, birth control, health and other centers where people are expected to flock to by walking long distances as an
exercise in futility.”
These
centers waste scarce resources.
The assessment paper considers it
more important to identify destructive agricultural practices, food taboos, wrong food buying and cooking habits and disease-causing
practices. Then the people must be
patiently shown why such practices are destructive, and led to adopt measures to correct them. Hence,
because causes vary from community,
solutions cannot be patented.
The change agent, community organizer, or trainer should therefore be familiar with
the local people, and the existing
conditions. The paper asserts: “Since most of the rural populace are widely
scattered among the land they till and do not able to reach the people where
they are.”
3. On replicability or reaching out to
remote communities. Of all
possible change agents, the project
considers the teachers as “potentially the most effective.” The teacher is in most cases the only
government functionary present in remote villages.
The paper notes that most social and
economic programs and up with the teacher at contact level with the
people: “But the roles assigned are
disjoint and have tended to confuse and overload the long-suffering teachers –
they weigh the children, encourage
vegetable gardens and tree planting,
are supposed to assist in the population program, register the voters and man the polls
on election day.”
The teachers can be ideal
“salesman” for the program. They control the only available training
site in most villages – the school building,
complete with desks,
blackboards, and other teaching
aids. They are generally respected in
the community, possessing a must asset
for change agents – credibility.
The project believes that
integrating development activities at the teacher level will eventually lighten
and not add to the teacher’s load.
4. On consistency with the social fabric of
the people. The project found that
social programs implemented at local level were generally not pertinent to
problems perceived by the people, and
their lack of interest was always misconstrued as apathy to their
condition. Moreover, the vulnerable family is usually composed by
the survivors of the “very conditions we want to eradicate – low and wrong food
intake, low agricultural production, unsanitary conditions and ignorance.”
Due to their low comprehensive
level, they can only be motivated to
action if the “developmental message is packaged in very simple terms, is multi-sensory in effect and is
repetitive.”
5. On Affordability. The assessment paper observes that the
government is beginning to recognize the financial limits of programs it can
support. The project’s overriding
concern is to generate simple,
practical and low cost projects utilizing local resources which “could
point the way to modifying on-going government programs.”
As basis for local project
identification and development, a
framework has been devised which simultaneously considers the
inter-relationship between population growth,
the demand for more food and the ecological imbalance resulting from
certain harmful practices. All over the
archipelago, the project found
consistent evidence that the productive capacity of the top soil and
surrounding inland seas is rapidly being reduced by wanton and mangrove
destruction leading to soil erosion an siltation of coral reefs and fish
breeding beds.
In all training and community
organizing activities, the project
seeks to integrate community concerns on over-population, inadequate production and environmental
degradation and to identify their effects on the health and nutrition status of
children, mothers and other vulnerable
groups.
6. On the role of project staff. Due to the paucity of planning, training and management skills at local
government and community level, the
project has identified the urgent need for assigning senior and experienced staff
to the field to assist during the crucial early stages of the development
effort. This team must live in the
coverage area and act as trainers,
consultants and community organizers
until such time that local volunteers and government functionaries can
take over their tasks fully.
7. On the “promotional” aspect. The project believes that there is no
substitute to reaching the target family directly. While posters, pamphlets, radio programs, live plays, and other
mass media create the climate for acceptance,
the developmental messages will have to be conveyed directly to the
family through a person they find credible.
Aside from simplifying technical
inputs, the project has identified the
need to use “emotional appeal during training to ensure greater effectivity of messages.
To sum up, the key success factors,
as gleaned from the assessment of project experience, are as
follows:
a.
maximum involvement of the key clientele, local government and the eople ;
b.
use of local resources;
c.
replicability in remote communities;
d.
pertinence to local problems and consistency with social
values;
e.
affordability;
f.
deployment of senior,
experienced staff at early stage;
g.
effective use of interpersonal communication;
h.
an “integrated product”
that appeals to various market segments (health and nutrition, family planning, environmental management;
training and community organizing services; projects);
i.
use of emotional appeal (ceremony, Credo, torches,
candles, songs, etc.) to
heighten interest in training and deepen bond among the people.
As
of January to March 1978, the project
organization formulated the Ilaw ng Buhay (Light of Life) approach to social development based on
lessons previously learned from field operations. During the period, the
syllables for the training of family heads and the operations guide were
drafted, pilot-tested, and finalized.
