by Dr. Giovanni Tapang, Chairperson
Council for People's Development and Governance (CPDG)
Context and Process of Establishment
The Philippines-Canada Human Resources Development Program (PCHRD) is a five-year program that formally began in March 1990. It received a funding commitment of C$ 15 million from the Canadian International Development Assistance (CIDA). It was the first recipient-driven grant from the Official Development Assistance (ODA) that was directly given to non-government organizations (NGOs) to manage and which focused on human resource development for NGOs and people’s organizations (POs). It was recognized by both the NGOs and government as “the first ODA program for the Philippines that was formulated, planned, implemented and monitored by a broad-based consortium of Canadian and Philippine development NGOs.” [1]
Two main factors propelled the formation of PCHRD: the changes in the political set-up of the Philippine government, and the shift in Canadian aid policy towards the Philippines. The events of February 1986 marked the end of two decades of dictatorship under former Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos and ushered in a democratic government under Corazon C. Aquino. At this historical juncture, development funds poured in, helpingcatalyze the formation, consolidation and expansion of NGOs. In addition, opportunities for collaborative undertakings evolved as many NGOs and POs showed a willingness to set aside their differences in political persuasions and showed openness to work together and with the Aquino government which enjoyed support from the international development community. Canada was one of the foreign governments which expressed immediate support as early as 1986.
Prior to this, there was no bilateral aid program between Canada and the Philippines With the commitment of full bilateral aid to the Philippines, the Canadian government, through the CIDA, developed its aid program through a country program review which served as the basis for the application of the aid money. “CIDA needed the country program to gain wider acceptance from both Canadian and Philippine NGOs in order to increase the probability of successful implementation of development aid projects and programs.” [2] In addition, with the decentralization policy of CIDA, its country field office was able to relate with a broader range of NGOs. In the past, CIDA was heavily criticized by both Canadian NGOs and their partners in the Philippines for its two projects (i.e., the Negros Relief and Development Fund and Philippine Development Assistance Program) for lack of broad-based NGO and PO participation.
As part of developing the country program, CIDA organized a national consultation in 1988 in Tagaytay, which involved various NGO and PO networks of diverse ideological and political persuasions. During this event, the idea of partnership and human resource development for Philippine NGOs and POs emerged. In addition, the delegates also agreed that relationships between the Philippine and Canadian groups must be broadened and strengthened. This consultation was followed by more studies, planning and consultations until the PCHRD was created and operated from 1990- 1995. Later, the program was extended to two more years and ended on December, 1996. During the two-year extension period, a summing up activity on the PCHRD experience was conducted. It also held public accountability expositions in 1995 in the Philippines and Canada to present the experiences and results of the PCHRD to the program’s public—development communities, governments and citizens.
Overview of PCHRD’s Work
The PCHRD was a program that sought “to develop the institutional capacity of the Philippine and Canadian NGO and PO communities for a just, participatory and sustainable development through human resource development, partnership, and development advocacy. It was committed to developing the capability of NGOs and POs to create and promote alternative social structures and relations guided by the principles of people’s participation and self-determination” [3]. The themes addressed were gender and development, environment, economic empowerment, institutional building, community empowerment, peace, human rights, and good governance.
The Philippine Program and Canadian Program had the following components:
1.Responsive Component: In the Philippine, this intended to respond to specific human resource development needs of NGOs and POs, and these were carried out by the individual NGOs and POs themselves. In Canada, this was called the Partnership Development Fund which provided grants for projects that developed relationships of mutual support between Philippine and Canadian NGOs, POs and solidarity groups;
2.Proactive Component: In the Philippines, this aimed to support coalition building by addressing common needs of member-networks;
3.Joint Proactive Program: This sought to develop partnership based on mutual solidarity. Projects funded under this component responded to needs common to both the Philippine and Canadian NGO/PO community such as research, training and exchange.
The program strategies of PCHRD were the following:
1.Institutional Building: Focused on organizational development assistance (such as strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation framework setting), network building, information management, and program/project management and development;
2.Coalition Building: Involved partnership building among NGOs and POs, partnership building with other players (such as NGO-government organizations, NGO-academe), policy advocacy, and mainstreaming;
3.Capability Building: Dealt with the development and enhancement of knowledge and skills of NGOs and POs at the personal, professional and organizational level.
The PCHRD funded a total of 1,066 projects (?) which directly benefited 15,000 individuals (?). The beneficiaries were largely members of NGOs and PO partners of the Philippine-Canadian Joint Committee (below). However, it also extended fund support to non-members. In addition, it was able to support the formation of five national and regional coalition and 15 provincial coalitions/networks. Likewise, it was able to fund at least 50 researches and at least 250 publications, manuals and studies.
Governance Structure and Management Mechanism
The PCHRD was made up of the following governance structure:
The Philippine-Canadian Joint Committee (PCJC) was the highest policy-making body and responsible for the overall direction and management of the program. It was composed of 13 members-- nine Filipino representatives who made up the Philippine National Committee (PNC) and four representatives who comprised the Canadian Coordinating Committee (CCC).
