.. . . . -.-. u D . - . ._. . _ H ‘_ ' _ -‘ ‘ ‘ .
I '.-. .-. "’¢‘- .".I. """"".' "'-‘ n‘- -.-q_c ..-. — . . .. v. - > . . .
' .
. . . ‘ . >
.
. . l ‘
. . . - _
‘ l
. i '
. ' ; .
o
.

 

 

722m

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3/06 p:/C|RC/DateDue.indd-p.7

 

 

 

Participation and Client Accountability in Development 3

The Philippine Upland Development Program /

by

Kenneth K. Ames
’/

A Plan B Paper

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

1995

DO NOT DETACH

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

,__. -__———.———.-

 

043?}9384 0

Table of Contents
page
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
Organization of Thesis ...................................................................................... 3
Hypothesis ........................................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 5
Participation ...................................................................................................... 6
Client Accountability ......................................................................................... 11
Gamma 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 16
Selection of Case .............................................................................................. 16
Data Collection ................................................................................................. l7
interviewees ................................................................................................. 18
questions ...................................................................................................... 20
compilation of responses .............................................................................. 22
operationalization of definitions .................................................................... 23
Client Accountability ............................................................................... 23
Participation ............................................................................................ 24
Quality .................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 4 DESCRIPTION OF CASE ...................................................................... 28
Upland Development Working Group ............................................................... 31
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS ............................................................................................ 34
Participation ...................................................................................................... 35
Client Accountability ......................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 46
Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 46
Recommendations ............................................................................................. 47
Limitations of the Study .................................................................................... 48
Recommendation for Further Research .............................................................. 49
CHAPTER 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 52

APPENDICES ........................ a .................................................................................. 56

Acknowledgments

Numerous people need to be thanked for making it possible for me to complete
this thesis. Family, friends and colleagues have made it possible for me to be here
undertaking this eflort.

First, I would like to thank Dr. George H. Axinn who allowed me to enter the
program and served as my advisor throughout the process. He was supportive of ideas
and encouraged me to “get on with it ” when that was necessary. He and Nancy also
made it possible for me to concentrate on the writing by providing a great working space
during their sabbatical. Nancy also provided encouragement and expert editing skills
during the final push to the defense, for that I will always be thankful.

Dr. JeflRiedinger and Dr. Bill Demon also served on my committee for which I
am grateful. They both provided needed focus which, I hope, makes this final document
more meaningfiil to the reader. '

The Department of Resource Development has been an exciting place to be for
the past few years. I have gotten personal and professional support from numerous
faculty and staff members for the work undertaken. I also got tremendous emotional and
financial support fiom the members of this community during a difficult time. Their
willingness to reach out to me will never be forgotten.

The fiiends I have made at MS U are some of the best people it has ever been my
privilege to associate with. They have made the difficult times easier and the fin times
memorable. I look forward to continuing the friendships begun here and working with
these individuals in the future. I feel that with people like these there is hope for
development eflorts and hope for the world as a whole.

Finally I would like to thank my family. Their support has made everything
possible. Even though I am not sure they understand what I am trying to accomplish my
family has been and will continue to be my first priority.

Abstract

For the last four decades “developed” countries have tried to assist
“lesser developed” nations provide for themselves. This assistance has
taken on many dtflering forms with mixed results. These diflering
approaches have facilitated multiple topics of discussion for scholar and
practitioners examining development efforts. This document looks at two
of those topics: participation and client accountability. A review of the
literature related to the topics is undertaken with reference to a case stuay
conducted The Philippine Upland Development Program, a program
with the expressed goal of improving participatory approaches to upland
management, is the case studied An examination is made of opinions of
stakeholders concerning the success the program has had in meeting it 's
goal. Those interviewed also discussed their impressions concerning the
accountability of those implementing the program to the client. These
results are used to make some generalizations concerning development
and how incorporation of these topics into the development cycle would
improve efforts undertaken.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION:

Throughout the history of international development there have been many attempts
by those of "developed" countries to provide assistance to people in "lesser developed"
countries. This assistance has taken differing shapes and forms. During the 19605 the trend
was geared toward the transfer of technology. The assumption was that if people of
developing countries had access to the technology of the "developed" world they could to pull
themselves out of poverty.

The 19705 ushered in capital intensive development projects which were designed to
improve the infrastructure of developing nations. The assumption was that improved
infiastructure would allow the markets to flourish and development, similar to what
developed countries had experienced during preceding decades, would occur. During the
19803 many development activities continued along this path emphasizing the concept of
trickle-down economic development. This period saw expansion of large scale capital
intensive projects with the assumption that benefits would trickle down to all members of
society.

The current trend within large donor/development agencies is the reexamination of
past projects with an eye to the fixture. This reexamination has been prompted by several

factors, chiefly the perceived failures of past efi‘orts. These are perceptions of people within

agencies, those responsible for implementation of projects, contracted evaluators, and of
academicians.

This reevaluation has produced a vocabulary words and which is frequently cited in
literature addressing development in the 905, representing issues at the forefi’ont of current
thinking in the field of development. Many of these ideas are just beginning to emerge in the
field. However, periodically the ideas are phenomena which are being revisited.

During the 905 there has been a shift of policy within many organizations to include
the population the program serves, that is the client, in all phases of the development process.
This inclusion has fostered changes in practices which have generated terms such as
participation and client accountability. These changes are toward inclusion of people in the
development process or even "putting people first" (Chambers 1983, Korten 1984, Cernea
1991)

Participation and client accountability are both issues with many facets. There are
questions regarding who participates; how to ensure this participation represents the entire
community; what mechanisms are available to hold the practitioner accountable; and how is
each concept defined. These issues are explored in this thesis with discussion presented fi'om
a case study of the Upland Development Program in the Philippines.

Development thinking in the 905 has increasingly included people in the development
process. The ideas of development 'for people', 'including people', and 'centered on people' is
addressed in numerous writings (Chambers 1991, Knippers-Black 1991, Paul 1991, etc.). The

idea of participation has fostered such concepts as 'bottom-up planning', 'restructuring' and

'peOple-not-project centered development'. These concepts are influencing the direction of
development strategies currently, and for the foreseeable firture.

To ensure that practitioners are incorporating the concepts in all phases of the process
there needs to be a method for holding them accountable. Accountability has emerged or is
defined as an approach for holding practitioners responsible for actions taken. Frequently,
those responsible for the implementation of programs are not fi'om the communities the
project serves. Thus, they do not have to live with the consequences of their actions after the
program ends. Accountability to the client encourages practitioners to make decisions, and

take actiOns which hold the interest of the client above that Of others.

ORGANIZATION OF THESIS:

This thesis examines the concepts of participation and client accountability. It is built
on examination of the literature and use of a case study for examples. The case material was
gathered during a study of stakeholder perceptions of the Upland Development Program
(UDP), in the Philippines, conducted by the researcher.

The thesis is organized as follows: First, current literature related to the key concepts
is examined. Methodology used is then discussed followed by an in-depth description of the
Upland Development Program. The Results section, which follows, discusses key concepts
with reference to the case. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are made regarding the

study.

HYPOTHESIS:
This study explores the following hypothesis: The level of accountability the practitioner
feels toward the client (client accountability) and the level of participation the client has

in all phases of the program are directly related to the quality of grogam developed. To

test this hypothesis the literature and information gathered regarding the Upland Development

Program is brought to bear on the issue of development.

Chapter 2

LfIT'ERATUREREI/TEW

The new professionalism reverses the values, roles and power relations

of normal professionalism. It puts people first and poor people first of all. The

‘last-first’ paradigm includes learning from the poor, decentralization,

empowerment, local initiatives, and diversity. Development is not by blueprint

but by a flexible and adaptive learning process. To achieve reversals on a

massive scale is now perhaps the greatest challenge facing the development

professions. (Chambers, 1993:1)

The call for a new professionalism in development which Chambers addresses
encompasses many aspects including the participation of stakeholders in all stages of the
development process and the accountability of peOple implementing programs. Participation
and client accountability are the two concepts which are the focus Of this thesis. The “extent
and effectiveness of participation” (Cohen & Uphofi‘, 1977285) can be measured by the extent
to which leaders are accountable to the client (Uphofi‘, 1986: 104).

In this section current literature on each concept is addressed to provide a basis for
operationalizing definitions which are applied to the case studied. The analysis of the case,

with reference to these operationalized definitions, appears in the results section of this

document.

PARTTCIPA HON:

One of the concepts which is addressed in this document is participation. Community
participation theory emerged as a coherent approach to social development through the
United Nations Popular Participation Programme. Participation is viewed as a means to
include a variety of stakeholders in the development process. A World Bank paper stated,
“participatory rural development should not be viewed as a set Of techniques but as a state of
mind reflecting a deep-rooted respect for the values and creativity of others” (Bhatnagar and
Williams, 1992:41).

