10 The Community-Based Resources Management Project

(CBRMP) as a model to reduce Filipino poverty - Angelito

B. Exconde[11]

ABSTRACT

There are at least 20 million Filipinos who live in the forests and uplands. They survive on
less than one dollar a day and would probably go throughout their lives malnourished and sick
without seeing any doctor. With the assistance of the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), international funding and aid agencies, the Philippines Government
designed the so-called Community-Based Resources Management Project (CBRMP) to
reduce rural poverty including environmental degradation in the countryside. The target is to
halve the number of poor Filipinos after a decade or so. CBRMP priority areas include the
Bicol region (Region 5), central Visayas (Region 7), eastern Visayas (Region 8) and northern
Mindanao (Region 13). The initial performance of the project including some problems met is
discussed. Some recommendations are given at the end of the paper.

INTRODUCTION

Current estimates have it that there are more or less 20 million poor Filipinos who live in the
mountains and uplands surviving on less than one dollar a day. A greater number of Filipinos
living in what is called nearshore areas are believed to be suffering from hunger and
malnutrition because of poverty. Of them, it is said that they would most probably go
throughout their wretched lives without using a telephone and without riding in an automobile.
Worse is that they would probably die without the benefit of seeing a medical doctor, again
because of poverty.

On the insistence of the World Bank (WB) and its twin, the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) including the Philippines are being urged to halve the
number of poor people around the world by the year 2015. As a member of the international
community, our country is committed to reducing her poor population by half a decade or so
from now. To this end, the WB and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) have made loans
available to the Philippines. The purpose of this paper is three-folds: 1) to briefly describe the
so-called Community-Based Resources Management Project (CBRMP) as a model to reduce
poverty and environmental degradation in the country, 2) to comment on pertinent issues
arising from the project, and 3) to recommend possible solutions to make poverty reduction
more workable, practical and effective.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CBRMP

According to its manual of operations (DOF 1999), the CBRMP is a community-initiated

development effort primarily designed to reduce poverty and environmental degradation
through locally generated natural resources management projects using an innovative
financing facility called the Municipal Development Fund (MDF), which actually is a loan from
the WB. The project has four components, namely 1) subloans for local government units
:
 (LGUs) projects (called subprojects in the manual of operations), 2) MDF rural window
initiative and project management, 3) planning and implementation support to LGUs, and 4)
environmental technology transfer and policy implementation.

The project started in 1998 and will end in June 2004. It is being coordinated by the country’s
Department of Finance (DOF) and implemented by the LGUs together with the different
peoples’ organizations (POs) and other non-government organizations (NGOs). CBRMP
priority areas include the Bicol region (Region 5), central Visayas (Region 7), eastern Visayas
(Region 8) and northern Mindanao (Region 13).

Project components

The first component stated above would provide eligible LGUs, POs and NGOs with grant
and loan support based on a demand-driven basis. Projects would primarily fall into the
sectors of upland agriculture/forestry, near-shore fisheries and small-scale rural infrastructure
supportive of CBRMP.

The second component would provide a project management office to be called CBRMO,
which would serve as a rural window of MDF for channelling funds to low-income LGUs, POs,
and NGOs. The component will address issues involving MDF procedures and requirements,
improvement of LGU, PO and NGO financial capacities and other matters vital to the success
of the project.

The third component would provide technical assistance, training and introduction of systems
that would help the local community to become more effective managers of upland
watersheds and near-shore areas. This will be accomplished through the process of social
preparation and community organizing leading to plan formulation, identification of priority
investments and the packaging of potential projects for financing.

The fourth component would strengthen mechanisms within the involved government
agencies such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the
Department of Agriculture (DA) to support the implementation of locally demand-driven CBRM
efforts, monitor resource trends, and provide quality technical advice and training to LGUs,
POs, and NGOs in resource management of forests, uplands and near-shore areas. In this
component, the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB) is actively involved
in the training and technology transfer aspects of the project.

Project cycle

The project cycle has seven stages, namely 1) preparation and preimplementation phase
comprising orientations and consultations with the LGUs and the communities, selection of
eligible projects (see Table 1), establishment of CBRM units, community organizing, area
appraisals, development planning, and capability-building programmes; 2) project proposal
preparation by the communities in the different barangays, municipalities and provinces; 3)
review, appraisal and approval of project proposals by the central and regional CBRM and
MDF offices; 4) fund accessing through the MDF by LGUs, POs and NGOs with approved
proposals; 5) detailed design and implementation of approved projects; 6) operation and
maintenance of approved projects; and 7) monitoring and evaluation of project
implementation for replication and expansion.