The Philippine National Committee (PNC) managed the Philippine Program and was composed of nine networks, namely: Association of Foundations, Council for People’s Development, Ecumenical Center for Development, National Confederation of Cooperatives, National Council of Churches in the Philippines, National Council for Social Development, Partnership of Philippine Support Agencies, Philippine Business for Social Progress, Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas.
The Canadian Coordinating Committee (CCC) was in charge of the Canadian Program and was made up of 12 representatives from NGOs, solidarity groups and social movements.
The Executive Committee (ExeCom) included two PNC members, one CCC member and the Executive Director as ex-oficio member. It was responsible for policy implementation and day-to-day management.
The Regional Committees (RCs) were composed of regional representatives of the nine NGO networks of the PNC. Four RCs were created to oversee the operations in their respective regions. There were a total of 195 representatives, including the alternates, in these four RCs.
The PCHRD Secretariat, tasked to render support to the PNC and the RCs, were distributed in the national office and four regional offices. The national office managed projects that cut across all networks and were national in scope. On the other, the regional offices took care of projects within their geographical scope.
The PCHRD as an ODA Mechanism
As an ODA mechanism, the PCHRD had the following characteristics [4]:
- A coalition structure as grant-executing agency;
- A governance structure composed mainly of internal stakeholders;
- NGOs and POs as grant-implementing agencies;
- Autonomy of the executing agency in terms of decision making over project fund utilization and overall program management;
- A partnership mode of donor-grantee relationship characterized by participation of both parties in all stages of the project management cycle, exchange of expertise and resources, mutual benefits and learning, more strategic, long-term program-based relationship;
- A bi-directional role and function of the executing agency: backward (such as performance monitoring and evaluation, consolidation of program performance) and forward (such as operation of broad mandates and frameworks for development assistance); and
- Rigor in fund and project management.
In addition, the PCHRD at that time was the only ODA mechanism which had a regionalized and decentralized structure reflected in its governance structure and management mechanisms. In the Philippines, it involved the participation of the PNC member-networks and their respective members in all the stages of project management cycle was evident. Proposal writing was done by the proponents themselves. The proposals were then pre-screened and endorsed by the networks of which they were formally affiliated with. The regional secretariats reviewed the proposals under the responsive component as well as those coming from unaffiliated NGOs or POs. The RCs then appraised and approved the proposals. The PNC recommended proactive projects to the PCJC or ExeCom for approval. The PNC, RC, networks and secretariat were involved in monitoring and evaluation of funded projects.
The PCHRD was “hailed as a model for its unique features as a global partnership in funds management and the sharing of resources, in decision-making and governance and in the creation of innovative mechanisms and strengthening of institution” [5]. However, issues on relationships and changing contexts of donors, aid recipients, government, and stakeholders in the NGO and PO community cropped up in the course of program implementation. In the Philippines, although the PCHRD Program directly received funds from CIDA, the very nature of a bilateral mechanism (i.e., between two governments) required the approval of the Philippine and Canadian governments. This made some PCHRD members uneasy about their advocacy efforts that could be viewed as exceedingly critical of government policy.
Being managed by a consortium of NGOs networks, the PCHRD also encountered many challenges. Some of these were: managing numerous stakeholders with diverse interests, ideologies and expectations; meeting the high demands of consensus building in decision-making, balancing individual network decisions and coalition decisions; addressing differences in national and regional processes (such as policy-making roles); defining partnership relations between NGOs and POs; managing multiple projects and balancing various responsibilities; dealing with multilayer and multi-channel communication structures; difficulty in balancing roles and responsibilities in PCHRD work and one’s NGO and network; and program management concerns (such as screening proposals, demands of monitoring numerous projects, resignation of key personnel).
In addition, towards project completion, this mode of ODA mechanism met other challenges brought about by changes in the socio-political landscape of the Philippines and Canada. For one, with the election of President Fidel V. Ramos, who had taken a different approach towards NGOs, a number of PCHRD members were compelled to rethink their development strategies and advocacy. The NGOs and POs were again divided on their opinions regarding working with the government under Ramos, a former military head during the Marcos regime.
In a similar vein, in 1995, there were changes in Canadian development aid policies as indicated by a shift to a more active support to private sector or business groups rather than NGOs as key partners. Concomitantly, resources and interest of Canadian public and government became focused on addressing domestic problems rather than international development commitments.
Sources:
- Lopa, Consuelo Katrina A. The Rise of Philipine NGOs in Managing Development Assitance. New York: Synergos Institute. 2003. 20-21.
- Philippines –Canada Human Resources Development. PCHRD Summing Up: Rooting Traditions and Marking Lessons and Legacies (Volume 1). Quezon City. PCHRD. 1997. 202.
- ___________________________________________. Public Accountability Exposition. Volumes 1: Executive Summary. 26 pages
- ____________________________________________. Public Accountability Exposition. Volume 2: Proceedings. 79 pages