The
entire organization was divided into teams of 3 to 5 members each, and fielded
to the initial coverage areas. In
1978, the Ilaw ng Buhay Movement was
launched in the following 12 areas:
-
Aloran, Misamis Occidental
-
Baras Rizal
-
Barotac Viejo,
Iloilo
-
Basud, Camarines
Norte
-
Candelaria, Quezon
-
Gigaguit, Surigao
del Norte
-
Guindulman, Bohol
-
Hagonoy, Davao del
Sur
-
Lucena City
-
Naguilian, La Union
-
Pililla, Rizal
-
Teresa, Rizal
As
of November, 1988, the Movement has operated in 46
municipalities and 4 cities.
2. OBJECTIVES
To fulfill the goal of reaching more
families in remote communities, and
building in greater local capability for self-reliance, the Ilaw ng Buhay Movement sets as its mainf
objective the forging of closer community-government partnership in social
development planning and implementation.
Intermediate
Objectives: To attain the main
objective, several intermediate
objectives have to be achieved:
a.
Activation of its Municipal/City/Barangay Development
Council.
Major
indicators: regular
meetings: record keeping; formulation and implementation of a social
development plan; monitoring and
referral system; linkage to organized
communities; allocation of resources to
local projects.
b.
Organization of individual families into viable Ilaw
ng Buhay chapters.
Major
indicators: regular
meetings; record keeping; linkage with local government and technical
agencies; formulation of the Ilaw ng
Buhay (INBA) at municipal/city level.
c.
Generation of projects.
Major
indicators: number of projects
identified and set up to solve local problems;
degree of participation of both
local government and the community;
number of people mobilized and benefited.
3. GRAND DESIGN TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES
Key Activities. The Ilaw ng Buhay Movement undertakes a
carefully-sequenced set of training and
field operations activities designed to catalyze close partnership between the
community and local government. These
activities comprise a process called “social preparation”, which seeks to even up understanding, refine skills and remold attitudes of all
sectors involved to facilitate joint planning and implementation of local
projects. (For details in the Ilaw
Social Preparation Process, see
Annex)
D. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF
THE ILAW NG BUHAY MOVEMENT
1. Strengths of the Movement
Over
a span of 10 years, the movement has
validated a process designed to catalyze community-government partnership in
local development. The process has been field-tested under varying
conditions. It has undergone no less
than five major revisions over the years.
Having this process described as a series of interlinked training and
field operations activities makes it possible for the whole social preparation
to be planned for, implemented and
evaluated. Both donors and the Movement
are given a preview of what to expect to expect, a common ground for computing costs and assessing
performance. In the words of UNICEF
official, description of the process
has brought “science to madness”.
Having this process validated by actual
field experiences is a strength of the Movement.
Some
ten years ago, its predecessor
project, Project Compassion, was supposed to die due to lack of
financing. Its field men, trainers,
and rank-and-file employees rose as one man to raise their own funds for
the survival of the project. The bulk
of the money raised made possible the launching of the Movement in several pilot areas. The core of dedicated and self-sacrificing community development
workers who have been at the helm of
the Movement since its inception can be cited as a single most important factor
for the eventual growth of the program.
Having this core of workers is a strength of the Movement.
The
Movement has now acceptance among the people,
as well as allies and supporters both here and abroad. Hundreds of foreign visitors have flocked to
Ilaw areas over the past few years to be oriented on its unique approach to
development. It has merited financial
support from international agencies,
such as UNICEF, USAID, World Bank,
as well as the country’s planning authority, NEDA, which has enabled
the Movement to expand operations. This
excellent reputation with donor agencies is a strength of the Movement.
In
1983, the Movement, at last,
found a home, the Ilaw
International Center, in Tagbilaran
City. It serves as a training and
research center for the Movement. Supported
and managed by a non-profit and non-stock corporation, the Center ensures continuity for the
Movement. Its existence as vanguard
institution for the Movement is clearly
a major strength.
2. Weaknesses of the Movement
The
weakness most often cited is the failure of the Movement to make the Ilaw
network in most areas viable. Regular
yearly assessments conducted by trainers and field men since 1981 have often
discussed this weakness.