Discussion concerning the participation of clients in development is not new. As
indicated by Korten, during the 19705 people-oriented perspectives on development were
gaining ground. Korten goes on to state at the time there were policy commitments to
participation and equity in development efforts. However, he continues, the bureaucracies
upon which the implementation depended were unequal to the task (Korten, 19862234).

At the time it was understood there was a need to allow client communities to build
capacity to care for themselves and manage their natural resources. This was viewed as a way
to mobilize rural communities, allowing them to participate more meaningfufly in their own
development (Alfonso, 1986:60). Chambers also discusses the need to include the rural poor
in the development process because of the knowledge they possess. In Rural Development:
Putting the Last First, he points out the rural poor possess knowledge which is not
accessible to outsiders (Chambers, 1983282). Once again, this can be viewed as a call for

implementors of international development projects to include people in the entire process.

The notions of people-centered development and participation are closely linked.
How can development he truly participatory if the people are not involved? And, if
development is participatory is it people-centered? As stated by Kothari, “unless man is the
maker of his own destiny, there is no scope for real freedom and self-realization" (Kothari,
1988284).

This notion of participatory, people-centered development gained popularity due to
the perceived weaknesses of the older production-centered approaches. This was true, in
part, because the older method was seen as unresponsive to local variations and made little
use Of the creative energies of community members served (Korten & Klauss, 1984: 169).
People can be expected to participate in development only when they believe they are part of
it and can benefit from it (Owens & Shaw, 1972: 14).

It was understood that to make progress lesser developed countries have to rely on
their peoples. Arkofl‘ makes this quite clear when he states “a government cannot develop a
country, it can only help its country develop itself’ (Arkofi‘, 19842195). The implication is
that it is up to the people, who elect the government, to take responsibility for the
development of the nation. The South Commission makes a similar statement in a 1990
report. This report makes it clear that for development to take place, in lesser developed
countries, it is the responsibility of the peoples of those countries (South, 1990). A UN
document makes a similar inference when stating, “individuals in any society should not be
free or joy-riders but be an active participant in the development process” (UN, 1991 :2).

Even though, as discussed above, participation is not a new idea it is still being

grappled with in development circles. This is true because even though participation appears

to be a simple process there are many barriers to its implementation. Jan Knippers-Black
argues that the lack of participation in the development process has a historic basis. She
states “the programmed influence of colonial and neocolonial states has brought to bear on
containing rather than promoting participation in the Third World” (Knippers-Black,
1991 :37). This supports the theory of participation as a concept not easily implemented.

Another barrier pointed out by Korten is the pressure placed on financing agencies to
move too much money too quickly (Korten, 1984: 176). A reorientation on the part of these
agencies is in order to develop people-centered participatory programs and projects. There
needs to be greater emphasis placed on projects which benefit the communities and less placed
on moving the money. A World Bank study indicates there are certain types of programs
which are more conducive to the participatory approach. These include those which focused
on infrastructure, (particularly irrigation and water systems), or local infrastructure,
(particularly forests) (World Bank, 1994: 14). The Bank study suggests participation works
best when there is a shared asset or other material incentive for people to spend their time in
group activities.

Even though participation has been addressed since the 19705 it is still an issue which
is debated. A5 Frances Korten observed, “programs directed to the poor must support rather
than supplant people’s own efforts at development (Korten, 1989:61). In much of
development this supplanting is still the norm. To help eradicate this co-opting of people in
the development process a new state of mind has to be created by those implementing
programs and projects. This new state of mind is based on participation of all people in every

stage of the development process.

This ‘new’ state of mind has caused much debate within the international development
community. The debate has included what is meant by participation, who is to participate and
how to ensure all stakeholders are included in the participatory process. The on-going debate
allows for a continued reevaluation of programs and, presumably, improvement in the
development process. This section discusses the various definitions and develops an
operational definition which the author applies to the case studied.

The term participation is a much debated concept and agreeing on a definition has
proven difficult. The American Heritage Dictionary defines participation as “the act of taking
part or sharing in something” (1992:1319). This definition is the basis for most other attempts
to define the concept. It is the starting point from which individuals and organizations define
the term in such a way to allow implementation.

The World Bank defines participation as “a process by which people, especially
disadvantaged people, influence decisions which afi‘ect them" (Bhatnagar and Williams,
1992: 177). This definition gives focus to who participation is designed to benefit. It indicates
there is a Specific audience for the focus of participation. If development projects are
designed to benefit the poor then the poor need to be included in the entire development
process.

Midgley states that for participation to be efi’ective it must be direct and give ultimate
control to local communities so they themselves decide their own affairs (Midgley, 198629).
Midgley goes on to state not only does input of community members allow a greater say in the
development process but it also contributes to a heightened sense of community and

strengthening of community bonds.

The UN resolution also states that participation requires the voluntary and democratic
involvement of people in (a) contributing to the development efi‘ort, (b) sharing equitably in
the benefits derived therefrom and (c) decision-making in respect of setting goals, formulating
policies and planning and implementing economic and social development programmes
(Midgley, 1986125). The goal of this participation is to ensure the participation of all
members of the community in programs and projects which afi‘ect them.

With participation, people in a community are able to express their desires to a greater
degree. As stated in a World Bank Discussion paper, “participation implies that people
sharing common problems should voice their demands and work together toward solutions"
(Bhatnagar & Williams, 1992241). The collective expression of desires allows communities a
better position when dealing with those fiom outside the community.

For participation to be most effective there has to be flexibility in program
implementation at the local level. Even when programs are national initiatives there needs to
be local control. This allows variations in project implementation to suit local conditions and
take local customs and practices into account. This flexibility allows for greater success of
individual projects.

By allowing local control of projects it is possible to tap into what Lineberry refers to
as the innate wisdom and knowledge of the rural poor concerning the environment with which
they are intimately familiar (Lineberry, 19895). The knowledge the local population possess

can be the starting place for any project which is to be initiated.

10

CLIENTACCO UNTABILITY:

“...people working in the field of development are wholly disqualified from
claiming professional status. Unlike other, genuine, professionals, they are
accountable to no one (except in the ordinary hierarchical way). Ifthey make a

mess of a development project, they will not be there to see it and they can

walk away from their victims, towards the next disaster.” (George, 1992: 168)

The criticism of those working in the field of development made by George is a strong
one. If practitioners working in development are to create a means Of improving their
professionalism then being held accountable to clients I served has to be addressed.
Accountability is an issue being addressed by such divergent groups as the Congress of the
United States and those working in education. The goal is to make those working in various
fields more responsible for action taken.

In the field of international development this is particularly needed because those
taking action are usually from outside the community being served. As George states, at the
end of the project, or individual contracts, the outsiders leave and return to their normal lives.
This ability for abandoning, or moving on, is often because the practitioner does not have a
feeling of commitment or accountability to any group or individual within the community.
Uphofi‘ discussed this lack of connection to the community when he argued for a sense of
accountability to the community (Uphofi’, 19862104). He suggested that with a stronger tie to
the community the “paraprofessional” would have a stronger commitment, or accountability,
to the individuals.

Bryant and White also discuss the benefits of the inclusion of the client to achieve a

greater level of accountability. In a discussion dealing with the inclusion of those at the local

11

level of project development and implementation they state that the reorientation of the
process to include those at the internal and external level is most likely to be successfirl
(Bryant & White, 1984:51). By reorienting the development process to include those at all
levels the program is most likely to have a greater success. This is also a call for
accountability to the client, or to include the client in the development process.

As with participation there are many questions to be answered when dealing with the
concept of client accountability. These include: What definition is to be used? To whom are
individual practitioners accountable? What means are there to hold these individuals
accountable? and How does this help ensure that appropriate development takes place? These
are some of the aspects of accountability addressed in this section. Because the term
accountability means different things to different people this section is devoted to looking at
how accountability is used in development and what some of the definitions of the term are.

Often times people assume accountability means financial accounting. In his book
Crisis Accountability and Development in the Third World, Ghartey discusses the
accountability of development in Afiica fi'om the financial viewpoint. He demonstrates how
large amounts of money spent on development are often wasted or misappropriated.

Frequently, projects benefit those already well ofl‘ in a community, not the poor or
disadvantaged. Other times money spent creates more problems than it solves. The money
makes those who are already well ofi‘ better off and the poor poorer. This inadequate
accounting manifests itself in many ways including, inappropriate policies, abuse of power,

fraud, and corruption (Ghartey 1986: 1).

12

One of the most used definitions of accountability is the one found in a World Bank
document which refers to accountability as “holding individuals and organizations responsible
for performance measured as objectively as possible” (Paul, 199122). As simple as this
definition appears at first reading it contains many complex aspects.

First, accountability and responsibility are used interchangeably. This implies that an
individual who acts in a responsible manner is accountable. It also implies that the concept of
responsibility transcends cultures. But it does not answer the question -- Accountable to
whom?

