2017END OF PROGRAMREPORT
1 NAME Secretariat MONTH/YEARS IN SERVICE Charizza A. Laccay 13 years POSITION LGOO VAtty. Asis G. Perez MembersAsec. Federico E. LacisteDir. Vincent Andrew T. Leyson, CESO III Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources IV-ADr. Ariel I. Valencia Department of Agriculture - Central OfficeDir. Nelson C. Hornilla, CESO III Department of Social Welfare and Development - NCRDir. Anacleto C. Blanco Jr., CESO III Department of Health - NCRDr. Ponciano A. Menguito Department of Labor and Employment - NCRDir. Lourdes C. Wagan Department of Trade and Industry - NCR Department of Education - NCRDir. Cenon M. Querubin, CESO IV Department of Environment and Natural Resources - NCRAlexsandrea Dela Cruz Technical Education and Skills Development Authority - NCRGeorge A. Mapile Jr. NAPC Regional CoordinatorRafael C. Caneda NAPC Provincial Focal PersonsNoel Roberto SalenGaylord F. Despuez AGENCY RPRAT- NCR Technical Working GroupBFAR IV-A NAMEDA MARVIN P. NASINODENR-NCR LAURENZ MARVIN A. ROSALESDOH-NCRDILG-NCR JAYA P. EBUENDOLE-NCR CHARIZZA A. LACCAYDSWD-NCR AURORA E. HALCONDTI-NCR FARRAH A. CABRERATESDA-NCR ROWENA DB SAN JOSEDBM-NCR LORRIENE JUDITH MARIE G. JUANANINAPC CARMENCITA S. MARASIGAN ALEXSANDREA DELA CRUZRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
2The Regional Poverty Reduction Action TeamNational Capital Region (RPRAT-NCR)CompositionArticle 3, Section 22 of DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 7 dated 03 November2015 entitled “Policy Guidelines and Procedures in the Implementation of the Bottom-Up Budgeting Pro-gram for FY 2016 and thereafter” provides for the composition of the Regional Poverty Reduction ActionTeam (RPRAT) as follows:Chairperson : DILG Regional DirectorVice Chairpersons : DBM Regional Director NAPC Secretariat RepresentativeMembers: Regional Directors of BUB participating agencies (Assistant Regional Director as alternate) Designated representatives of participating agencies that do not have regional offices All Provincial Planning and Development Coordinators (PPDCs) in the Region A NAPC Sectoral Representative (SR) as identified by the NAPC Office of the Vice-Chairperson for Basic Sectors (must be residing in the region) All the NAPC Provincial Focal Persons (PFPs) and their alternates who are elected in the process facilitated by NAPC and the alternate representative selected by the PFP. This does not refer to the elected members of the basic sector councils of NAPC at the national level.Secretariat:Department of the Interior and Local Government BUB Focal Person Other personnel as may be assigned by the RPRAT ChairpersonRPRAT National Capital Region is composed of the following:Chairperson : Regional Director Maria Lourdes L. Agustin, CESO IIIVice Chairpersons : Regional Director Maria Ruby R. Esteban, CESO III NAPC Secretariat Representative Ruperto AlerozaFrequency of MeetingsThe RPRAT-NCR holds quarterly regular meetings and special meetings to address concerns on programimplementation and other matters.RPRAT Meetings Conducted 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total 4 4 4 4 4 20 RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
3 Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) Region IV-ABureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) is the government agency responsible for thedevelopment, improvement, management, and conservation of the country’s fisheries and aquaticresources. It is a Bureau under the Department of Agriculture (DA). BFAR IV-A, one of its regional offices,covers five (5) provinces (CALABARZON) and also embraces the National Capital Region (NCR) infisheries administration and management.BFAR IV-A started its BUB implementation in the year 2013 with one (1) LGU. By year 2014, the DA tookcharge of the implementation. In 2015, the Bureau joined the BUB process again and welcomed projectsfrom five (5) LGUs and in 2016, four (4) LGUs submitted their proposal to the Bureau.The budget allocated to BFAR IV-A for the implementation of the BUB Projects in the years 2013, 2015and 2016 totaled to PHP 16,646,258.00.Program Type: 1. Aquaculture 2. Capacity Building/Development 3. Infrastructure 4. Procurement and Distribution of Gears, Paraphernalia, and Planting MaterialsNumber of Project by Type and Year of ImplementationProject Type YEAR ALL 2013 % 2015 % 2016 % YEARS %Aquaculture - - 1 16.7 - 1 8.3Capacity Building/Development - - 1 16.7 - - 1 8.3Infrastructure - - - - 2 40.0 2 16.7Procurement and Distributionof Fishing Gears, Paraphernalia, 1 100 4 66.7 3 60.0 8 66.7and Planting MaterialsALL TYPES 1 100 6 100 5 100 12 100RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) 4Fund Allocation (in Pesos) by Project Type and Year of Implementation Project Type 2013 YEAR - ALL YEARS %Aquaculture - - % 2015 % 2016 %Capacity Building/Development - 287,429 5 0 0 287,429 2Infrastructure - 790,400 13 0 0 790,400 5Procurement andDistribution of - - - 7,000,000 78 7,000,000 42Fishing Gears,Paraphernalia, and 1,465,000 100 5,137,200 83 1,966,229 22 8,568,429 51Planting MaterialsALL TYPES 1,465,000 100 6,215,029 100 8,966,229 100 16,646,258 100 RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
