02_Workshop 1_Assessing Participation Final

7/31/2019 02_Workshop 1_Assessing Participation Final

1/9

Summing Conferences on the 2012 BUB

Office of the President of the Philippines

National Anti-Poverty Commission

WORKSHOP 1


2/9




Assessing whathappened

Participation and

representation inthe LPRAP

The role ofNGAs/RPRATs

Looking forward towhat will be

How do we know if

we are successful Our suggestions to

improve the BUB


3/9




Information is

freely available for those who will be

affected by decisions

adequate, relevant, easily

understandable

Decision-making and enforcementfollow set rules and regulations, thus

make for predictable governance

behavior


4/9




Powerholders and authority answer for their

actions towards those affected by the formers

decisions and actions

Government officials are responsive to the

needs of the citizens from whom their power is

derived and subject themselves to monitoring.

A system of performance measurement,

feedback, grievance, redress mechanisms are in

place and functioning


5/9




A process, not an event, by which stakeholders

influence and share control over prioritysetting, policymaking, resource allocations,

and/or programme implementation

Voices of different stakeholders are heard and

included

Concrete roles and contributions of the most

marginalized and affected groups are

integrated into the various initiatives to

improve their conditions

Citizens are free to associate, capacitate


6/9




No participation

Adelfo V. Briones, MA 7


7/9




INFORMATION. People answer survey teams questions,

no follow up.

CONSULTATION. People answer questions but outsiders

define design.

INCENTIVES. People work for cash, food, etc.

FUNCTIONAL. Decisions by outsiders, groups form to meet

objectives.

INTERACTIVE. Joint analysis and decisions for actions,

monitors, etc.

SELF-MOBILIZATION. Initiatives taken independently

from official institutions.

PASSIVE. People are told what will happen.


8/9




By the end of Workshop 1, we should be able to:

1. Determine the extent of CSO, basic sector, and citizengroup PARTICIPATIONand REPRESENTATIONinthe crafting of the LPRAPs

2. Clarify whether the crafting of the LPRAPs was aproduct ofINFORMED DECISION-MAKING

3. Determine the extent to which STAKEHOLDERSparticipated in the PRIORITY-SETTING during

planning4. Identify the CONSTRAINTSin the crafting of the

LPRAPs

Workshop 1 Objectives

ASSESSING PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION IN THE BUBs


9/9




Participatory Factors in the BUB

What were

the

constraints?

Com-

ments

Presence of CSOs/basic

sector/CGs that

participated in LPRAP?

(number & sectoral

representation)

0 = Dont know | 1 = None

2 = A few | 3 = Substantial

Why the rating?

Informeddecision

making?

Participation ofStakeholders in

priority setting during

planning?

0 = Dont know | 1 = Never

2 = Sometimes | 3 = Yes

Why the rating?

1. LGUs

3

BMC/CCAGG, Jeepney Assn.,

4Ps parent leader, Irrig.

Association, Womens

Organization, Anti Destroyer

Org., Religious Org.

-Present/Participated

3, The data

being used are

from CBMS,

PIP

And AIP

which are

updated

yearly. Thesedata were

validated and

monitored by

the CMOs of

the CCAGG

and

representative

s of local CSOs

3 Participated by BDC,

Municipal and Provl CSOs so

with other sectoral

representatives.

Time too short

-submission was

only 3 days after

the orientation

(Apr. 19, 2012)

Consider a

longer time

frame next

time.

2. CSOs,

basicsectors,

CGs

3- Yes Priorities are based

from inter-angency priority

plans.

Due to the limited

time, other

agencies were not

able to catch up to

input their priorityprojects. And

programs (i e

-do-3. RPRAT/

NGAs

-DILG, DA, DOH, DepEd-Participated

NAPC Provl Coor. participated

Workshop 1

Documents

02_Workshop 1_Assessing Participation Final