Identifying a community project

HAPPY WEEKEND

Gina Dizon

SAGADA, Mountain Province – I overheard someone saying, ‘This is the way a community project should be decided on.”

The person talking was referring to the manner the community of Sagada came up with prioritized community projects for a P5 million peso fund support from Kapit-Bisig Laban saKahirapan- Comprehensive  and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (Kalahi-CIDSS).

Through a participative process, proposed projects were identified and prioritized by barangay constituents through barangay assemblies. Moved by community volunteers and supported by barangay officials, barangay constituents were involved in the identification and selection of a community project including rationalization of environmental, cultural, social and economic benefits and obstacles.

The process went through four barangay assemblies facilitated by KALAHI-CIDSS staff till the prioritized barangay project was subjected to a municipality- wide prioritization of who among the barangays  shall nail the P5 million  peso KALAHI—CIDSS fund.

Representatives per barangay prioritized selected projects in 19 barangays of Sagada  and were subjected to scoring as to environmental impact, response to community need, gender responsiveness, and strategic impact apart from barangay participation which eats up a big score of 20% in the overall ranking.

High ranking-barangays of community people  with strong participation in identifying and deciding on their own community project was observed by those who attended the July 2 presentation at the municipal hall.

It was obvious that barangays which registered low participation ranked low in overall scores.

Identifying a community project ideally needs participation of community people to identify their needs like those physical, agricultural, social or economic in nature. When this doesne’t happen, the project is not successful. Active and involved community participation is better than apathy, ignorance or arrogance.

Here in barangay Dagdag for example, a Bottoms-Up-Planning  (BUB) listed project for 2014 which is a farm to market road costing P300,000 was eventually called off because lot-owners were not favorable to the proposed farm to market road running over their camote patches.

It was eventually decided upon by  barangay officials calling for the realignment of the P300,000 project for the  improvement of the Atey road and part of the fund  for a drainage canal at DaoanganDagdag  instead as  affected lot owners were not  amenable to having their lots opened for a farm to market road.

When community people are  duly  consulted in consensus and lot owners favorably and fully consent to a proposed road project for example, snags are  prevented.    

It was a surprise to know that even barangay officials were surprised over how projects were identified and they themselves not prior informed of a project. This was particularly noted in a  P400,000 farm to market road funded by  the Payapa at MasaganangPamayanan- Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (PAMANA-OPAPP) and  implemented by the provincial government as noted in an OPAPP evaluation noting the  community was not consulted.

The  BUB-assisted P300,000 farm to market road was supposed to continue the PAMANA assisted farm to market project.   

It is not only the farm to market project that was a surprise to the officials of Dagdag. Another was a P1.2 million peso drainage project identified  in a BUB listing for 2015. Where was the project located,?officials asked

Recently, officials were asked to identify water springs for a P900,000 water tanks project. Where the fund will be sourced from and beneficiaries of these water tanks were the questions. Were lot owners where the springs were located amenable to these water projects? These and other questions.

The BUB process was crafted for people’s organizations to take part in the identification of project but this was reportedly manipulated.

The BUB-listed farm to market roads reportedly heavily ate up  the 15 million peso for Sagada until the National Alleviation Poverty Commission (NAPC)-led BUB activity identified  FMRs not under the menu anymore of BUB-listed projects as these FMRs eat up much of the fund supposedly for  job  generation.  

The government has a system of letting the community take part in identifying community projects through the Barangay Development Council. How this shall reconcile with the BUB processes, Pamana systems,  and other LGU assisted development projects getting  identified is a query. 

Many an instance is a project identified without barangay officials and people themselves are not consulted on what projects the community needs and the project not 

responding to  community need.

With this, one will come to a conclusion of ignored processes on community participation. How an LGU allows this mockery of community involvement in addressing and deciding on their very own needs is a leadership either too scared of people or too greedy to get its own vested interests.   

The Local Government  Code talks of  devolution and  empowerment and this is  manifested in  people taking part in their development through  development  councils in the  barangay, municipal and  provincial  development councils.

It is a question if this system is being followed and if people are conscious of them identifying their own needs in systems like LGU development councils. Again, leadership has much to let communities take part in decision making in their very own needs.

The leadership has a lot to do in facilitating  community empowerment and community-led development.  

Another  question why is participation of non-government and peoples organizations is  limited with only one or two NGOs/POs being the only perennial  members  and the rest of many NGOs and peoples organizations not  having a part in the  identification of  and decision of the very projects which they need.

This was manifested by resolutions and letters requesting for support reaching the mayor or the governor or the congressman or legislative office. Supposedly, such should be addressed and  identified in LGU development councils with a consultative  system to facilitate this.

This example of community empowerment, community participation, community involvement of people taking part in their own development shown by KALAHI-CIDSS needs replication and more replication.

Aside from the commendable system it implements, it takes a committed staff  to facilitate  what community empowerment and community development means within the workings of  the LGU.

I agree with the one whom I overheard saying, “This is how community project should be decided on” -- by the community.