In fact, many difi‘erences exist between cultures as to what it means to act responsibly.
If practitioners working in development are to be held to standards, which standards are to be
used? This is an important and complex question. For the purposes of this study, it will be
assumed the standards to which the practitioner are held are those of Western society.

For this paper accountability is defined as a type Of responsibility. It is the feeling of
responsibility the practitioner feels, either to clients or to some other source. As can be
gleaned from the title of this section, this study focuses on accountability to the client.

Accountability can be divided in terms. of direction. This division is important in
determining to whom the practitioner is accountable. There is accountability to beneficiaries
and accountability to outside sources. This division is also referred to as external and internal
accountability. Axinn refers to this accountability in agricultural research in India (Axinn,
199029). He states measures of control and reasons for decentralization are both

demonstrated by the phenomena of accountability. To understand who benefits from

13

programs and why programs are designed a particular way it is important to understand where
the practitioner is accountable, either internally or externally.

Clark refers to the multiple directions of accountability in his book Democratizing
Development (Clark, 1991). He acknowledges that there are multiple sources of
accountability even for NGOS. He states the idea] would be for organizations to be
accountable to all the constituencies (Clark, 1991:62). The difiiculty in being held
accountable to multiple sources is then discussed. An organization will find it difficult to
accomplish any work if they are trying to answer to all the constituents.

Client accountability refers to the degree of responsibility the practitioner feels toward
the client served. External accountability refers to the degree of responsibility the practitioner
feels to one or more external sources. Frequently the external sources are donors or the
practitioner's contracting organization. There is always a need for practitioners to be
accountable to the organization which is paying for the project. However, the degree to
which this responsibility afi‘ects decisions regarding development is the issue to be examined.
In this paper accountability is examined at the internal or client level.

The means for holding practitioners accountable are varied. Some assume that if a
community is involved in the development process then it is able to hold the practitioner
accountable to them. This may be true if the level and degree of participation of the
community is high. When the community is involved in the entire process, then they may have
a say in who becomes involved from outside the community.

By developing some form of professional standards by. which to hold the individual

practitioner it might be possible create a higher level Of client accountability. In the field of

14

medicine those practicing are held to the Hippocratic Oath which is used to hold them
accountable. If a physician makes a decision which is not compatible with professional
standards, s/he can be held accountable in a court of law. There are penalties for not doing
the right thing and means to discipline those who do not live up to this standard.

This is not true in development. There are no means for holding development
practitioners accountable. As stated by George at the beginning of this section, they are able
to walk toward the next disaster. There is a need to create standards by which to hold

development ‘professionals’, thus creating standards for accountability.

15

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

SELECTION OF CASE:

The case being used for this analysis is a study conducted during the summer of 1994.
The researcher had the opportunity to travel to the Philippines and work on an internship
coordinated by the Midwest University Consortium for International Activities (MU CIA),
sponsored by Winrock International‘. While in the Philippines the researcher was assigned to
work with Dr. Romulo del Castillo of the University of the Philippines at Los Bafios. Dr. del
Castillo is a long term consultant with Winrock and has been involved with the Upland
Development Program” since its inception.

In coordination with Dr. del Castillo, and assisted by Dr. Mary Racelis of the Ford
Foundation, the strategy for the study was formulated. It was decided that an examination of
difi’ering perceptions of stakeholders in this ongoing Ford-firnded project would be
appropriate. The study was designed to provide an interim accounting of the program’s
progress. The Ford Foundation firnding cycle for the program comes up for reevaluation in
1995. This study will be used as one of the tools to help make decisions concerning firture
fimding. The study will also be used by Dr. del Castillo to be shared with other members of

the Upland Development Working Group.

 

‘ additional information concerning Winrock International is contained in Appendix A.
‘ A full description of the Upland Development Program is found in Chapter 4.

l6

W

Data were collected in two ways. These included an examination of documentation on
the case and interviews with people involved in the project. To prepare for the interviews, the
review of documentation was undertaken first. The documentation was from a variety of
sources, including the Ford Foundation, the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), the University of the Philippines at Los Bafios (UPLB) and various other
support institutions. '

After the initial document review a roster of possible interview candidates was created.
The roster was compiled from a list of all members of the Upland Development Working
Group (UDWG) provided by DENR.’ Selection of those to be interviewed was based on
several factors. These include (1) length of time of individual involvement, (2) position held
in the program, (3) current position and (4) accessibility. Additional information concerning
selection of interviewees is included in the following section.

Next a list of possible question areas was created. The questions included areas of
interest to the Ford Foundation, Dr. del Castillo, and information to be used for this thesis.
The questions were designed to create a dialogue with the interviewee and were open-ended
in nature. Additional information concerning the type of questions used is contained in the
following section.

After interviews were completed a written summary of the findings was prepared.
This written document was presented to the Ford Foundation, Winrock International,

MUCIA, the Asia Regional Office of Winrock, Dr. del Castillo and the Department of

 

' A full list of support institutions is found in Appendix B.
’ The complete list appears in Appendix C.

17

Environment and Natural Resources. An oral presentation was also made to members of the

Upland Development Working Group at a seminar at DENR.

INTER VIE WEES .'

The fifteen interviews were conducted on a one-on—one basis and took place in ten
different locations. Some were conducted in the Ofiices of the interviewee, others in more
informal settings. Twelve of the interviews were with project professionals and three were
with farmers.

Interviewees were selected fiom a list provided by DENR consisting of members of
the Upland Development Working Group (UDWG). The list included individuals currently
involved in UDWG and previous members. Most individuals were selected fi'om this list.
However, others, not included on the list, were selected based on accessibility. Many in the
latter category were present at the Regional Review and Planning Workshop, held at Aclan
State College of Agriculture (ASCA). This conference was one of three conferences being
held during the summer of 1994. It served as an opportunity for a representative group to
gather and share ideas and plan for the next year of individual projects.

An attempt was also made to interview individuals from the various support
institutions and members of DENR stafi’. DENR personnel were selected based on positions
they represented. Efforts were made to contact personnel fi'om a variety of levels within the
bureaucracy. This included individuals from Central Office, Regional Offices and those

working in the field. This was done to obtain a wide representation of DENR personnel.

18

During the Workshop at ACLAN the researcher also talked with farmers involved in
UDP. These individuals were interviewed to allow the opinions of farmers to be included in
the report. It was felt farmers’ views would provide another dimension to the evaluation.
When looking at participation and accountability it is important to obtain the Opinions of those

the program was designed to benefit.

19

QUESTIONS:

Interviewees were asked a variety of questions. The questions were qualitative in
nature and designed to obtain information concerning personal perceptions of UDP.
Questions also focused on what the individuals felt should be included in an overall evaluation
of the DENR-UDP.

Interviewees were first asked to describe their involvement with UDP. This included
the organization they represent and how, if it were a support institution, it became involved
with DENR-UDP. They were asked the number of years they have been involved in the
program and in what capacity. During this portion of the interview they described the type of
committees, sub-committees and technical groups in which they participate.

Following this, interviewees were asked (1) what they felt was the purpose of UDP,
(2) who they felt the program was designed to benefit (3) and how successful the program
was in meeting those goals. If individuals felt the program was designed for more than one
audience, they were asked to describe the differences. This series of questions was designed
to determine the success of the program in meeting the expressed goals. These questions also
looked at the issues of client accountability and participation Of UDP. Was UDP meeting the
goals it was designed to meet? And, was it serving the clients it was designed to serve?

Next the interviewees were asked to describe the strengths of UDP. This included all
levels of the program. They were asked what factors make this program successful and why
they feel these factors are important. First they were asked to describe what they meant by

successful, and successfirl in comparison to what. The goal of this series of questions was to

20

determine factors which make UDP successful and understand the reasoning associated with
each factor.

Individuals were then asked to describe weaknesses of the program including areas
they felt needed improvement and why they felt these factors were weaknesses. Again, this
began by the individual interviewees describing what they meant by weakness, and what they
were comparing this program with to determine whether a weakness existed. The question
also probed for areas the individual felt were beyond the control of the program and how
these factors affected the program. Interviewees were encouraged to make recommendations
for improvements and how to implement these improvements.

For the purpose of a comprehensive evaluation individuals were asked to list factors
they felt should be included in an overall evaluation of the program. The purpose of these
questions was to assist in preparations for the evaluation. Difi’erent factors and types of
evaluation were discussed with individuals, giving them a chance to explain why these factors
should or should not be part of an overall evaluation.

The above categories of questions were put to the majority of interviewees. The only
difference was the type of questions asked of the farmers. The questions asked of these
individuals were more specific concerning personal involvement with UDP and how the
program affects their farms. Farmers were asked to describe what they felt UDP was all
about, how they felt UDP affected them and to describe some of the positive and negative
aspects of the program.