Needless to say, the different stages as enumerated above are not mutually exclusive. For
instance, some of the activities like area appraisals and community capability building
programmes in the first stage are done throughout the entire project life. The same is true
with stage 6, which is the operation and maintenance of the project.
:
 Table 1. List of eligible and ineligible projects

Eligible projects Ineligible projects

A. Upland resources
Agroforestry Sawmills/wood-processing plants
Microwatershed development Mining/lime extraction
Community-based reforestation Quarrying
Nursery/seedlings production High-value crop production
River banks stabilization/reforestation
Industrial tree plantation
Minor forest products management
B. Coastal resources
Mangrove rehabilitation Fishpond establishment
Artificial reef establishment Quarrying
Seagrass sanctuary establishment
Coral reef management and sanctuary/marine reserve
Fish attracting devices Lighted commercial fishing/active
gears
Fish traps/traditional fishing methods Collection of aquarium fish
Paddle boats/crafts Fine-mesh fishing
Mariculture (small-scale)
C. Resort development
Community-based resort ecotourism Large-scale ecotourism
D. Livelihood
Livestock/cattle farming Quarrying/sand extraction
Livestock/piggery Sawmills/wood-processing plants
Livestock/goat raising Mining/lime extraction
Poultry (broiler/egg production) Rice/corn mill
Duck raising Transportation/public utility
Cottage industries/handicrafts using indigenous Fishpond establishment (coastal)
materials
Dairy production Collection of aquarium fish
Nipa thatches/shingle production Lighted commercial fishing
Fish cage mariculture/aqua-silviculture Active fishing gears
Shell farms (oyster/mussel) Salt production (commercial scale)
Mudcrab fattening
Eucheuma farms (seaweeds)
Fish-attracting devices
Fish traps
Passive fishing gears
Upland fishponds
Animal feeds production (small scale)
E. Infrastructure
:
 Roads
Construction/rehabilitation of roads from farm to market National road
maintenance/construction

Construction of graded trails Provincial road

construction/rehabilitation
Construction of patrol footpaths
Bridges and drainage
Minor river crossing River dredging
Spring boxes or deep well Diversion canals/rivers/creeks
Water supply
Level I & II water system Level III water system
Irrigation and water-impounding dams
Solid waste management disposal and sewage
management
Landfill
Recycling centres
Transfer stations
Incinerators
Sewage treatment plant
Social infrastructure
School buildings
Sports facilities
Slaughterhouses
Hospitals
Bus/PU terminals
Playgrounds
Institutional infrastructure
Municipal/barangay halls
Monuments
Perimeter fences
Justice buildings
Churches/chapels
Training centres
Ports and wharves
Service equipment/facilities
Power and energy
Mini-hydroelectric plant
Rural electrification
Solar voltaic power supply
Biomass generator plant
Transmission
Industrial estates
:
 Telecommunication facilities
Hand-held radios Large telecommunications
Institutional capability programme
Procurement of construction
equipment

EMERGING ISSUES AND CONCERNS

The following account is taken largely from Luna and Reyes (2002) in their 2002 Annual
Report regarding project performance including emerging issues and concerns about the
CBRMP. In the report Luna and Reyes (2002) state:

For the year, the ERDB participated in the 8th and the 9th supervision missions, which were
held on May 27-June 6, 2002 and November 25-December 9, 2002, respectively through
ERDB CBRMP-ETT focal persons, namely For. Gregoio D. Reyes and Dr. Aleli M. Luna, and
project staffs Fors. Arzel C. Manalili and Damaso G. Sambrana. The strategies employed in
this activity are consultative meetings, conferences, site visits and planning workshops.