A
recent study conducted by the IIC itself states that this weakness is the “most
common constraint to consolidation and the eventual institutionalization of the
INB Program”.
The
study notes that in the Visayas and Mindanao, out of fifteen old Ilaw coverages,
“only two (Aloran, Misamis Occ. and San Enrique, Iloilo) can boast of a
relatively viable network.”
In
further states: “The rest display
various shades of non-viability. In
some municipalities, a greater
percentage of Ilaw chapters – which are barangay-based – are observed to be
functional but the INBA at the municipal level is quite weak, if not altogether non-functional. In other municipalities the reverse is true. In some others, both the chapters and INBA are dying.”
Cited
by the study as factors affecting the non-viability of the Ilaw network are the
following:
1. Limited period for social preparation. After a year, the organization starts to
lapse to inactivity. The community’s response also depends on the
values and attitudes of people.
The study further observes: “Thus,
if field operations are not
quite strong and reinforcing after
the standard one-year intensive social preparation activities, the
types of organization that are less responsive to the inputs have more chances to slacken and eventually die.”
2.
The uneven capacity of field men to implement responsive
operations as follows thru
activities of the standard social preparation activities;
3.
The field men’s coverage of the area after one or two years
is for one reason or another
no longer full-time of
consistent;
4.
Failure of a number
of members of both Ilaw and the local government network to internalize the
core messages of the INB Program which can be traced back to some inadequacies
in the training and operations inputs;
5.
The fast turn-over of Ilaw officials who have displayed
strong leadership qualities and who once acted as the rallying point of the
chapter or the INBA;
6.
The new set of Ilaw officials has not been given training
inputs similar to those received by the original set of officials; and
7.
The seeming failure of INB program planners and implementers
alike to wholistically and concretely capture the vision of a consolidated Ilaw
community and a institutionalized Ilaw program which could possibly account for
their failure to orchestrate and intensify field operations and training
activities towards a single vision.
The
other weaknesses cited are a) the nonfunctionality of the municipal/barangay development
councils; and b) the failure of the
functional development council to
serve as venue for Ilaw participation in local-level planning,
implementation, monitoring and
evaluation.
The
study notes: “ These factors reinforce
each other and their combined action is
working against the interest of consolidated and institutionalization. This
is compounded by the fact that the last two factors associated with local government are not within the direct control of the INB Program Implementers/IIC field men”.
Inadequate
funding and manpower shortage are mentioned by management
and employees as weaknesses of the implementing institution. These
factors limit expansion to other areas.
E. SOME
LESSONS LEARNED IN RELATION TO RURAL
CAPABILITY
ENHANCEMENT
Now
let us pause to reflect on some lessons learned. By “rural capability enhancement”’ the organizers of this session seem to mean upgrading local
capability to plan and manage programs and projects in the context of
“people-powered development”.
Operationally, as far as Ilaw ng
Buhay Movement I covered, enhancing
rural capability means having a) a viable local development council able to
plan, implement, and monitor development projects; and
b) an organized community able
to participate in development for the benefit of the socially disadvantaged.
The
lessons we will discuss here are in relation to this operational definition of
rural capability enhancement -
1. On Integration/Convergence of Services
This
concept is supposed to contribute to making the council viable and to make government programs relevant to
the people. Development literature is replete with cases arguing for integration or
convergence of services at community
level. The problem is that there is
hardly anything to integrate or converge
in most rural communities. Services are
concentrated in town centers. In most towns, the appropriate thrust should be to make the
services available first
through the various sectors. Then it
will be more meaningful to talk about packaging
services in an integrated way.
2. On Decentralization
Devolution
of authority to local level has still a long way to go. There seems
to be no comprehensive plan on the part of the government to accomplish this objective. The
composition of the development council,
for instance, has been expanded that it is virtually impossible to call a regular
meeting of this body without incurring
tremendous transport and food costs. In
most cases, the sectoral agencies ignore the council in planning and
implementing projects. Lacking fiscal authority, the council is at best a forum for sharing ideas rather than an active entity for local decision-making.
Ilaw
field men have resorted to a variety of tactics to make the council functional: use of memorandum of agreement,
subtle name dropping, joint planning,
socializing with the Mayor and other politicians, interpersonal relations with technical agencies, “crisis” approach. For sometime the council will work as a body; later it withers away as the field man
starts to phase out.