Again, all questions were asked on an open-ended basis, encouraging interviewees to

interpret the question as they saw fit. This allowed for interpretations by interviewees and a

21

more in-depth discussion than if closed-ended questions had been used. Notes were kept
during each interview, with a through summary of notations made immediately after each
concluded. Each of the interviews lasted approximately two hours, however, no

predetermined time frame was scheduled.

COMPILA TTON or RESPONSES:

The responses provided were compiled for the final report and are used in this
document. The identities of individuals making specific comments were concealed. This was
done in the spirit of intellectual integrity, and is a requirement of Michigan State University’s
Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects. Comments made by individuals are
grouped into categories with especially relevant comments included.

In this study responses to individual questions were examined with regard to
accountability and participation. Each item was assigned a numerical value, or score, on a
scale of one to ten. Each interviewee’s cumulative answers were given a ranking and assigned
a high or low status. This was done for the concept of accountability and separately for the
concept of participation.

The scores are then transferred to a four-square comparison table. This table consists
of categories for high and low participation, and high and low accountability. Each
interviewee's responses was transferred to the table, by assigning a value for the combination
of accountability and participation. Each of values falls into one of the boxes for each

respondent.

22

Comparisons are then made regarding the level of accountability and the level of
participation. These comparisons are used to make comments on the effectiveness of UDP
and overall comments regarding development. These comments and comparisons are

presented in the Results chapter of this thesis.

OPERA T'IONALIZ4 T ION OF DEFINITTONS USED:

For this study the issues of client accountability and participation have been chosen.
After the selection was made it was necessary to define the concepts and to make those
definitions operational. This was necessary because both terms are qualitative in nature and
definitions had to be measurable. The following is a brief discussion of the definitions chosen

and the operationalization of those definitions.

CLIENT ACCOUNTABILITY

As the literature review chapter indicates, the definition of accountability can vary
greatly from person to person. For this study client accountability refers to responsibility the
practitioner feels toward the client, or beneficiary of the program. In this study practitioner
is used to refer to a person who is working at the grassroots level of development. This
includes the person who has day-to-day contact with the clients and people working in the
ofiice where the program is administered.

In this study, client accountability is measured at the feeling and perception level of the
practitioner with regards to the client. For this study it is assumed that a practitioner with a

stronger feeling of accountability is more likely to make decisions which take the welfare of

23

the client into a greater account. It is also assumed that these decisions are more in line with
what the client feels is of a higher priority in the implementation of projects.

For this study the definition of client accountability is the responsibility the
practitioner feels toward the client, or beneficiary, and how this affects decisions made
regarding the project. This is a dimcult feeling or perception to measure for many reasons.
First, this is not a term which is familiar to many of those working in development. During
discussions with those working in UDP this became evident. Questions were designed to take
this ambiguity into consideration, allowing interviewees to determine and discuss how they
defined this concept. Other questions focused onwhere the design of the project originated;
how implementation was carried out by each individual project; and the level of flexibility
allowed at the national level. Questions were also asked regarding who the practitioner felt
the project was designed to benefit and to what degree they felt this had been achieved. Not
only were these types of questions asked but also Observations of activities were made and

project documentation was evaluated for evidence Of accountability to client.

PARTICIPATION:

The other major key concept which is addressed in this study is participation. This
phenomena appears in a wide variety of literature and is debated by many of those working in
the field. It is also an issue many of the large donor agencies, such as the World Bank and
USAlD as well as many small NGOs, are trying to address in project implementation. Again
participation is an issue many feel has many facets. There is the question of who will

participate, how to ensure those participating represent the community as a whole and how to

24

build the concept into projects. There are also matters of extent and depth of participation on
the part of each of the actors involved in the project.

For this study the definition of participation is the level of involvement individuals feel
s/he had in the project. This general definition allows for the analysis of participation at
various levels of a program. It is possible to examine the level the client feels s/he is part of in
the program and how those working at the national level feel involved. For this study there is
a comparison made of the intensity of participation at the various levels. Comparisons of
differences at various levels and the overall perceptions of how the various levels participate is
made.

To operationalize this definition, questions were designed to ascertain the level of
participation various actors in the program felt. The interviews included individuals at various
levels who were asked to describe the amount of participation they had in the program and
also the level of Others at varying levels. Questions focused on the input individuals felt they
had in the overall program, what areas of the program they felt they had the most control
over, and how they felt their input was received and acted upon by others in the program.
These questions were designed to measure the individual participation and consider how
individuals felt their input contributed to the overall program. The compilation of the

responses is reported in the Results section of this document, Chapter 5.

25

QUALITY
The other variable which appears in the hypothesis is quality. Quality is defined as

having a perceived positive outcome, or being viewed as a success. Programs which are
viewed to be successful meet the goals and objectives which they set out to meet. In order to
measure if a program is successfirl it is vital to look at the stated goals and measure the
outcomes of the program against these goals.

To measure quality in this program the interviewees were asked if they perceived the
program as a success. Frequently the answer to this question was a yes or no. However,
there then was a discussion as to the reasoning for this answer. Interviewees discussed why
they felt the program was successfirl and what they were comparing the program to when
making their judgments. They discussed this program in comparison to others they had been
afiiliated with and how it compared. Questions were then posed to determine the areas of the
program the interviewee felt were the most successfirl and areas where they felt there were
weaknesses. Questions focused on different aspects of the program and how these aspects
compared to the overall program quality. This allowed for determining if the areas mentioned
were. related to participation and accountability without using those terms during the
questioning.

Interviewees were also asked to discuss, in general terms, who the intended
beneficiaries of the program were and how the program meets the needs of those individuals.
During this segment of the questioning the interviewer paid particular attention to the
responses given, trying to determine if the interviewee was collaborating what was stated

earlier regarding success. The goal of this segment of questioning was to better understand

26

the level of success the interviewee felt regarding the program. The researcher understands
few individuals are willing to admit a program is unsuccessful, especially when directly
involved. However, by asking questions in different ways the researcher feels answers
provided were honest and an accurate measure of how the interviewees felt.

Interviewees were willing to discuss the Success of the program on an open basis. At
the beginning of each of the interviews the researcher told the interviewees their answers
would be held in confidence. One of the respondents stated she “did not care if Others found
out about her comments because these comments are normally discussed in meetings, between
members of the program, on a continuing basis.” This led the researcher to believe the
answers given were actually the answers the individuals felt and less of what the interviewee
thought the researcher wanted to hear.

Answers to the questions regarding quality, as well as participation and accountability,
are reported in Chapter 5 of this document. The questions also are used to test the
hypothesis stated: The level of accountability the practitioner feels toward the client
(client accountability) and the level of participation the client has in all phases of the

program is directly related to the pualigp ot progams developed.

27

Chapter 4

DESCRIPTION OF CASE

The Upland Development Program (UDP) is a multi-year project of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)’. The program originated in 1981 and is
scheduled to end in 1994. The purpose of the program is to develop participatory
approaches to upland management and strengthen institutional capabilities of the DENR for
effectively mobilizing farmer participation in social forestry projects (Briefing Kit 1994:1).
Although this is the stated goal of UDP there are many secondary goals. These include the
creation of differing agroforestry techniques, the development of process documentation and
methodologies for community organizing. These secondary goals are often as important as
the primary goal. As was evident during a conference held in the summer of 1994, the goal of
assisting the upland farmer is the goal which motivates many of those involved in the program.
The primary and secondary goals are discussed in greater depth in Chapter 5.

UDP has proceeded in three stages, each partially firnded by the Ford Foundation.
The initial stage, Exploratory/Diagnostic Research, began in January 1981 and was completed
in February 1983. During this stage other community-based social forestry projects were
examined. These included governmental and non-govemmental programs both within and

outside the Philippines. The purpose of this examination was to determine factors to serve as

 

’ DENR was originally known as the Bureau of Forest Development, then Forest Management Bureau.

28

inputs for UDP. During this phase a review and analysis of policies and laws afl‘ecting social
forestry was undertaken. Other major accomplishments during phase I include the
organization of a working group to facilitate the background research and visitation to some
of the other program areas by representatives of, what would become, the Upland
Development Working Group.

Stage H, action research, was conducted fi'om March 1983 until December 1988. This
stage consisted Of refinement of lessons gathered during stage I. Stage II particularly focused
on methodologies, including those related to agroforestry technologies, community appraisal,
community organization, process documentation, and project management. During this stage
three pilot "leaming" sites were established in the provinces of Oriental Mindoro, Cebu and
Zamboanga. These sites were used as learning grounds for DENR. The lessons the sites
provided were used for creation of policies for the department.

They also resulted in the creation of the preliminary version of the Implementatign
M] for Participatog ISF Projects'. This manual is used by not only the department but
by many other governmental and non-govemmental groups. The original three sites continue
to be learning grounds for UDP, with some of the most important lessons coming from these
areas. As one of those interviewed stated “the original three sites are providing information of '
what is to come for the newer sites.”

