Participatory territorial planning: the farming systems development approach in community planning in the Philippines, 1995–2002

L. Seño-Ani
Luz Seño-Ani is a farming systems development specialist and a national expert of the FAO Technical Support to Agrarian and Rural Development project, the Philippines.

Participatory territorial planning is a holistic approach to development that aims to increase income and improve the living conditions of farm households in priority areas of development. This approach has been used for the past seven years in the Philippines by the Sustainable Agrarian Reform Communities–Technical Support to Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (SARC–TSARRD) project executed by FAO. The starting point in this process is a clear understanding of existing situations, problems and potential at the local level; development plans are then devised accordingly as a basis for accessing resources from various local and international development-oriented institutions, including grassroots organizations.

Local development teams comprising farmer-leaders, local government unit personnel, technical personnel (agriculturists, planning officers, engineers), Department of Agrarian Reform field personnel and community workers from non-governmental organizations are trained and guided by the project in all aspects of development work – planning, implementation/management and monitoring and evaluation. These local teams serve as links to bring the government closer to the people. Over the years, this approach has proved an effective mechanism for achieving positive changes in the economic and social well-being of rural households.

INTRODUCTION

In 1995, the Governments of Italy and the Netherlands jointly financed a project to support the Philippine Government's implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme (CARP). This project, entitled “Sustainable Agrarian Reform Communities–Technical Support to Agrarian Reform and Rural Development” (SARC–TSARRD), was executed by FAO. To carry out its objectives, SARC–TSARRD embarked on a nationwide application of the farming systems development (FSD) approach, focusing on the development of priority agrarian reform communities (ARCs) in the country. FSD, which was adopted globally by international and national experts of FAO, was previously associated with agricultural research and development. In the Philippines, FAO/SARC–TSARRD widened its coverage to incorporate various elements so that FSD could respond more effectively to the real needs of people in the rural areas.

THE FSD APPROACH

FSD is a total development approach that aims to improve the productivity, income and welfare of farm households. The process begins by identifying people's needs, analysing their existing situation and preparing the development plan to access all available resources to implement the plan. To put the process into operation, it is first necessary to conduct an in-depth assessment of the problems in the community hampering the improvement of the socio-economic conditions of people. Farm households are encouraged to participate actively in all phases of the development process with the support of development-oriented institutions. Thus community residents become an integral part of the planning process, from identifying and prioritizing development problems during workshop consultations, to the subsequent implementation of proposed solutions.

The adoption of an FSD approach in the Philippines was based on the finding that in most rural communities, one or more farming systems are being practised, each with its own particular constraints and potentials. Hence, sustainable development can be achieved only if potential improvements are identified and implemented, based on a careful analysis of the farming systems utilized in the communities by the farmers themselves. Also, the FSD approach fitted very well within the ARC programme of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the objectives of the agrarian reform programme.

FSD is a participatory process that addresses a wide range of social, economic and environmental problems within a given geographical territory with the purpose of improving the quality of life in farm households. These problems are usually multisectoral; hence, they require the pooled support and resources of various agencies (government, non-government, private, international and people's organizations) to ensure that interventions in the living conditions of people are effective, substantial and meaningful.

ROLES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Local government units (LGUs) are territorial political subdivisions of the Philippines that include provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays (the smallest political unit in the country). Because local government officials are voted into power by the people, their primary role is people's welfare. Their offices are the major institutions responsible for the coordination, overseeing and monitoring of development projects at the local level. Thus, for sustainability purposes, LGU officials and personnel were identified by the FAO/SARC–TSARRD as major stakeholders and major participants in the participatory territorial development planning process of FSD.

The devolution of significant powers and functions formerly held by national line agencies to LGUs made them powerful conduits for community development and poverty alleviation in the countryside. Among the responsibilities transferred to the LGUs were agriculture, health, social services, environment and natural resources, maintenance of local infrastructure facilities (such as farm-to-market roads, bridges and irrigation) and others. Local legislative powers such as decision-making, resource allocation, rule-making and enforcement of laws related to these powers were also delegated to LGUs. Thus, while the main government line agency supported by FAO/SARC–TSARRD was the DAR, the project had to undertake networking and close coordination with the LGUs.