In
recent years, Ilaw has shifted
attention from the development council to
the people’s organization. It seems
that it is more effective to make the people demand
for a viable development council than to expect the council to work as a body on its own free will.
3. On Reaching the Poor, the
Marginal Groups
It
is expensive to reach the poor, more so
the very poor or the so-called marginal
groups. Usually they live in pockets of
poverty in areas made inaccessible by the
daily rites of violence, by cultural
prejudice, or by simple geographic isolation. Linking
these groups to the service delivery system requires
huge investments of time, efforts,
and actual services or commodities.
Setting
the initial contact is hard enough;
sustaining it is almost impossible
given the erratic nature of government services nationwide. Reaching marginal
groups is a vital area for collaboration with non governmental organizations.
4.
On the Readiness of Government for Participatory
Approaches
Despite
talk about “people-powered development”,
the government seems not ready to
be a partner of communities in development undertakings. Administrative
procedure are too cumbersome to allow government workers to become effective community organizers. The sectoral nature of the bureaucracy prevents a genuine appreciation of the
organizing process as it unfolds at community
level. The tendency is for each agency
to hasten things to justify delivery
of commodities. On the whole, CO is employed as a smokescreen to deliver more birth control devices, seeds,
roads, pumps, etc.
at minimal costs to government.
The
manpower fielded to organize communities lacks support and interaction.
The task of organizing
communities is left to ill-paid functionaries at the lowest rung of the government ladder, at the very contact point between the bureaucracy and the people. The result is not hard to imagine.
5.
On the Need To Pay Attention to the “Receiving
Mechanism”
Development
programs and projects almost always focus on delivery systems to the extent that community organizations are
considered as extension of such
system. The temptation is that great to
consider people’s organization as an adjunct
of the government’s service delivery system.
Failure of the system inevitably
affects the organization.
There is the
greater need to pay attention to “receiving mechanisms” at local
level which have existed as organizations or institutions for quite sometime before the inception of government-initiated
projects. In the haste to do development, project implementors often ignore these entities to form organizations in accordance in their
biases. Worst, agencies often “export” to the community
their own petty rivalries.
6.
On the Ecology Factor
Ecological
problems, growing graver from day to
day, present opportunities for mobilizing broad sections of the
community. Unfortunately, due
to myopic vision or plain poverty of imagination, most projects implemented in
rural communities persist to assume the environment is an inexhaustible resource base.
Most
of the poor congregate in ecologically-unstable zones; hence rural capability
enhancement measures should lend greater pertinence to projects.
B I B L I
O G R A P H Y
1
Final Report and
Recommendations. Association of
Southeast Asian Nations Seminar on
Social Problems Resulting from Rapid Social Change, Jakarta, Indonesia, 16-22 January 1977.
2
Ilaw Credo
3
Philippine
Learning Experience in Participation. Unpublished document. UNICEF.
September, 1981
4 Gorra, Marilyn Noval, The Philippine Courtesy Paper on Social Development Alternatives, p. 24.
Paper presented at the Combined Expert Group Meeting on Social Development Alternatives and
Second Training Seminar in Local Social Development
Planning, Nagoya, Japan,
16 – 19 October 1985
5 Gerra, Marilyn Noval. Op. cit.
6 Ibid.
7 Anonymous
source. Quoted by Pestelos, Nestor M.
Community
Participation in Development : A
Tortuous Exercise, Thailand, March
1981
8 Implementing
Decentralization in Asia, G.
Shabbin Cheema and Dennis A. Rondinelli, UNCRD, Nagoya, Japan, 1983
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 NGOs
as a Democratizing Face in society.
Cendhra
Network Newsletter, Fourth
Quarter, 1985.
15 Ibid.
16 Leong, Benjamin T.
(NEDA Regional Executive Director,
Region X),
Reaction
Paper on the Delivery of Basic Services for Children/Collaboration with Non-governmental
Organizations, Report on the Mid-term
Review, 24-25 July, 1986
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Status
and Prospects, Project Compassion,
May 1978 –
September 1979 (p.
8)
20 Binamira, Ramon P.,
The need for an integrated approach to social development
in
underdeveloped countries - a look at Project Compassion, Philippines in April 1977. Working Paper