Stage 111, Limited Expansion Phase, began in January 1989 and is ongoing. This stage

focuses on field testing of the participatory fi'amework developed during the two previous

 

' ISF - Integrated Social Forestry.

29

stages. This stage also included expansion to thirteen new sites, one for each of the regions.
These sites were designed according to the Implementation Manual.

The expansion phase was undertaken in response to differing conditions within the
country. Not only are there physical difi’erences (i.e. soil types and precipitation), but also
cultural difi‘erences which affect implementation of ISF projects. As one of the farmers
interviewed stated, “we might be all Filipinos, but we come fiom different backgrounds.”
Being able to respond to the difi‘erences in demands is one aspect of implementation the
program strives to attain. Lessons learned during this expansion include many relating to
implementation and those concerning expansion itself.

Other key components of phase HI include the field testing of the participatory
framework for ISF including the field strategies} and methodologies based on the
Implementation Manual for Participatog ISF Projects (Briefing Kit 199421). The limited
expansion phase also focused of technical activities of the support institutions. These
activities included; agroforestry technical assistance from the University of the Philippines at
Los Bar'ios, social science research provided by De La Salle University, process monitoring
support by the Institute of Philippine Culture, and training and support for community
organizing activities by the Philippine Business for Social Progress.

The program supports community organizers, who live in the project site, and report
to the regional DENR ofiice. These individuals are not only responsible for reporting to the
regional offices but also provide technical support to the communities. This support includes
the introduction of agroforestry practices, farm-planning activities and formulation of

marketing strategies for groups of local farmers. The regional offices are responsible for

30

supporting the site and reporting to the national level. At the national level the central ofiice
is responsible for all the sites throughout the country.

The objectives of the Upland Development Program focus on strengthening the
capabilities of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. To accomplish this,
lessons from the sites and fi'om the review of other programs' policies and laws have shaped
policies for the agency. These policies were created by the Upland Development Working
Group, fi'equently in consultation with communities involved in implementation Of difi’ering
projects. The policy recommendations of UDWG have resulted in changes in legislation
regarding the management of the uplands. These recommendations have also be instrumental

in shaping the social forestry focus of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Upland Development Working Group:

The Upland Development Working Group (UDWG) is a multi-disciplinary group
whose main goal is to guide the DENR in a new direction (Gibbs, Payuan & del Castillo,
19902257). The working group consists of personnel fi'om DENR and members of support
institutions. These institutions include the University of the Philippines at Los Bailos,
Philippine Business for Social Progress, Institute of Philippine Culture, De la Salle University,
and the Visayas State College of Agriculture. According to a handout provided at the Acalan
conference the “working group concept is a method specifically developed to help
government agencies learn to use new, more participatory methods of working with their

client groups necessitated by a shift to community-based strategies for development.”

31

The working group was formed in 1980 with prompting fi'om the Ford Foundation.
Members of the group recognized the need to change the way the Uplands were managed.
Initially members of the group discussed issues on a one-to-one basis, eventually meeting on a
more formal basis. One of the unique aspects of the group was the respect members showed
for the other members. Although members came from a variety of fields, all recognized the
need for inclusion of other disciplines and the contributions to be made by each. As one of the
respondents stated this trans-disciplinary approach allows for the inclusion of not only the
“technical but also the inclusion of many other aspects of the program.” Another unique
aspect of the working group, as one respondent stated, is the participation of it’s members.
Unlike other inter-agency working groups those participating in this group did so “because
they were interested in making a difference in the type Of program the agency promoted.”
This respondent felt in other groups members participated because they were required to do
so, but this group consisted Of peOple with a genuine interest in making changes.

The role of the Ford Foundation was one of facilitator. By providing initial funding,
the Foundation encouraged people in different organizations to think about the need for
change, and come together to initiate new programs. There was a desire within Ford to
promote participatory forestry which was recognized as a goal of many Others within the
country. The representative from Ford was able to work as a “facilitator”, helping to promote
to formation of UDWG.

The group was set-up as part of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources to encourage the participation of agency personnel. This allowed the agency to

participate in reformulation of policies instead of having them presented by an outside group.

32

As one of the founding members of UDWG stated the placement of the group as part of the
agency has allowed members of the agency to “accept the changes presented because they
come fi'om within and belong to the agency, not forced ideas fi'om an outside group.”

Upland Development Program, through the Upland Development Working Group, has
produced a variety of publications used within and outside the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Based on lessons learned about policy creation UDWG has been
responsible for monitoring the learning sites and culling lessons to be used in firture policy
creation. UDWG has also pioneered the concepts of process documentation, participatory
forest management and the use of field experiences for the development of agency policy

within the Philippine? .

 

I List of Publications and other facts concerning UDP are found in Appendix D.

33

Chapter 5

RESULTS

In this section reports on the results of the interviews conducted for this study. The
responses are discussed in general terms, with specific references to participation and client
accountability. The responses support the hypothesis made that the level of accountability
the practitioner feels toward the client W and the level of
participation the client has in all phases of the program is directly related to the m
at programs developed. This type of intervention is discussed with examples cited from the
Upland Development Program.

One of the prominent outcomes Of this study was the difference in perception
concerning who the program was designed to benefit. Of those interviewed, only one
respondent mentioned the goal of the program as being the restructuring of the agency. The
others stated the goal of improving livelihoods of the upland farmers as the main goal of the
program.

The documentation on the program identifies restructuring of the agency as the
primary goal. However, many interviewed discussed the impossibility of restructuring without
participation by the farmers. They stated that if the goal was restructuring it had to take into
account the participation of the client. In the view of the majority of those interviewed, these,
two purposes could not be separated. In the view of those interviewed the program has been
successful at both levels. One respondent stated that the program has been able to “reshape

the agency,” allowing it to more effectively implement social forestry programs. Another

34

respondent stated the program has been able to make “social changes” within the communities
served. These changes have given communities a greater capacity for the implementation of
“better” farming practices, “ones which are more sustainable.”

As one interviewee stated, “the difference can be viewed as a difi‘ering of perceptions
at the micro-local level, and the macro-policy level”. Those focusing on the micro level stated
the program was designed to improve the livelihoods of the farmers, or more at the project
level. The person stating the restructuring of the agency as the major goal of the program was
focused on what he actually referred to as the “macro-level” of the program. Taking this
difference into account all respondents felt the program was meeting the intended goals,
whether this was the improvement in the livelihoods or the restructuring of an agency. This

study looks at both micro and macro level, because of responses ofi‘ered during the interview

process.

PARTICIPA ”ON

The definition of participation which is used for this study is the level of involvement
an individual feels they have in the project. Questions measured the level of involvement
the respondents felt they had in the program and the involvement they felt others had in the
program. Responses of the fifteen interviewees are shown, along with accountability, in table
1.1, located on page 43.

The participation of the client in the program is one aspect all persons interviewed felt
was a positive quality of the program. This program is designed to develop participatory

approaches to development and according to those interviewed it is meeting this goal. All

35

interviewees mentioned the ability of the client to participate in the program as the main
strength of UDP. As one respondent stated the difi‘ering technical committees “really know
what is going on out in the field;” they take “time to visit the sites.” These visitations allow
those working at various levels an overall knowledge of factors affecting implementation.
This program is touted, by many working in the field of development, as one of the few
successes of participatory approaches, not only in the Philippines, but throughout the region.

Participation by the client has been a goal of UDP since it began. The main purpose of
the program was to develop strategies for participation of clients in agency based programs.
Those interviewed said they felt the level of participation in the program was high. This
includes the participation Of farmers in decisions which afi‘ect them. Farmers are the ones who
make the decisions concerning their individual farms. They are able to decide what crops to
plant, what technologies to adopt, and the mix of these technologies and crops. Farmers
frequently work with other farmers in formulating “farm-plans.” These plans are developed
by individual farmers with help from UDP personnel. Farmers participate in farmer-tO-farmer
training where differing types of plans, implementation methods and time-flames are
discussed.

Others who participate in UDP included representatives fiom the support institutions.
It was felt by members of these institutions interviewed that the support institutions had high
input into the program. These institutions provide information concerning new technologies
and methods for improving the program. The support institutions provide technical expertise
in specific areas such as agroforestry or community organizing. The ability of the support

institutions to focus on individual aspects of the program allow for “greater concentration of

36

efforts,” as one interviewee stated. Involvement of such a diverse group of individuals allows
for better reporting from the field to the UDWG. The ideas expressed in the UDWG meetings
are turned into policy of the DENR. Policy changes are a manifestation of the participation of
members at various levels, as stated by numerous individuals interviewed.