EXISTING PLANNING SYSTEM

The planning process in the Philippines starts at the barangay level. Plans are prepared by the Barangay Council, and then adopted by the Barangay Development Council, composed of barangay officials elected by the people (Figure 1). Generally, barangay officials have completed only the elementary levels of schooling, and have little or no training in development-related activities. Hence, barangay development plans usually consist only of lists of projects that focus mainly on the infrastructure facilities that are the most obvious and easiest to identify. Some communities do have better planning processes, but these are rare.

Planning at the municipal and provincial levels

Barangay development plans are submitted to the Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO), which comes under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Mayor. The MPDO is in charge of planning activities at the municipal level. Generally, the MPDO consolidates the “shopping lists” of projects and prioritizes them in accordance with the plans of the municipality. Before this consolidated plan becomes the official Municipal Development Plan, it must first be adopted by the Municipal Development Council. From the municipal level, plans are forwarded to the Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO) where they are again consolidated and prioritized on the basis of the province's own particular plans.

The provincial development plans are also reviewed by the Provincial Development Councils before adoption. They are then submitted to the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Regional Office, which consolidates all the provincial plans and prioritizes them, based on regional importance. The plans should also be reviewed by the Regional Development Councils before adoption. The plans are then forwarded to the NEDA Central Office Inter-Cabinet Coordinating Committee for consideration, together with the priorities of the various government line agencies. Based on the national thrusts and priorities, the projects that are selected are then consolidated and included in the National Medium-Term Development Plan.

Figure 1
Planning process and institutions in the Philippines

Gaps in the local planning process

Although all barangays have their own development plans, many of these are not properly prepared with respect to technical feasibility, social acceptability, financial viability and environmental soundness, primarily because of the technical limitations of the barangay officials who prepare the plans. Further, the process of developing many of these plans is not always consultative, because it may not involve concerned residents and resource holders during the identification and prioritization process. Thus, many of the projects are not implemented or, if they are implemented, they do not result in the targeted objectives or match the vision of the community.

PARTICIPATORY TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: THE FSD APPROACH

Participatory integrated approach to development

Participatory integrated development planning is not new in the Philippines. In the 1970s and 1980s, one government agency, the National Council on Integrated Area Development (NACIAD), was given the task of overseeing the preparation, management and monitoring of integrated development plans in priority areas. Similarly, some LGUs, other national government agencies and a few international institutions implemented programmes that were integrated in nature. Seeing the wisdom of an integrated development programme, many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) also utilized various approaches in participatory development planning. From 1993 to the present, the DAR has been implementing the ARC Programme, which is integrated in nature, but this has been on a smaller scale, covering only one or a cluster of barangays.

FAO/SARC–TSARRD FSD teams

In 1995, the FAO/SARC–TSARRD project embarked on a nationwide application of the FSD approach to planning and developing priority ARCs. Deeply aware of the shortcomings of the local barangay officials in development planning, the project organized local planning teams, comprising:

• LGU technical personnel (mainly municipal agricultural officers [MAOs], Ministry of the Environment and municipal planning and development coordinators [MPDCs]);

• DAR personnel assigned to the ARC (mainly municipal agrarian reform officers [MAROs], development facilitators [DFs] and Beneficiaries Development and Coordination Division [BDCD] staff);

• representatives of people's organizations (PO);

• two barangay officials with high credibility in the community and knowledgeable about people's current situations;

• a representative of an NGO that is assisting the community;

• personnel from other government institutions whose assistance is essential (i.e. the Department of Trade and Industry [DTI], the National Irrigation Administration [NIA] and the Land Bank of the Philippines [LBP]);

• staff from private entities operating in the ARC.

These teams were trained in the development process – from planning, implementation and management to monitoring and evaluation. They served as technical development advisers to the local government units where they operate, and to the people and officials in their respective communities.