5 Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)Program as outlined Output / Accomplishment Remarks in Project Menu (Completed) (On going /Non-moving/ Dropped) 2013 2014 1 Project completed (100%) - - -2015 2 Projects Completed (33%) 4 Projects dropped (67%)2016 3 Projects Completed (60%) 1 Project On-going (20%)/ 1 Project Non-moving (20%)RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Project Highlights and Best Practices Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) 6 List of LGUs/Agencies Taguig City(2015 BuB) Intermediate results Taguig City(2016 BuB) Procured and awarded 33 non-motorized fiber glass boats with 2 paddles per boat Procured and awarded 30 non-motorized fiber glass boatsWhat Went Right? Strict COA policies The different players and stakeholders Lack of regular and proper coordination showed their commitment to the program between NGAs and implementing LGUs It promoted transparency in governance Areas to Improvement/Recommendation Planning and budgeting were more inclu- Despite the improvements brought by the sive and reflective of the local needs from the grassroots level BuB Program, some issues and concerns Fully established the role of civil society still need to be addressed in terms of social organizations in project identification and prioritization preparation, process facilitation, CSOWhat Went Wrong? engagement, project identification and LGUs failed to fulfill commitments Program menu is limiting and does not prioritization, identification and capture what is really needed in the locality Very slow procurement processes prioritization of beneficiaries, and service Approved budget not enough for some projects delivery. Transition in LGU leadership hampered documents completion thus delaying pro- Continuous monitoring of status of project ject implementation implementation and regular visits to Some implementing LGUs do not have a project sites. clear grasp of the technical aspect of their projects Better inter-agency coordination and Lack of manpower to handle all activities communication concerning BuB Pending Issues and Task Completion of on-going project in Muntinlupa City and proper liqui- dation of funds transferred to the LGU Liquidation of 2016 BUB project fund transferred to Malabon City RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
7 Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) Budget PerformanYear Mun. Project Project F Physical Status Obligat2015 Downloaded20152015 Las Piñas Procurement of Motorized Banca Dropped 1,603,200.002015 Las Piñas Project And 1,500 m. Fishnets Dropped Muntinlupa Dropped 790,400.002015 Navotas Training on Fish Processing and Basic Completed 287,429.002015 Business Management Parañaque Dropped 500,000.00 500,00 Taguig Tilapia Culture 2,295,000.00 Post-Harvest Facilities and Equipments: Purchase of Mechanical Dryer for Alamang and Fish Infrastructure Support to Fishery Production - Motorized Fishing Boat and Fish Nets Bangkang Lunday (Fiber Glass, 20 ft. Completed 739,000.00 Length )2016 Las Piñas Fishing Gears and Paraphernalia Completed 840,000.00 835,8682016 Malabon Fishing Gears and Paraphernalia Completed 526,229.00 526,2292016 Muntinlupa Fish Corral (Baklad) On-Going 2,000,000.00 2,000,0020162016 Taguig Fishing gears \"Non-motorized Ban- Completed 600,000.00 565,500 Taguig cas\" for livelihood assistance BuB 2016 Taguig City Fish Port BuB Project 2016 Proposed/ 5,000,000.00 Non-movingRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) 8nce / Project CostFund Status Fund Status IA Level LGU levelted Disbursed Savings/ Remitted Savings/ Remarks to National Downloaded Obligated Treasury Disbursed Remitted to National Treasury 1,603,200.00 Funds reverted 790,400.00 Funds reverted 287,429.00 Funds reverted00.00 500,000.00 500,000 495,000 495,000 5,000.00 Liquidated 2,295,000.00 Funds reverted8.00 835,868.00 4,132.00 BFAR implemented; amount disbursed and9.00 526,229.00 savings data to follow00.00 2,000,000.00 For delivery to LGU0.00 565,500.00 34,500.00 Gears distributed; not yet liquidated 500,000.00 Funds already transferred to LGU; still at the bidding stage at LGU level Bancas delivered and inspected already; for distribution by LGU to beneficiaries Letter to LCE of Taguig City recommending to drop the Fish Port project already sent RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