There are several factors built into the program to help facilitate this participation. A
major factor which encourages participation is the personnel of the program. One way the
program encourages participation of the client, the farmer, is through the Forest Community
Organizer (F CO). These individuals live in the community and are responsible for assisting in
implementation of projects. Individual projects are designed by the farmers who live in the
site area. The farmers decide what will be the focus of the project and how to implement
those ideas. The Forest Community Organizers, UDP and the support institutions help the
farmers to turn their plans into action.

The FCOs demonstrate new and different technologies to the community on
demonstration plots on government owned lands. The plots are located in individual
communities, situated to allow community observation of the techniques. One F CO stated the
ability to demonstrate differing technologies allows community members to “realize it is not so
dificult to implement technologies which have long-term benefits on individual farms.” He
also stated that usually within a month of demonstrating a new technique there is a “flood of
requests for assistance on individual farms.”

The F COS are employed by the regional offices of DENR. One benefit of the presence
of the F C05 is the ability to observe and understand the needs of the community. This is

accomplished because the individual lives in the community and is able to observe activities

37

over a long period of time. This observation allows them to avoid what is referred to as
development tourism. This phenomenon occurs when individuals fi'om outside visit and make
evaluations based on short visits. Longer term Observation allows the F CO to better
understand what is taking place within each community. One FCO stated she felt living. in the
community allowed her to have an insight which those from the regional ofiice could not
understand.

The presence of the FCOs within the community allows the farmers from the project
site to participate in decisions relating to the program. They are able to communicate with the
FCO about implementing different technologies and the need for assistance. This assistance
may concern adoption of a new technique, additional assistance needed on individual farms, or
providing information concerning other aspects of the project. The FCO is able to provide or
obtain assistance in helping solve problems.

One drawback of the F CO position, as mentioned by a few interviewed, is that they
are usually not from the community. In this respect they are actually outsiders. They are
usually fiom other parts of the country and are employed by the national government. This
can cause problems because the FCO is in a career position and individuals are concerned
about promotions and advancement within the agency. This creates pressure to make the
projects look good. This may manifest itself in the reports written and results reported.
However, one FCO stated he felt he is the representative of the farmers and this is where his
“loyalties” lie, which affects the way he operates within the program.

On the plus side, the F CO is a conduit for the participation of the local farmers in the

entire program. They take the needs of the farmers to heart and are able to report these to the

38

regional level of the agency, which in turn reports them to the national level. Many initiatives
the program implements originated at the local project level. These initiatives are frequently
disseminated to other projects throughout the nation. The benefits which one community may
get fi'om a new aspect of the program can be shared With other projects.

Another way the program encourages the participation of the farmers is with meetings
and seminars. The workshop held at Aclan is an example of this sharing of information. Each
group of farmers and project staff were able to discuss ideas concerning successes and failures
they had encountered. This discussion was observed and participated in by members of other
projects and stafi‘ members from the local, regional, and national level. When ideas emerged,
participants were able to talk with the farmers and others about how this could help solve a
problem in a different site.

An example of this is a discussion of the success of one program in the marketing of a
cash crop. Members of one of the sites spoke about the ability of their cooperative to market
spring onions in the local market. This crop is viewed as a high value crop with a high
demand. Members of other regions were able to ask questions regarding the growing,
marketing and value of ‘ the crop, with some discussing ways to get “sets” for production on
their farms. One of the farmers present, from the site of the spring onions, even discussed his
ability to visit the other site and “show the farmers there how to grow the onions.” There was
also discussion regarding the visitation of farmers to the cooperative with the onions to
observe the growing and processing of the crop. This discussion focused attention on the

needs of the individual farm groups as one of the primary goals of the program.

39

Another aspect of this program which helps ensure participation of the client is the
Upland Development Working Group (UDWG). The group is multi-disciplinary with the main
goal of guiding the DENR in a new direction. The group also provides another way for the
clients to participate in the restructuring of the organization.

The position of the working group in the organizational structure of the agency allows
it to act as an advocate for the clients. UDWG is located at the national level of the agency.
The group reports directly to the minister for social forestry. Of the fifteen persons
interviewed, twelve stated the working group serving as a conduit for ideas from project sites
and integration into the program is an aspect of the program which adds to its quality. One
interviewee stated the “accessibility of UDWG to all members of the program” as one of the
programs greatest strengths.

The F COs interviewed stated they felt comfortable communicating with members of
the working group and this communication produced results. As one respondent stated “we
are able to meet with anyone in the program and discuss items of importance to us.”
Members of the working group come from a variety of academic disciplines (i.e. Sociology,
Forestry, Psychology, Biology) allowing for a “broader understanding of differing aspects of
the program.”

UDWG is an entity which is incorporated into the organizational structure of the
agency. The committee is responsible to the undersecretary for social forestry programs. The
committee is an official part of the organization but is able to work independently of many of
the political struggles of the agency. This allows for greater autonomy and effective decision

making. Because it is made up of members of various institutions, who are accountable to

40

their individual agencies, they are able to make decisions and recommendations which might
not be able to be made by employees of DENR. This inability to make decisions may be
related to infighting within the agency or concerns agency employees have with the possibility
of loosing their jobs.

One concern expressed regarding the participation of all stakeholders in UDP is the
financial control of the program. Even though each project is responsible for implementation,
the money is controlled at the national level. This affects individual projects and employees
working at various levels. The individuals have to go to the national level to get moneys
needed for implementation of projects.

One goal of the individual projects is self-sufficiency. It is also an overall goal of the
program to have the farmers able to provide necessary funds and not be dependent on national
government support. To do this most projects encourage income generating activities. These
activities allow farmers to purchase inputs needed and have money for other activities they
feel are important to the community, such as a truck for transportation of goods and people to

the regional center, or books and supplies for the school or health center.

41

CLIENTA CCOUNTABILITY

The definition Of client accountability that is used in this study is the responsibility
the practitioner feels toward the client, or beneficiary, of the program. Table 1.1 on
page 43 shows the responses for this variable along with the other one measured.

As with the creation of a definition for accountability, the measuring of this concept
proved difiicult. It was dificult to get the interviewees to agree on a definition of the
concept. Many interviewed felt the concept referred to the financial management of the
program. Because there was such a disparity on the overall goals of the program it was
dificult to assess accountability of those involved measured against the overall goal. Because
of this, the researcher decided to concentrate on the goal of improving the livelihoods of the
upland farmers as the goal against which to compare accountability.

A5 with participation the responses for accountability are divided into two categories,
high and low. This was done by assigning a numeric value, on a scale of one to ten, to each
respondent's answers. The responses from the interviewees regarding accountability fall along
the dividing line of the two categories. Approximately 80% of the respondents fall into the 6
and 7 range. If there were a medium category for the level of accountability then this is where
the majority of the respondents would fall. Those interviewed felt the program held the
interest of the farmer above all else. One respondent stated that she was “in the program to
represent the uplanders.” Because of statements like this it is felt the interest of the upland
farmer drives decisions made at all levels of the program, consistent with the restructuring of

the agency in terms of greater participation.

42

Table 1.1
Representation of responses for Accountability and Participation

 

High Accountability Low Accountability
x x x x x x
Hm" xxxx
Participation x x x
x x

 

Low
Participation

 

 

 

 

For there to be greater participation of the stakeholders in the program there had to be
accountability of those individuals at various levels. Some factors of the program which
allowed it to be accountable to the client were the inclusion of various actors in the decision
process, the ability for comments of farmers to be heard at all levels of the program, and
formulation of policy based on these comments. Many of these changes are the results of the
working group.

The majority of UDWG members interviewed stated one of their individual goals was
to be accessible to the farmers. To accomplish this UDWG members were either available
through the F CO or at meetings where representatives of various stakeholder groups were
present. UDWG members interviewed stated the best inputs they received came fiom those
working in the field. These inputs were discussed by members of the group and turned into
policies for the agency. Frequently different members of the working group visit sites and
discuss aspects of the program with members of individual communities. One interviewee
stated these visits are the main reason he “had an understanding of what is going on in so
many parts of the country.” Not only were the members of UDWG able to visit the sites they
also have open frequent communication with the FCOs. The ability of the FCO to
communicate fieely with members of UDWG was a positive aspect of the program, according
to one Of the FCOS interviewed.

The presence of the FCO in the project sites allows the community to hold the
program accountable for actions taken. If the community feels the program is not meeting
their needs they can express this to the FCO. The FCC is then able to communicate this to

the Regional office and in turn to the National oflice. One of the farmers interviewed stated

that she had talked to the FCO about getting “better transportation for her crops” and “he was
able to help her find a driver who was going to the market-town and get him to stop for her
crops.” The theory behind the FCOs presence is to ensure the needs of the client are being
served. This feedback gives farmers a say in decisions with regards to meeting the needs of
the community. This feedback is used by UDWG, and UDP in general, to make changes in
policy at the national level. As stated by one group member “the number of policy changes
which have been made to the agency are an effective measure of the success of UD .”