What has been covered by FSD

From March 1996 to July 2002, FAO/SARC–TSARRD conducted a series of 17 FSD courses, covering 463 ARCs nationwide (see Table 1). These ARCs consist of 1 225 barangays located in 447 municipalities and 70 provinces in the Philippines. These figures do not yet include the 68 ARCs covered by FSD in 1995 that did not go through the enhanced planning process. In 59 percent of the 463 ARCs where FSD courses were conducted by the DAR, other foreign-assisted projects were also being implemented by DAR. Most of these ARCs were being assisted by the World Bank-funded Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project (WB–ARCDP), the Asian Development Bank-funded Agrarian Reform Communities Project (ADB–ARCP), the United Nations Development Programme-funded Support to Agrarian Reform and Indigenous Communities (UNDP-SARDIC) project, the Belgian-supported Belgian Integrated Agrarian Reform Support Programme (BIARSP), the European Union-assisted Agrarian Reform Support Project (ARSP) and the former Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund of Japan (now Japan Bank for International Cooperation)-financed Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Support Project (ARISP).

TABLE 1
ARCs, barangays, municipalities and provinces covered by FSD, by series, March 1996 to July 2002

HOW FSD WORKS

FSD focuses on the most basic unit of Philippine society – the farm household. The process begins and ends with people. Before the start of an FSD activity, the community is first classified by farming-system zone. The community residents are not taken as a single homogenous group, but rather as individuals with differences in problems and potentials. The majority of the residents in the rural areas still depend on agricultural activities for their major sources of income. Zoning generally takes this factor into consideration, and the zones reflect the major economic activities of the majority of the farmers.

Experience in conducting FSD over the last six years has confirmed that the three major crops in the Philippines are rice, maize and coconuts. The farming-system zone in the community is the focus of the FSD assessment. To determine why a certain group of farmers is poor, a more detailed study is undertaken. The study examines the farmers' cropping practices, their choice of technologies, costs and returns, cash flow, household income and their problems and potentials.

The FSD strategy is carried out in six phases. The planning process, which is an integral part of community development preparatory activities, lasts approximately three to six months and comprises the first five phases. Activities in Phase 6, on the other hand, cover implementation, resource mobilization, monitoring and evaluation and are undertaken over a five-year planning period. The major activities of each of the five planning phases are described in the sections below.

Phase 1: Barangay workshop-consultations and pre-training conferences

In the process of applying the FSD approach, it became clear that wide, community-based participation was essential from the outset. It is during initial consultations that awareness and confidence are built and developed among the participants. The first phase begins with an FSD orientation for officials from key agencies (the DAR, LGUs, NGOs and POs). During this orientation, the FSD concept and principles are fully explained, and the forthcoming FSD activities and their expected roles are discussed to ensure the smooth operation of the process. Secondary data and information on existing development plans and programmes relevant to the community are also discussed and verified.

The next step is to conduct a barangay workshop-consultation (BWC), with participation from community residents representing various interest groups – farmers, women, youth, barangay officials and all other sectors of the community. Participants are asked to identify and discuss in detail the major problems affecting their living conditions. Problems are prioritized and solutions are elicited. Residents are also asked how they can help to solve these problems. Generally, community contributions take the form of voluntary labour, right-of-way for road projects, project management and monitoring and, in some cases, material inputs. For projects that require external assistance, residents identify the specific agency and type of assistance needed. At the BWC, the priority needs and proposed projects of the community are identified and the contributions of LGUs and community residents in implementing the projects are clearly defined. The BWC also serves as a forum for clarifying issues between government agencies and the community, thus bringing the government closer to the people.

It has been observed that community residents gave high priority ranking to the lack or inadequacy of infrastructure facilities when identifying constraints. These included non-existent or inadequate farm-to-market roads and bridges, irrigation and potable water supply. Other major constraints frequently mentioned in the consultations were inadequacy of production capital, extension services, post-harvest facilities, markets, school facilities and health-related services.

