This document discusses the challenges of decentralization and the role of community-based monitoring systems (CBMS) in addressing the need for disaggregated poverty data. Decentralization has increased the responsibilities of local governments but they often lack sufficient data for planning. CBMS was developed as a way to regularly collect socioeconomic data at the local level through community participation. It has now been implemented in several countries to help local governments better monitor poverty and design programs.

1. POVERTY REDUCTION,
DECENTRALIZATION,
AND COMMUNITY-BASED
MONITORING SYSTEMS

2. Objectives
Decentralization and its challenges
Poverty monitoring systems
Role of CBMS
Concluding remarks
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

3. Identifies the challenges brought
about by decentralization
Examines the role of community-based
monitoring systems in addressing the
demand for more disaggregated data
on the different dimensions of poverty.
OBJECTIVES

4. Parallel to the poverty reduction efforts of
many countries is the change in governance
structure.
Decentralization has gained popularity within
the last two decades.
Has been advocated and practiced in several
countries in Asia.
Defined as the transfer of responsibility for
planning, management and resource generation and
allocation, from the central government and its
agencies to lower levels of government.
DECENTRALIZATION

5. Seen as an alternative to provide
public services in a more cost-effective
way. Improve the delivery of services.
Make the government more
responsive to the needs of the people.
Make local units more accountable
to their constituents.
RATIONALE FOR DECENTRALIZATION

6. Passage of Local Government Code (LGC) in
1991 represented a major step in decentralization.
Before the LGC, LGUs’ main functions were:
a. Levying and collection of local taxes
b. Regulation of business activities
c. Administration of garbage collection, public
cemeteries, public markets and slaughterhouses
The LGC paved the way for increased local
autonomy, expenditure responsibility and revenue
authority. Principal responsibility for the delivery of
basic social services and the operation of the
facilities were devolved to LGUs.
DECENTRALIZATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

7. Devolved areas are:
1. Agricultural extension and research
2. Social forestry
3. Environmental management and pollution control
4. Primary health and hospital care
5. Social welfare services
6. Repair and maintenance of infrastructure
7. Water supply and communal irrigation
8. Land use planning
DECENTRALIZATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

8. LGUs were given taxing authority to be able
to generate allotment that they get from the
National Government.
A new scheme has been devised to determine
the share of LGUs from the revenues collected
by the national government and this is based
primarily on population and land size.
DECENTRALIZATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

9. Decentralization brings decision-
making closer to the people and
consequently, may yield programs and
services that better address local needs.
However, this requires sufficient and
technical capacity on the part of local
government units, as well as supporting
institutional arrangements.
CHALLENGES OF DECENTRALIZATION

10. LGUs face greater challenges with the increased
powers given to them:
1. Diagnose the problems
2. Identify appropriate interventions and identify target
beneficiaries
3. Do their own planning and budgeting
4. Implement projects and programs
5. Assess their impacts
To carry out their mandated functions, it is
necessary to have the relevant information.
Institutionalizing a monitoring system at the local level is
one of the more important challenges faced by local
government units.
CHALLENGES OF DECENTRALIZATION

11. Planning units are mandated by the LGC to be
operational in every province, city and municipality.
These planning units are tasked to prepare
annual investment plans. But there are no clear
guidelines on how the planning unit is supposed to
carry out its functions.
Thus, we find large variations in the tasks
performed by the planning units as well as the
quality of the plans.
One of the more serious gaps is the lack of
data that can be used in preparing the plans.
CHALLENGES OF DECENTRALIZATION

12. Existing poverty monitoring systems in many
countries rely on national surveys and censuses
conducted by the national statistical offices
conducted every 3 or 5 years.
These are too infrequent to provide regular and
updated information on the welfare status of the
population.
Many of these surveys generate national and
regional level estimates only.
What is needed is information disaggregated at
the different geopolitical levels.
WEAKNESSES OF POVERTY MONITORING SYSTEMS

13. Generation of small area estimates
1. Requires linking census and survey data.
2. The extent of overlap between the two
sources determines to a large extent how good
the resulting estimates are.
3. Frequency of updating depends on the
frequency of the survey.
INITIATIVES ON GENERATION OF MICRO LEVEL
POVERTY STATISTICS

14. Poverty mapping
Through the use of some statistical
techniques, poverty indicators are mapped for
smaller areas.
Problem is the difficulty in updating the poverty
maps since censuses are conducted every 5 or 10
years.
Another alternative is the community-based
monitoring system (CBMS).
INITIATIVES ON GENERATION OF MICRO LEVEL
POVERTY STATISTICS