Those F COS interviewed stated the main reason they were involved was because of
the type of program. The unique ability of the client to participate in the program and the
ability of members of UDWG to represent the client in decisions afi‘ecting the client were the
main reasons they were involved. The program flexibility and the ability of the farmers to
make decisions which affect the implementation were also reasons those interviewed felt the

program was accountable to the client.

45

Chapter 6

C ON CL USIONSMEL‘OMMENDA T I ONS

CONCLUSIONS:

Does participation by the client and accountability to the client affect the quality of
international development programs? It is the conclusion of the researcher that the answer to
this question is yes. From the literature cited and class material covered this could have been
assumed before cOnducting the research. However, the research supports the hypothesis
explored in this study: The level of accountability the practitioner feels toward the client
(client accountabiligp) and the level of participation the client has in all phases of the
program ARE directly related to the pualig‘p at programs developed.

These statements are supported by the responses which were given during the
interviews. UDP has developed many mechanisms to include the client in the program and
this inclusion has improved the quality of the program. This was an observation made not
only by those working at the National level but also by the farmers whose lands are part of the

program.

46

RE COMMENDA TIONS:

The clients are the ones most afi‘ected by programs and should have input in all phases
of the development process. Practitioners responsible for implementation of programs need to
take the interests of the client into account. “fithout the inclusion of the client and a degree of
accountability on the part of the practitioner, development efl’orts are doomed to repeat past
failures.

During initial planning it is important to evaluate and incorporate the knowledge of the
clients into implementation strategies. The knowledge possessed by the client adds to the
quality of the program and affects the likelihood for sustainability. Using this knowledge
allows programs to build on this base instead of recreating systems which may already exist.

The implementation of programs should allow clients to have more than the traditional
manual labor role. Each project is something the client will live with even after the program
ends. To ensure program sustainability it is important to encourage client development of
programs in a way the client feels is appropriate. It is vital to develop programs which meet
the expressed needs of the client. This is a change from some of the past development
practices. In the past many programs were top-down driven. There now needs to be a
change toward more bottom-up programming. These changes will allow programs to be more
responsive to the needs of the client and less driven by desires of outside donor organizations.

The monitoring and evaluation of the entire development process needs to include the
clients to ensure that their needs are being met. Who better to know what programs should

entail than the clients themselves? With continual monitoring and evaluation it is possible to

47

make adjustment to the program, in mid-course, if deemed necessary. These adjustments
allow for refocusing of efi‘orts to ensure the accomplishing of expressed goals.

The only way to make sure the above mentioned changes are implemented is for the
outsider, or practitioner, to be accountable to the client. If the accountability of the
practitioner is to the donor the most likely results will be programs which do not meet the
needs of the client. And isn’t meeting those needs the real reason for development activities in
the first place?

Greater accountability to the cheats also helps ensure that the client has a say in the
type of program developed this allows for greater ability of the clients to determine activities
which will take place within their community. It also fosters a better understanding of
activities which allow the client to develop. This development can include improved farming
techniques, better health and nutrition for community members, or improvement in the client's

ability to meet their own needs.

LIMITA IroNs OF THE STUD Y:

The main limitation of this study is that it was conducted within a minimal amount of
time in the Philippines. The researcher was given only one month to prepare to go to the
field. This was because this study was conducted as a supplement to another project. The
primary project the researcher worked on was the MU CIA internship with Winrock
International. A longer preparation time would have allowed for a more in-depth background

investigation of UDP. It would havealso allowed for creation and testing of a survey to be

48

used during the interviews. Both of these factors, and many more, would have been able to be
addressed with more preparation time.

After arriving in the Philippines the researcher, along with the assistance of many
people, determined the substance of the research and how to include this research into the
study. Because the researcher was only in-country for three months, this all had to be
accomplished with haste. More time for preparation would have allowed for it to be possible
to conduct more background work and be better prepared for executing the interviews.

The majority of the interviews were conducted with people present at one of the
meetings the researcher attended. This included meetings at DENR and the conference held
at Aclan. The fact that the people spoken with were attending meetings arranged by UDP
may have led to biased responses. This bias is probably in the favor of the project. With more
time for conducting the study it might have been possible to speak with members of the
support institutions who did not attend meetings. It might have also been possible to speak
with more farmers and get the inputs of other members of the field stafi’. Unfortunately, due
to shortages of time and funding, the researcher was unable to make a more thorough

canvassing of stakeholders in the program.

RECOMMENDA HONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:
The conclusion of this study is that UDP is a quality program which has proven
successful in comparison to many programs and projects discussed in development literature;

The program is stafi‘ed by many caring, concerned individuals, who feel the cheats are the

49

reason for the program's existence. However, changes taking place within the country are
affecting this program.

The main change is the Local Government Code of 1992. This code relates to the
devolution of programs fi'om the national level to the individual local government units
(LGU). The code came about at the end of the Aquino administration and was part of the
“people-power” revolution which swept her into ofice. The code devolves numerous
functions of the national government to the local level. It is up to LGUs to decide what will
receive support and to what level.

Because UDP is a program supported by outside funds it has yet to be devolved.
However, the fimds are about to end at which time the program will be devolved to the local
level. With one of the goals of the program the restructuring of a national level agency, what
will happen when devolution takes place? This important question has only been superficially
addressed by those involved in the program. As one interviewee stated ‘er have no idea
how, or if, the lessons learned during the last 12 years of UDP are going to be transferred to
the local level”. The concern of this individual was the possibility that everything the program
has accomplished will be lost when the program is devolved.

There is a great potential for research in the area of this devolution. What happens
when a national level program, such as UDP, is transferred to the local level? Does it
continue or are the funds reallocated toward something the local government unit sees as
more vital? It would also be possible to examine how a program which has been touted as
participatory in nature fares with the transition to local government control. The ways in

which the accountability to the client changes when the program is not controlled at the

50

national level is another potential area for study. Looking at UDP in five, ten, or fifteen years

would possibly provide answers to these questions.

51

Chapter 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Briefing Kit on the Upland Development Program, May 1994, provided by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, unpublished,.

Alfonso, Felipe B.
1986 Empowering Rural Communities, in Beyond Bureaucracy: Strategic
Management of Social Development, Ickis, de Jesus and Maru, editors; Kumarian
Press: West Hartford, Connecticut.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language; 3rd. edition, Houghton and Mifilin
Company, Boston, MA., 1992.

Arkofi‘, Russell L.
1984 On the Nature of Development and Planning, in People Centered
Development Contributions Toward Theory and Planning Frameworks, Korten
and Klauss, editors; Kumarian Press: West Hartford, Connecticut.

Axinn, George H.;
1990 Accountability and Agricultural Research, Eastern India Farming Systems
Research and Extension News Letter, Vol. IV, No. 2, pp. 7-10.

Bhatnagar and Williams, editors
1992 Participatory DeveIOpment and the World Bank: Potential Directions for
Change, World Bank Discussion Papers # 183, Washington DC.

Bryant, C. & White, LG.
1984 Managing Rural Development with Small Farmers Participation, Kumarian
Press: West Hartford, Connecticut,.

Cernea, Michael; editor,
1991 Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development, second
edition, World Bank Publication by Oxford University Press: New York.

Chambers, Robert
1993 Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development, Intermediate
Technology Publications: London.

52

Chambers, Robert
1983 Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longrnan, Inc.: New York.

Clark, John
1991 Democratizing Development The Role of Voluntary Organizations,

Kumarian Press: West Hartford, Connecticut.

Cohen, J .M. & Uphoff, NT.
1977 Rural Development Participation: Concepts and Measures for Project

Design, Implementation, and Evaluation, Rural Development Monograph No. 2:
Cornell University.

George, Susan
1992 The Debt Boomerang: Westview Press, Inc. Boulder, CO.

Ghartey, IR
1987 Crisis Accountability and Development in the Third World: The Case of

Africa, Gower Publishing: Brookfield, VT.

Ghartey, James B.
1986 Consolidating Accountability for Development in Africa, Working Paper No.

16, Afiican Studies Center, Boston University.

Gibbs, Christopher, Edwin Payuan and Romulo del Castillo
1990 The Growth of the Philippine Social Forestry Program, in Keepers of the
Forest: Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia, Mark Poffenberger,
ed., Kumarian Press: West Hartford, Connecticut, pgs. 253-265.

Knippers-Black, Jan
1991 Development in Theory and Practice: Bridging the Gap, Westview Press:
Boulder Colorado.

Korten, David C., Rudi Klauss, editors
1984 People Centered Development Contributions Toward Theory and Planning
Frameworks, Kumarian Press: West Hartford, Connecticut,.

Korten, David C.
1984 Rural Development Programming: The Learning Process Approach, in People .
Centered Development Contributions Toward Theory and Planning
Frameworks, Korten and Klauss, editors, Kumarian Press: West Hartford,
Connecticut.