The results of the BWC are presented to the LGUs and to the participating line agencies for consideration and eventual inclusion in the local government plans and priorities. With the concurrence of the LGU and the DAR, the FSD team is organized. The FSD team then undertakes a series of training and field activities on applying the FSD approach.

Phase 2: Community profiling

This phase focuses on preparing the community socio-economic profile. The FSD team gathers and validates the relevant data and information from line agencies and local government offices, using guidelines provided by FAO/SARC–TSARRD. The basic information to be generated and verified by the team includes data on location, accessibility, household population, socio-economic status, social services, infrastructure facilities, environment, agricultural statistics and existing organizations. The community profile and the output of the BWC provide the basis for situational analysis of the physical features, socio-economic conditions, support infrastructure and institutional set-up in the community, and eventually for developing the community-based development plan.

Phase 3: FSD training and planning exercises

This phase, a week-long capability-building exercise for the FSD team, develops the knowledge and skills necessary for formulating a development plan. The training is designed to provide the participants with a thorough understanding of the FSD approach and the operation of the different FSD components. The course contains four modules:

• the concept, framework and tools of FSD as an approach to development planning and project implementation;

• data collection and organization, analysis and report writing;

• mechanisms for farming-system zoning and profiling;

• the preparation and analysis of a seasonal calendar reflecting cropping patterns and other farming activities, costs and returns (yield and price calculated against production costs such as labour, machinery, draught animals and material inputs, to determine crop profitability), cash flow (to determine which crops contribute most to the cash income of the farmers) and farm household income from any other sources.

The format and outline of the indicative development plan, including the organization and management arrangement for coordinating its implementation, are also discussed. The training concludes with the development of a plan of action for activities in Phase 4.

Phase 4: Field work and application of FSD tools

During this phase, the FSD team conducts farm household surveys and facilitates focused group dialogue to generate primary data and information. A survey involves a minimum of 30 respondents or 10 percent of the total farm households/farming-system zone (whichever is higher) to determine the profile of households within the zone. Questions are asked on four themes in order to generate the associated data:

• people/family: the number of individuals in each family, their age and sex, and what percentage of their time is available for other income-generating activities;

• land: farm size, average cultivated area, tenure status, crops planted, number of cropping systems, average yield;

• capital and credit: to determine the percentage of farmers with loans, the amounts and use of loans, interest rates, maturity and sources;

• income: sources and amount of total annual family income.

Focus dialogue is a different datagathering tool It involves discussing the detailed farming activities undertaken by farm households, and is carried out among selected groups of 10 to 15 farmers who represent the typical farmers in the zone. The topics discussed in relation to the cultivation of the major crops include the seasonal calendar, crop-production technologies and practices, costs and return, cash flow, farm household income combinations, problems and potentials related to credit, extension, pre- and post-harvest facilities and marketing services.

The results of the survey and focused dialogues are carefully tabulated and analysed and are used as a basis for preparing the farming-system zone profiles, which include a presentation of the resource base and resource utilization. From the tabulated results, key development problems are identified and assessed using a “constraint tree-analysis”. Likewise, development potentials are determined.

During this phase, the FSD team formulates the draft community development plan. The plan incorporates the farming-system zone profiles, the development problems and potentials that have been identified and the proposed community development interventions.

Phase 5: Writing and presenting the report

To facilitate the finalization of the development plan, a three-day residential training workshop is conducted to review and refine the draft development plan. The FSD team, together with DAR regional and provincial staff and FAO/SARC–TSARRD experts, reviews the identified problems and constraints based on the farming-system zone profiles, the community profiles and the results of the BWCs. The tabulated results of the farm household surveys and focused group dialogues are also reviewed as the basis for validating the identified problems and potentials. The plan reflects the integration and complementary nature of activities and strategies that will respond to the concerns identified in developing the community. The proposed interventions are then presented in a plenary session in order to elicit reactions and comments from a panel composed of DAR regional and provincial officials, LGU executives, officials from other concerned government agencies and FAO/SARC–TSARRD experts.