15. Started by MIMAP-Philippines Project in
response to the need to monitor the impact
of macroeconomic policies and shocks on the
population.
MIMAP-CBMS is an organized way of
collecting information at the local level for
use of local government units, national
government agencies, non-government
organizations and civil society.
BACKGROUND OF CBMS

16. LGU-based
Taps people in the community (ex.
LGU personnel, teachers, students) as
monitors
Has a core set of indicators
KEY FEATURES OF MIMAP-CBMS

17. LGU-based
Adopts the concept of mobilizing and
developing the capability of communities for data
generation and utilization.
Reports the data collected to higher
geopolitical level for immediate intervention and
ultimately reaches macroeconomic planners in order
to influence adjustment programs.
Utilizes the information generated by other
monitoring systems already in place as a support.
Creates and maintains databank at each
geopolitical level.
KEY FEATURES OF MIMAP-CBMS

18. Taps existing LGU personnel as monitors
Local personnel do the data collection, processing
and analysis of the data.
Has a core set of indicators
Based on multi-dimensional aspects of poverty.
Confined largely to output and impact indicators.
Can accommodate community-specific indicators to
reflect other concerns of the community.
KEY FEATURES OF MIMAP-CBMS

19. Pilot-tested in two barangays in Pandi, Bulacan
A second round was conducted in 1999 to analyze
the impact of 1997 Asian financial crisis and El Niño
phenomenon.
Implemented province-wide in Palawan.
Implemented in 7 out of 12 municipalities in
Camarines Norte.
Discussions are on-going for the replication of
CBMS work in the province of Bulacan, in the cities
of Mandaue, Makati and Pasay and the remaining 5
municipalities of Camarines Norte.
CBMS EXPERIENCE IN THE PHILIPPINES

20. At the national level, the CBMS work has led
to the issuance by the DILG of a
memorandum circular advocating for the
institutionalization of a CBMS and the
adoption of the CBMS core indicators.
Following, the successful implementation of
MIMAP-CBMS in the Philippines, several
initiatives in other countries were undertaken
under the MIMAP Program.
CBMS EXPERIENCE IN THE PHILIPPINES

21. Background
Decentralization measures in Nepal allow local
initiatives and development interventions to be
conceived, designed and implemented at the
lowest political unit.
These create demand for local level information.
The available source of information is Nepal
Living Standards Survey, which is conducted
every five years.
It does not provide for district level statistics.
CBMS IN NEPAL

22. In addressing the problem, MIMAP
Project in Nepal started to implement
information gathering at the local level.
Sixty-two (62) indicators are collected
through focus group discussion at the
ward level
At present, CBMS is being
operationalized in five districts in
Nepal.
CBMS IN NEPAL

23. Background
Decentralization measures in Vietnam provide
authorities to local leaders to deliver services in
their respective territories.
These create demand for information at the local
level.
Existing sources of information provide data on
income alone.
Data is difficult to synthesize at the national level.
Identification of poor households has room for
subjectivity.
CBMS IN VIETNAM

24. CBMS was implemented to address these problems.
Local people themselves collect information from the
households.
Aside from income, other relevant information relating
to other aspects of poverty is also collected.
Data is available at the village and commune levels
These can be used immediately by local people in
development planning and poverty monitoring.
CBMS IN VIETNAM

25. In Asia
Pilot tested in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka
Implementation is in progress in Pakistan, Lao PDR ,
India and Cambodia
In Africa:
CBMS work is ongoing in Burkina Faso and Senegal
Work has started in Ghana and Benin
OTHER CBMS INITIATIVES IN ASIA AND AFRICA

26. Many countries now recognize the emerging
demands for data brought about by the
changing structures and policies in Asia.
Decentralization creates demand for local data
CBMS has been institutionalized or pilot tested in
selected countries in Asia to address these demands for
data.
National statistical offices cannot provide all the
information needed due to resource constraints.
They can assume a coordinative and oversight role
particularly on CBMS implementation.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

27. While poverty reduction remains to be a national
concern, decentralization has shifted greater
responsibility to the local government units to carry
out the policies and programs.
Community Base Monitoring System (CBMS) enables
the local government to formulate policies and
programs more responsive to the needs of the
people.
CBMS increases the capacity of LGUs to meet the
challenge of improving the lives of their constituents.
CONCLUDING REMARKS