9 Department of Agriculture (DA) Department of Agriculture National Capital RegionAt the onset of BUB implementation, the Department For FY 2015 and FY 2016 BUB projects, aof Agriculture (DA) Central Office was not able to simultaneous pre-implementation processimplement BUB projects in the National Capital Region was conducted to catch up and implement(NCR) as Department of Agriculture has no regional the backlog for FY 2015 projects and at theoffice to cover NCR. Given this status, Assistant same time, start the FY 2016 projects inSecretary Edilberto M. De Luna requested the DBM for accordance with the marching orders givenan authority for DA Central Office to implement BUB by Assistant Secretary Edilberto De Luna thatprojects in NCR in a letter dated August 26, 2015. uncompleted FY 2015 BUB projects should be fully implemented by April 30, 2016 and allDelegation of two (2) personnel from DA-OSEC Central FY 2016 BUB projects should be 50%Office Field Operations Service - Special Project completed by April 30, 2016.Coordination and Management Assistance Division(FOS-SPCMAD) was proposed, to be assisted by three In addition, continuous coordination weresupport staff on detail from National Anti-Poverty made to ensure that all proponents wouldCommission for BUB Implementation in the NCR which comply with the submission of documentarywas approved. However, only one support staff came requirements such as but not limited tofrom NAPC. While it was raised that there will be con- letter by the Local Chief Executive (LCE),flict with the oversight function of the FOS-SPCMAD in Certificate of Availability of Fund (CAF) forensuring the smooth implementation of all the DA’s their funding counterpart and signedlocal and foreign assisted projects, the Sanggunian Resolution allowing the LCE toDA-CO-Monitoring and Evaluation Division became enter into MOA with DA. Comments wereresponsible for the validation and monitoring of the also provided for proponents that submittedprojects implemented by the FOS-SPCMAD. their draft Project Proposals.Upon the turnover of BUB projects to SPCMAD, seriesof meetings and validation activities had beenconducted to assess and to cope up with the projects’targets. The Division immediately coordinated with theLGU-proponents especially for FY 2014 projects toavoid budget lapseHowever, all BUB FY 2014 projects effective January 1,2016 were labeled as dropped. The funds of the pro-jects were not obligated due to failure to submit theessential requirements to initiate the implementationof projects on time.RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Agriculture (DA) 10Project Background Overview Milestone of the projectThe implementation of DA projects is usually done With the authority given by the DBM, the DA-FOSthrough its Regional Field Offices (RFOs), which specifically SPCMAD assumed the implementationwas also adopted in the implementation of BUB of BUB projects for NCR. DA received a total of 38projects with the exception of the National Capital BUB project proposals from Caloocan, QuezonRegion (NCR). In the absence of RFO that would City, Marikina, Malabon, Taguig, Las Piñas,cater to the cities and sole municipality of NCR, Muntinlupa, and Pateros that were mainly focused on livelihood and capacity building.the Department of Budget and Managementissued an authority for DA Central Office to Since the authority and the approved budgetimplement BUB projects in NCR. The Special came in the last quarter of 2015, SPCMADProject Coordination and Management Assistance decided to start the project implementation in CYDivision (FOS-SPCMAD) of the Field Operations 2016; the projects were revalidated by SPCMADService handled the implementation of the accordingly. Also, draft copies of Memorandum ofsub-projects while the Monitoring and Evaluation Agreement (MOA) template were given to LGUsDivision of the Planning and Monitoring Service for revisions and to conform to the provisions(PMS-MED) was responsible in the monitoring and stated in the document required to proceed withevaluation. the processing of the project proposal. Series of consultations and coaching sessions wereThe cities of Caloocan, Muntinlupa, Taguig, Las conducted to help the LGUs in complying with thePiñas, Malabon, and Marikina and the Municipality required documents.of Pateros were the proponents of the BUBunder DA. In spite of the collaborative effort given by the Department to the LGUs, problems such asRequested