The training workshop also serves as an opportunity for discussing recommendations and pointers on what appropriate organization and management structures may be established, how resources may be mobilized, what agribusiness linkages need to be established and how project monitoring and evaluation should be set up. Likewise, guidelines and tips on presenting the development plan to the community effectively are discussed. Phase 5 culminates with the preparation of a one-year action plan that includes specific activities to be undertaken by the FSD team upon completion of the development plan. The action plan includes the presentation of the development plan to DAR management and LGU officials, with concrete ideas on interagency coordination, networking and resource mobilization. It is also during this phase that the FSD team closely monitors development activities in the community and makes regular assessments and evaluations to determine the impact of the interventions implemented. The results of these activities serve as guideposts for the future direction of the project.

WHO CONDUCTS AND IMPLEMENTS FSD?

The FSD teams

Considering the integrated, multisectoral and interdisciplinary nature of the FSD approach to development, various fields of specialization are needed to provide technical support to the community development activities. Thus, the FSD team is composed of members with varied academic backgrounds and work experience – agriculturists, engineers, planning officers, management specialists, economists, community organizers and socio-related professions, as well as leaders who are knowledgeable about the community's situation.

Partner agencies and institutions

The FAO/SARC–TSARRD experience in applying the FSD approach in the Philippines shows that four essential agencies or categories of agency always participate in FSD activities, namely, POs within the community, the DAR, LGUs and NGOs. However, in some instances, other government agencies (such as the NIA, the Department of Public Works and Highways, the DTI and the LBP), state colleges and universities and the private sector also participate in the process, depending on the extent of the problem that falls within their mandates. FSD teams usually have an average of 12 members. Depending on the number of barangays they serve, the average membership per team may range from 8 to 25 people. The assignments allocated to individual FSD team members are determined by their academic background and technical specialization. Every FSD member assigned to a specific project component is required to check its technical and economic feasibility, social acceptability and appropriate environment management and sustainability aspects before finalizing the different proposals in the development plan.

STATUS OF FSD ACTIVITIES

It may be noted that among the foreign-assisted projects covered by ARCs, many of the FSD-guided proposals and identified priority projects included in the ARC development plans have already been implemented. These implemented projects fall within the five components of the plan, as follows:

• Farm-related improvements – extension of training on improved/appropriate technologies, credit and marketing assistance for the production of existing and new crops, livestock and poultry, fisheries and forestry activities.

• Non-farm improvements – provision of training, credit and marketing assistance for income generating and/or livelihood activities, especially for women, to supplement income from farming.

• Support infrastructure facilities – construction or rehabilitation of farm-to-market roads, bridges, irrigation, drainage canals and post-harvest facilities.

• Institutional development – training workshops on cooperative development and strengthening, leadership enhancement, project development and management, financial management and resource mobilization.

• Social services and facilities – provision of potable water supply, health centres, education, health-related supplies, human resources and facilities.

LESSONS LEARNED AND REFLECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

1. To date, FSD is the only approach to participatory planning in the Philippines that has been applied on a large scale, and that has substantially focused on developing the economic aspects of rural development. No institution in the country has yet been able to produce planning documents with such an extensive study and analysis of farm households' living conditions and of such magnitude as the FSD plans.

2. Clear identification of resource holders more closely matched people's needs with available resources. One of the basic principles that guided the project in participatory planning activities was the identification of stakeholders from the start of FSD activities. Once the problems of the farm households had been assessed, the agencies mandated to respond to the priority problems were identified. Thus, FSD was able to achieve a better match between people's requirements and what resources were available, resulting in faster, more practical and more effective use of resources. With direct involvement of stakeholders in FSD activities, more collaborative, long-term working relationships can be established, thus maximizing each agency's role and potential as partners in community development.

3. The FSD approach has greatly improved and updated the databases on farm households in many rural areas of the country, especially those related to economic activities, financial aspects of major commodities, and problems and potentials. These are highly useful data that are not generally available at the barangay level. There is now a clearer appreciation and understanding of people's living conditions and the forces that control their lives (i.e. traders) and the allies they can rely on (i.e. the government).

