 |
|
|
Consuelo Katrina A. Lopa Lopa is currently doing freelance research and writing. She was Project Coordinator of a Philippine non-governmental organization, the Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute, working on the Project on the Legacies of the Marcos Dictatorship from 1999 to 2002. Prior to working on the Legacies Project, Ms. Lopa was Coordinator of Philippine Development NGOs for International Concerns (PHILINK), from August 1990 to June 2000. |
|
|
|
In recent years, official development assistance (ODA) agencies have been increasingly exploring avenues for supporting community development initiatives more directly. The result has been the creation of a diversity of new funding channels, many of them involving NGOs, both in the host and donor countries. Little analysis has been conducted, however, of what has been working, including the how and why, and few attempts have been made to share examples more widely. This paper seeks to address this gap by looking at the case of the Philippines in detail and follows on the general overview of ODA-NGO collaboration presented by David Winder in his paper Options for Financial Sustainability: Collaboration Between Civil Society and Development Agencies in Southeast Asia.
Various stakeholders in the Philippine development community have warmly received the practice of NGO management of ODA. NGO management of ODA funds transfers traditional decision-making powers over allocation and use of funds, from donor representatives and host government agencies to collegial bodies comprised of or influenced by NGO representatives. This paper explores this rise of Philippine NGOs in managing ODA, looking at the different forms of NGO-managed mechanisms and challenges and opportunities for NGOs and ODA agencies moving forward.
Background
NGO management of ODA has existed since Corazon Aquino's assumption of power in 1986. In fact, policy direction for this is outlined in the National Economic Development Authority's (NEDA) 1989 guidelines for government-NGO collaboration. The guidelines state that NGOs may directly negotiate with foreign governments for ODA.
Aside from the policy directive issued under the Aquino government, several factors have contributed to an environment conducive to NGO management of ODA:
- Due to the fifteen-year imposition of Martial Law between 1972 and 1986 by President Marcos, the Philippine government has a history of graft, corruption, mismanagement, and in some cases, participation in the suppression or violation of civil, political, and human rights. In areas where the government bureaucracy could not deliver necessary social services, other development stakeholders had to step into that role.
- Philippine NGOs have successfully advocated for a greater role in the delivery of social services as well as in attaining asset reform. They stress their strong relationships in local, poor communities, a commitment which grew out of working with poor communities under the Marcos dictatorship.
- The impacts of development NGOs in community development and community economic development have demonstrated the capacity of these NGOs to be flexible, adaptable, and capable of innovative approaches to development challenges.
- NGOs have typically incurred lower costs under less bureaucratic project implementation measures than government has typically due to government graft and bureaucratic mismanagement.
NGOs thus presented another means by which ODA could be directed towards the poorest communities at a time when foreign governments wished to demonstrate their support and commitment to the newly installed democratic government.
On the other hand, government performance in the area of managing ODA has also been sadly lacking. A report by the Presidential Task Force on the 20/20 Initiative entitled, "ODA Performance within the 20/20 Initiative Framework," came to the following conclusions:
- Only 8-11 percent of the Philippines ODA portfolio has been allocated to basic social services between about 1994 and 2001. Over 50 percent has been devoted to infrastructure support.
- Within ODA spending on basic social services, extended implementation periods have happened due to delays in right-of-way acquisitions, relocation issues with squatter families, peace and order problems, social acceptability, and access to financing.
- The rate of utilization of ODA for basic social services by the Philippine government has been decreasing -- from 76.2 percent in 1995, to 74.3 percent in 1997, to 62 percent in 1999. Declining numbers in requests have also reflected a lack of absorptive capacity by the government. The sectors showing serious declines have been basic education, basic health projects, water, and sanitation.1
Thus, while NGO management of ODA has shown promising results on one hand, government performance has been somewhat dismal on the other.
Types of NGO-managed mechanisms
From 1986 to the present, there have been several different types of NGO-managed mechanisms involving ODA arrangements. Among these mechanisms are:
NGO-managed Mechanisms whose Principal Funding Source is a Co-financed Project Grant by a Foreign NGO and Its Government
Examples of these would be the now closed PhinCORD (Philippine NGO Consortium for Rural Development) co-financed by a Dutch church organization and the Dutch government; PHILGERFUND (Philippine-German Development Foundation) co-financed by the Deutsche Welthungerhilfe/German Agro Action and the German government; and SEDCOP, funded by the CCA/Canadian Cooperative Association with the Développement International Desjardins (DID) and the Canadian government. While PHINCORD's project grant was run out of an existing Philippine NGO, the Philippine Peasant Institute, and managed by an NGO board representing different Philippine NGOs, both PHILGERFUND and SEDCOP set up institutions managed by a professional staff and governed by a mixed board of donors and Philippine NGO representatives.
Donor-funded and -managed NGO assistance program
A shining example of the donor-funded and donor-managed NGO program is PACAP (Philippine Australian Community Assistance Program). Though PACAP is a continuing NGO program run by a foreign government agency, the Australian Agency for International Development, a majority of PACAP's Program Advisory Board are members of civil society, academia, and cooperatives.
NGO-managed Mechanisms Set Up for Specific ODA Programs with a Specific Time Frame
Examples of these mechanisms in the early stages would be PDAP (Philippine Development Assistance Program), PCHRD (Philippines Canada Human Resource Development Program), and the Diwata gender and development facility, all supported by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) similarly supported the establishment of Project Shelter. Current examples of this type would be the Community Arts & Crafts Enterprise Development (CACEDI) and the World Bank's NGOs for Protected Areas (NIPA). At the outset, all the mechanisms mentioned did set up institutions -- whether as foundations or NGO facilities -- to manage the ODA programs. The lifelines of a number of these mechanisms corresponded with the duration of project assistance only, but later ones have either evolved into or continue to function as independent institutions, having successfully diversified their funding sources.
NGO-managed Mechanisms Endowed through Debt-for-Development Swaps
The Foundation for the Philippine Environment (FPE), endowed with a debt-for-environment swap facilitated by USAID and the US-based Philippine Development Forum, and the Foundation for a Sustainable Society, Inc. (FSSI), endowed with a debt-for-development swap facilitated by the Swiss government and Swiss development NGOs, are examples of this mechanism. Both mechanisms immediately incorporated as foundations in order to manage the endowments and specific development programs supported with the funds.
All four configurations, examples of which have been set up over the last 15 years, have sought to include direct NGO participation in the management or co-management of ODA. These mechanisms all illustrate varying degrees of: control and commitment practiced by different donor governments; financial sustainability enabled; and impact potential.
A dominant trend among most NGO facilities -- whether they started out as co-financed projects, one-time ODA projects, or debt swap facilities -- has been the transformation of NGO-managed fund facilities into financially sustainable institutions with the capacity to continue their mandates.