53

Korten, David C.
1986 Strategic Organization for People-Centered Development, in Beyond
Bureaucracy: Strategic Management of Social Development, Ickis, de Jesus and
Maru, editors Kumarian Press: West Hartford, Connecticut,.

Korten, Frances F.
1989 The Working Group as a Catalyst for Organizational Change, in Transforming
A Bureaucracy: The Experience of The Philippine National Irrigation
Administration, Korten and Siy, editors Anteneo de Manila University Press, Quezon
City, Philippines.

Kothari, Rajni
1988 Rethinking Development: In Search of Humane Alternatives, Ajanta
Publications: Delhi, India.

Lineberry, William P. editor
1989 Assessing Participatory Development Rhetoric Versus Reality, Westview
Press: Boulder, Colorado.

Midgley, James, et al
1986 Community Participation, Social Development and the State; Methuen and
Company Publishing: London.

Owens, Edgar, Robert Shaw, editors
1972 Development Reconsidered: Bridging the Gap Between Government and
People, D.C. Heath and Company: Lexington, Massachusetts.

Paul, Samuel
1991 Strengthening Public Service Accountability: A Conceptual Framework,
World Bank Discussion Paper #136, Washington, DC.

The Challenge to the South:
1990 The Report of the South Commission, Oxford University Press: New York.

United Nations Economic Commission for Afiica

1991 Public Participation In Development Planning and Management, United
Nations Economic and Social Council.

54

Uphofi‘, Norman
1986 Local Institutional Development: An Analytical Sourcebook with Cases,
Kumarian Press: West Hartford, Connecticut,.

World Bank
1994 Poverty Reduction in South Asia: Promoting Participation by the Poor,
Report on an Informal Workshop C o-Sponsored by the World Bank and the South
Asia Association for Regional Cooperation, The World Bank, Washington, DC.

55

APPENDIX A

Additional information concerning Winrock International Institute for Agricultural
Development"

Winrock is an autonomous, nonprofit organization whose activities are funded by grants,
contracts and contributions fiom public and private sources. It mission statement is:

Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development seeks to reduce
poverty and hunger in the world through sustainable agricultural and rural
development and enhancement of the rural environment and natural resource
base. Winrock helps people expand their institutional and human resources,
design and implement environmentally sensitive, sustainable, agricultural
systems and improves policies for agricultural and rural development.

In describing how Winrock achieves its mission, Robert Thompson, erock's President
states the following:

The ways that Winrock attempts to expand food production and rural
employment while protecting the environment include the following:

0 We train researchers and trainers, who in turn work directly with the farmers -- the
ultimate beneficiaries.

0 We strengthen institutions that help educate, conduct research, transfer technology, and
analyze policies.

0 We develop human resources. We participate in educating and preparing individuals to
identify and overcome barriers to development within their own countries.

0 We provide policy analysis and assistance. We help governments examine how their
existing laws and regulations affect rural people and whether or not they impede food
production.

For more information about Winrock International, call or write:

Winrock International Headquarters
Route 3, Box 376

Morrilton, AR 72110-9537, USA
(501)727-5435

 

* All of the information provided in this appendix was taken from "Charting the Course, Winrock
International Annual Report, 1993” (Winrock International, 1993)

56

APPENDIX B

SUPPORT INSTITUTIONS:

Center for Forestry Education and Development, UPLB/FAO
Department Of Social Forestry (UPLB)

Ford Foundation

Forestry Development Center

Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University
Integrated Research Centre, De La Salle University
Philippine Association for Intercultural Development
Program for Environment Science and Management
University of the Philippines at Los Baiios - Forestry

Vrsayas State College of Agriculture

57

APPENDIX C

The following is a list of names of past and current members of the Upland Development
Working Group provided by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. It lists
the names of the institution and the people who have participated in the Working Group.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

Mr. Jesus B. Alverez, Jr.
Atty. Lope D. Reyes
Vincente C. Magno
Antonio G. Principe
Isidoro D. Esreban
Artemino A. Claeda
Eufresima L. Boado
Alejandro B. Salinas, Jr.
Edwin V. Payuan
Rodolfo M. Leal

Elvira N. Enables

Atty. Owen J. Lynch
Isaias M. Domingo
Cirilo B. Serna

Melanio M. Gacoscosirn
Nicetas B. Bautista
Jose L. Lechonito
Gerondio Panong
Victor 0. Ramos
Rolando L. Metin
Ricardo M. UmaliCirilo B. Serna
Christina Gates

Romon JP Paje

Romeo T. Acosta

Lirio T. Abuyan
Gregorio Magdaraog
Renato de Rueda
Bernardo Agaloas
Elisea Gozun

Reynaldo Bayabos
Doming T. Bacalla

Ana Rose DF Opena
Pedro G. Pangilinan
Emilio Rosario

Rafael Camat

58

Institute of Phili ine Culture C
Ms. Perla Q. Makil

Mr. Filomeno V. Agular, Jr.

Dr. Wilfredo Arce

Salve B. Borlagdan

Dr. Romena de los Reyes

Sylvia J Opillo

Dela Salle University (QLSQ)
Rosemary Aquino

Benjamin C. Bemales

Mr. Angelito dela Vega
Trinidad Osteria

Ma. Elena Chiong-Javier

Dr. Robert Salazar

Ma. Victoria Pilar Saban

Universi of the Phili ines at Los Bar‘ios-Fores LB-F
Dr. Lucercio L. Rebugio -

Dr. Adolfo V. Revilla, Jr.

Dr. Perry E. Sajise

Dr. Senesio M. Mariano

Dr. Corazon Lamug

Dr. Rodel Lasco

Prof. Nestor Lawas

Ford Foundation

Dr. Christopher Gibbs

Dr. Romulo A. del Castillo
Dr. Frances Korten

Dr. Mary Racelis

Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID)
Mr. Benjamin C. Bagadion, Jr.

Winky Fernandez

59

Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP)
Jamie Aristole Alip

Ramon A Derige

Jose Abraham Ongkiko

Janet Bobadillo

Emily Rosario

Appendix D
Additional Information concerning UDP.+

Manual and Materials developed by UDP:

Implementation Manual for Participath ISF Projects, 1989

Agrofores_ty Technology Information Kit, 1990

Handbook on Commqu Training Proggams for Pgticipptogy ISF, 1991
Handbopk on Commqu Profiling for Ppople—Qripnted Foreggy Projects, 1991

UDP Site Profile

Location M (13)
Banangan, Sablan,

Benguet 688
Liquicia, Caba,

La Union 296
Villa Ylanan,

Maddela, Quirino 450
Longos, Cabangan,

Zarnbales 77.76
Malan-og, Mansalay

Oriental Mindoro 1750
Parang ng Buho

Sta. Maria, Laguna » 270
Genitigan,

Baras, Cantanduanes 261
Dagsaan, Buenavista,

Guimara 379

 

* Information provided in the appendix was furnished by DENR, in the Breifing Kit, 1994.

Emma
Nug-as, Alcoy
Cebu

Catrnondaan,
Catmon, Cebu

Carnansihay
Tacloban City, Leyte

Anuling-Balintawak
Parnucutan,
Zarnboanga City

San Isidro, Labason
Zarnboanga del Norte

Sungay, Alubijid
Misamis, Oriental

Upper Bala, Magsaysay
Davao del Sur

Manirub, Parnantingan,
Esperanze,
Sultan Kudarat

ilzsihal

356

213

1135

240

532

500

625

246

62

 

 

 

.
n
-
v
yo
0 ..
e

 

o
u
e
..
I
. u
.o-
o 0‘.
I
o
o
. o
.e'
. .
. .
no-
..~‘
.1
e
.--
o
e
. u
n -
t
n
o
o
u
e
e
o
e
o
o

 

. u .-
-
u. -
-o
l . . .
. ..
I
I
n - a
. .
. .
. . o
. e
| a
. n
.o '
a e
a
u
e
a
..
' u
u
n. .
a
o
.o. I
o
e
' .
v
' .
. .. ..
. .
_ .
o
..
' . .. .
...
. . . -
e a - -
, a
l
. .. .
. o
. .
- .
. Z
.. ,
. . ~¢ .
I .
. . o
. . .
. e
. o
.- .. . .
. . .
. ..
. o ‘
. ~‘
. n
. n .
e
o
o
, u
. .
. o. -
. ., . .. .
. u
, o
I
_ ... e
. .
o
.. .
. .
. ..
' o
._
.u -- - ' ' ‘
.o
- c
. a
-- ‘
. o
. o .
. .
.. e 2
o
.o
o
- . n
, n
. o
I . .
a
. .
o .
o
e
. . o
e
0- '
u
o
u
. .
P C
e

 

 

 

UNI.Flt)iiv

lllllillllllil'll

 

1293 02579 0456

o
o
.
. _
. o .
. . e
. .
. o
a
. .
a
o
. .
. . .
. .
. n
. o
c
. .
e
o
l
r
A . .
a
.