4. FSD is a “people-friendly” methodology. Considering the diverse academic backgrounds, capabilities, expertise and knowledge base of the FSD team members, the project took special care to develop a training methodology and manuals that were simple and easy to understand. This resulted in improved appreciation and understanding and the full participation of all members, including farmer-leaders, in FSD activities. In many ways, the project can be seen as a “balancing act” between the desire to devise sophisticated planning methods on the one hand – but which may result in losing the full participation of the farmers – and, on the other hand, the need to avoid a too simplistic method that never goes beyond the traditional and ineffective “shopping list” approach.

5. There is a clear understanding of responsibilities and greater commitment and support for the plans. Aside from the fact that FSD plans are considerably better crafted than those prepared and developed through the usual local government planning process, there is a greater sense of community acceptance and ownership with FSD and hence a better commitment to the final implementation of the plan. The involvement of all the sectors concerned in planning the activities led to a better understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities, thereby increasing the possibility of attaining the programme's objectives.

6. Planning capabilities were enhanced among the DAR, LGUs and POs. The project succeeded in improving the activity-planning capabilities of various stakeholders, whereas previously the preparation of development plans had been the responsibility of the BDCD of the DAR. With FSD training, even the field personnel (MAROs and DFs) became knowledgeable and technically capable with regard to planning. Through this project, the DAR has also expanded the number of its development partners, which has made the work of its field personnel much easier. In an increasing number of cases, LGUs have contributed a large share to or even led the planning activities using the FSD model. Barangay officials who were exposed to the FSD process, and who used to simply submit “shopping lists” of projects to gain political supporters, have now become more consultative and comprehensive in preparing their plans. A greater appreciation of the need for genuine discussion between leaders and their constituents has thus been developed.

7. Closer, better working relationships between the government and the people have been furthered. Not only have the people's capabilities developed and improved, but the FSD process has also significantly enhanced accountability, commitment and working relationships among concerned institutions. They learned how to work together for the common goal of improving people's welfare. Also, the government was brought closer to the people, as officials increased their direct interaction with the rural populations. As a result, the government has a clearer understanding of the situation in the rural areas, while the rural population has a stronger appreciation of the limitations faced by the government in delivering the programmes and assistance they require. Thus, relationships have been strengthened and responsibilities shared, and closer collaboration has been developed.

8. In the Philippines, development is closely associated with politics. Local chief executives tend to dominate their own “fiefdoms”, where they control and decide on the use of all available resources. With FSD, however, many LGU officials have become development-oriented and have recognized their essential roles in poverty alleviation. Many have initiated and led the convergence of the various government agencies operating at the local level to produce unified plans that complement and reinforce each other.

9. The farmers have developed entrepreneurial capabilities, and FSD has, in a way, “professionalized” them. Many have become aware of their power or capability to improve their own lives by learning the process of first identifying what they need, knowing their resources, planning how to do it and knowing who can help them. Also, many have progressed from being mere producers to becoming farm managers and entrepreneurs. Through the FSD approach, they have understood the need to record farm transactions and prepare farm plans and budgets in order to identify and develop enterprises that can give them higher returns for the resources invested.

10. Government extension personnel are “multiplied” through the farmer-leaders. By involving farmer-leaders in all phases of FSD, they become more knowledgeable and capable of community development work. They share what they have learned and can teach it to fellow farmers in their local areas. These leaders thus become the extension arms of the government in the field, and serve as links between the government and the people. In this way, the government gains allies by reaching out to more people in the field.

11. The results of a number of assessments spearheaded by the project suggest that the FSD methodology is proving to be a highly practical, systematic and effective development approach that has resulted in widespread adoption. The resource holders, including other foreign-assisted projects, have adopted this approach and have made the FSD process one of their prerequisites before project implementation. Many LGUs, even the low-income level municipalities, have requested FSD coverage, committing their own limited resources for the activities.