The areas visited during the 8th supervision mission included Barangay Luca, Balamban,
Cebu; Inabanga, Bohol, particularly at Hanbongan Island; Tacloban City and Babatngon,
Leyte; Borongan and General McArthur, Eastern Samar; Socorro, Surigao del Norte; Alegria,
Surigao del Norte; and Kitcharao, Agusan del Sur. Issues encountered here included: (a)
Survey and mapping - LGUs together with the POs cannot start their forest plantation
establishment (both upland and mangrove) activities without having defined their areas for
development. They have said that boundary conflicts may arise, not only during the course of
plantation establishment, but more so during the harvesting period. This apprehension was
hastily included as a target for the DENR immediately after its formalization in the Aide
Memoire. Another issue that arose during the mission was about the (b) No Objection Letter
better known as NOL. Since NOL is a prerequisite for the conduct of contracted activities,
delay in its issuance had caused significant detrimental effect to project development
especially at the project site level. A recommendation was made unanimously by the POs and
LGUs to decentralize the issuance of NOL down to the Central and Regional CBRM offices.
The suggestion was well taken by the representative from the World Bank. (c) Delay in fund
releases was again brought to the attention of the team by the LGUs. They said that fund
releases should always be made on time to mitigate its toll on project implementation. An
example mentioned was the seed procurement activity relating to the forest plantation
establishment of the POs. Since the planting activity requires a definite season, it is
imperative that fund be made available on time for seedling procurement. Otherwise, delay in
fund releases will eventually cause a corresponding delay in the procurement of seedlings,
and consequently, delay of the plantation establishment phase the following year. The
concern regarding (d) project term, which is only until 2004 is causing panic to some LGUs
whose projects were approved only last year. Fast-tracking project implementation of such
LGUs, which poses the issue on the quality of target accomplishments (e.g. planting low
quality seedlings for the sake of accomplishing the project), bothers the management office.

On the other hand, on the 9th Joint GOP-WB Supervision Mission the team went around
through Tubigon and Trinidad, Bohol; Rosario and San Francisco, Agusan del Sur; Lianga
and R.T. Romualdez, Surigao del Sur; Daet Paracale, Talisay, Camarines Norte; and Naga
City; for Region V, and Palompon and Ormoc, Leyte. Issues confronted were: (a) formulation
of sustainability plans for projects specifically in project management, institutional
arrangements of partner/support agencies, organizational mainstreaming, etc.; and, again, (b)
project term extension, which is being proposed in view of the merely 20 percent
:
 accomplishment on NRM of the projects with 80 percent of the time lapsed. This extension is
seen as a means of ensuring the sustainability and operationalization of the projects even
after the project has ended.

Right after the site visits, the 9th Joint GOP-WB Supervision Mission Writeshop on the
Formulation of the Aide Memoire with action-planning workshop, tackling problems
encountered during the mission and corresponding decisions and actions proposed to solve
them, was conducted. These actions were later agreed upon during a plenary session and set
as target action for the following semester of project implementation. For the ERDB-CBRMP-
ETT, a respective set of targets was proposed for implementation in year 2003.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendation here is to let the poor have direct control of the project. This is because
according to Selener (1997) "there is a strong relation between control and benefits, i.e. the
party who controls the process, especially in its initiation and during the problems definition
and implementation phases, is likely to benefit most from the outcomes." It might be argued
that CBRMP is community-initiated. But it is the DOF which controls it. Its manual of
operations is authored by the DOF, not by the target community-beneficiary.

It must be remembered that poverty reduction is a problem concerning social change and
empowerment. This is very hard to impose from the outside. For if an individual does not want
to change, nobody can force him/her to. The same is true with empowerment. Nobody can
force someone to be powerful if he/she does not want to. This is not to imply that our poor do
not want to get rich. But community-based resources management without roads, without
electricity, without access to education will not extricate them from the so-called poverty trap.
The second recommendation that I would like to make therefore is for our government to
construct all-weather roads in the mountains and uplands, build reputable schools and
hospitals, and powerup these places with electricity.

The third recommendation is for our national government to provide the poor with abundant
supply of safe water for drinking and bathing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DOF (Department of Finance). 1999. CBRMP manual of operations. Community-Based

Resources Management Project, Vol. 1. Manila, Department of Finance. 91 pp.

Luna. A.M. & Reyes, G.D. 2003. Annual accomplishment report for CY 2002. Community-
Based Resources Management Project-Environmental Technology Transfer Component.
Manila,Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau. 95 pp.

Selener, D. 1997. Participatory action research and social change. Quito, Ecuador, Global
Action Publications. 358 pp.

[11] Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, Department of Environment and

Natural Resources, College, Laguna, Philippines; E-mail: erdb@laguna.net
: