Wednesday, December 8, 2010

MAPping the Future

December 13, 2010

Philippine Daily Inquirer


Reconciling the Conflicting Views on the CCT Program

It was the Philippine Daily Inquirer that prominently quoted Third World Institute executive director Roberto Bissio who said that the selection of beneficiaries is one of the most contentious portions of cash transfer programs in various countries (PDI, Nov. 29, P.A8). How you determine who is entitled to it or not is one of the aspects “where many things can go wrong. The dynamics of choosing who to give cash assistance leave the process vulnerable to corruption and abuse of power.” He advised that to help people rise up from poverty, the cash transfer program must be coupled with job provision and other services.

It was also the Inquirer that reported that the DSWD would spend P4 billion to hire 4000 workers for implementing the program leaving only P17 billion for the actual cash grants (Dec. 1, PA4). And readers had earlier been reading the hard hitting columns of Neal Cruz attacking the program as a gigantic dole out that would foster dependency.

Was the Inquirer campaigning against the Conditional Cash Transfer program of the DSWD? No, in fact the editorial of the same issue, urged that we “Let CCT Work.” The piece concluded that it is wiser and more practical to direct the assistance to the poor than to spread out the appropriation among different executive agencies, or give to the local governments which had become themselves, with few exceptions, “embodiments of dependency and mendicancy themselves,” or add to the CDF of Congressmen and Senators.

But is there no way of reconciling the opposing views in a program that will direct the cash assistance to the really deserving poor without fostering dependency but instead preserving their dignity? Yes, there is - if we follow certain criteria:

1. The project should be self- selecting, i.e. only the truly poor would agree to work in the project- and its completion verifiable.

2. Preferably, the project should provide more lasting benefits, e.g. give other sources of livelihood, enhance the environment, and endow the people a sense of community.

Compared to the Bolsa Familia of Brazil, a program similar to Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program that hands out conditional cash grants of up to P1,400 to each of the targeted 1.3 million families, there is something that commends itself in India’s rain water catchment or collector project under the National Rural Emergency Employment Act (NREG) or the Watershed Organization Trust (WOTR). They involve farmers “sculpting hillsides to capture runoff, and planting seedlings along the ridgelines.” The villagers are paid roughly 80 percent of the hours worked but every family is also required to contribute free labor to the project every month- a deliberate move to get everyone invested. (“Harvesting Monsoon Rains,” National Geographic, November 2009). Why is the project self-selecting? Because only the truly poor will work the whole day under the hot sun.

“Where the rain runs, we make it walk; where it walks, we make it crawl, and where it crawls we make it sink to the ground.”

The Philippines, being archipelagic, does not have the large and long continental rivers that meander through Europe and Asia. Rain water that drop on our islands’ mountaintops cascade down to the sea in a matter of hours. If people build well-planned series of dams, ponds, and earthen terraces to catch and slow down rainwater as it races downhill, the soil has more time to absorb moisture. The terracing and new vegetation also control erosion, increase grazing for livestock animals, and keep nutrient-rich topsoil from washing, thus boosting the productivity of the land. The water table rises, and wells are less apt to go dry. As the experience in Satichiwadi, India showed, “More productive farmland means more food and better health for the villagers.” It opens the possibility of growing cash crops, such as onions, tomatoes, and lentils, and selling the surplus.

And what is the first thing that people in Satichiwadi do when their watershed regenerates and their income goes up? They take their kids out of the fields and put them to school. Isn’t that the objective of the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Program?

In the Philippines, where water catchments are built on public lands on the hillsides, the benefits can be communally shared by the people who will work together on the project. The pond or dam can be seeded with fish, kankong can be grown, ducks can be raised, and gabi (taro) can be planted on the dikes, as in the Isda’t- Gabi culture being propagated by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. A sense of community becomes a beneficial outcome of hands-on cooperation among the barangay folks.

DSWD to retain CCT Funds

The funds from the CCT program need not be transferred to other Departments in implementing projects of which rain water catchments is only one example. It happened that a law –R.A. 7161- that mandated the Government, through the DPWH and LGUs, to build waterwells and rainwater catchments and collectors in all barangays had been passed by the 8th Congress, almost 20 years ago but has remained unimplemented in so far as the water catchments are concerned. The DSWD will still be the implementor in employing members from the targeted families. The other Departments such as the DPWH or DA will only extend technical support on design, etc. and the LGUs, especially at the barangay level, can assist the DSWD field personnel in identifying the poor families.

But other manual labor-intensive, ecologically and economically beneficial, and verifiable projects can be undertaken. In upland communities where most of the poor live, reforesting watershed areas should be a candidate project. Aside from enhancing the climate, reforestation prevents erosion of the mountain sides that has been the major cause of siltation of our hydro-electric and irrigation dams. Coastal communities can be involved in replanting mangrove areas that not only protect the shorelines but serve as spawning grounds for fish. Incentives can even be given according to survival rates of the planted trees. And even informal settlers in crowded cities and other urban areas can participate in cleaning up the esteros that have blighted their communities. Not only would health of the settlers improve, tourists may even come when they don’t see garbage and flotsam in the rivers. Are these projects self-selecting? Yes, because only the truly poor, outside the occasional volunteers for the Sagip Pasig, will agree to work in this environment.

Felicito C. Payumo