12. The FSD methodology serves as a springboard for future development activities. The plans produced by the FSD activities have helped to induce more effective resource mobilization, particularly at the local level. There has also been a greater willingness on the part of local communities to commit their own labour and small amounts of money as their contribution to their priority projects. The FSD-guided plans, which in most cases have been incorporated into the municipal development plans, are ensured fund allocation by the LGUs and related agencies. As these proposals are more comprehensive and better presented, they are also easier to “market” to other development-oriented institutions, not only in the Philippines, but also among bilateral and multilateral donor agencies.

13. FSD enables immediate action to be taken to solve people's problems, even during the planning stage. In the course of preparing the plans, there have been many cases in which a number of problems raised by the people were immediately responded to by the institutions concerned. FSD served as an effective venue for calling immediate attention to problems that used to be taken for granted by local officials.

14. Full support can be mobilized from all sectors throughout the entire development cycle. FSD does not only involve planning; it also covers implementation, management, monitoring and evaluation of community development projects. Good plans do not always translate into a “good life” for people. These plans, which are multisectoral in nature, have to be linked to the various institutions that have the resources to implement the proposals they identify. Moreover, regular monitoring and impact evaluation need to be conducted in order to determine whether the projects implemented have attained their objectives.

PROSPECTS FOR FSD IN THE PHILIPPINES

The results of the application of the participatory territorial planning (or FSD approach) in community development in the Philippines over the past seven years have been highly encouraging. There has been a growing recognition of the effectiveness and practicality of the methodology on the part of LGUs, national government agencies and foreign donors. This progress is evidenced by the closer collaboration of all institutions concerned, and the increasing requests by various agencies – especially by LGUs – to finance expenses for FSD application in the development of their communities.

Emerging trends for municipal-level planning

Because ARCs generally cover only a small part of the municipality in terms of area and population, and many of the solutions to constraints are to be found outside the confines of the community, mostly within and even beyond the municipality level, there is a need to apply FSD within the broader context of rural development. Thus, there is an emerging trend to extend the FSD approach to cover entire municipalities, instead of just ARCs or clusters of barangays. To date, two municipal plans have been prepared (Manolo Fortich and Bunawan), which fully involve all sectors at the municipal and barangay levels. These plans provide a systematic and unifying approach by integrating all the available plans of the municipality. More important, they provide a coherent basis for mobilizing both public and private resources. There are also higher economies of scale in such a planning process, as a greater number of barangays have been involved in a single exercise.

Continuity of good plans even when the administration changes

FSD allows people and the government to sit down and work together so as to understand more clearly the local situation and its limitations and potentials. Politicians come and go, but people remain in the community. If the people are active participants, and are fully enlightened about their own economic situation, they will be able to pressure leaders to support the FSD plans. Even with changes in administration, there is a higher probability that good projects will continue if the people themselves are fully empowered.

Sustainability of the development process

The wide and active participation of community residents, including partner institutions, in all phases of development, is the sign of acceptance and ownership of the resulting community development plan. Such participation greatly enhances the prospects that a development process can be sustained in the long term. For the DAR, the issuance of special orders by the management adopting FSD in developing ARCs, and the development of FSD trainers nationwide, have enhanced the support of DAR field officials, which should ensure that the approach continues to be applied even with the phase-out of TSARRD. For the LGUs, the adoption and endorsement of the plans by the Municipal Development Council ensure project implementation utilizing internal resources. Further, the continuous efforts of the project to make FSD cost- and time-effective to fit in with limited government resources can also contribute to project sustainability.

Greater chances of improving people's living conditions

The results of impact assessments conducted in selected communities nationwide reveal that the implementation of the various interventions/projects identified in the community development plans has resulted in higher productivity and income among farm households. In two studies conducted, it was found that household income had increased by 61 percent in 76 percent of the communities being examined. With such developments, it is safe to conclude that there is now a greater chance of creating an impact and bringing about positive changes in the living conditions of farm and rural households.