agricultural support in NCR is mainly non-submission or piecemeal submission offocused on urban agriculture, backyard livestock or requirements hampered the projectpoultry raising and support to livelihood initiatives, implementation resulting to fund lapse. Thewith the aim of providing additional source of food change in administration likewise challengedand income for the targeted beneficiaries. Projects project implementation. Only one project in 2015included package of farm inputs and training for and 2016 were implemented, while two projectsurban gardening or food production, backyard in 2016 remained stagnant due to incompletelivestock and poultry raising and farm equipment, submission of project requirements, as shown inamong others. LGUs near the Laguna Lake has the table.incorporated fishery component in its priorityprojects.Caloocan and Muntinlupa were also able to carryout project implementation as they were able todo fund transfer and undertake implementationincluding procurement which they obtained asawardees of the Seal of Good Housekeeping, Sealof Good Local Governance and by having a goodstanding in Public Financial Management. RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
11 Department of Agriculture (DA)Program as outlined in the Output / Accomplishment Remarks (Ongoing/Non- Project Menu moving/Dropped) 1 ongoing project 2013 1 ongoing project 11 projects dropped 2014 13 projects dropped 2015 10 projects dropped 2016 2 projects not movingWhat Went Right?Empowerment of the Local Government UnitsThrough the BUB program, the Local Government Units were highly encouraged to comply with therequirements of the Seal of Good Local Governance.Full Participation of the CSOs in the Project Planning and ImplementationThe grassroots level were given the opportunity to participate in the planning and decision-makingparticularly in designing the project, including the identification of beneficiaries.Promotion of Transparent GovernanceWith the LGU passing the Seal of Good Local Governance and Public Financial Management, theproject recipients were assured that the funds are spent judiciously, as both the implementer andcitizens monitor the implementation of the project.Specific Project IdentificationUnder the BUB program, projects were identified based on the community’s present condition andneeds, to help it potentially increase income and generate jobs to sustain the needs of the citizens.What Went Wrong?Absence of Regional Field Office to implement BUB project in the NCRThe DA has no existing regional office in the National Capital Region. This became a bottleneck from2013 to 2015 which resulted to non-implementation of projects. Nevertheless, the DA Central Officehad sought DBM’s approval on DA’s authority to implement BUB projects in NCR.LGUs’ Technical and Planning CapabilitiesSome of the BUB designated personnel from LGUs have inadequate technical and planning skills, whichresulted to poor quality of project proposals submitted, as well as long periods of document processingand follow-ups to their local chief executives who are required to approve and sign documents. Forfuture programs similar to BUB, it is suggested that the designated personnel should be provided withnecessary trainings and coaching/mentoring on technical and planning skills.RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Agriculture (DA) 12Late or non-submission of required documentsThis is the frequently encountered issue of implementing agencies. Submission of the projectrequirement is a very crucial part in project implementation, most of the proponent-LGUs were not ableto comply.Approved project did not conform with the intention of LGU or beneficiariesThis is due to the time elapsed from proposal submission to budget approval.LGUs Commitment to the Project ImplementationThe change in administration caused the changes of priorities of LGUs. Priority plans changed theproposed projects of some LGUs in NCR.Coordination between DA and proponent LGUAreas for Improvement/Recommendation LGUs’ Technical and Planning capabilities and commitment to the project implementation Execution of sanction on non-performing or non-compliant LGU proponentPending Issues/Tasks: Pending acceptance of the 100 units Knapsack Sprayer for Taguig, SPCMAD Chief initiated a meeting with the Local Executives on the matter. Completion of the on-going project of Caloocan City as well as its fund liquidation Dropping off of the non-moving projects RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
13 Department of Agriculture (DA) Budget PerformanRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Agriculture (DA) 14nce / Project Cost RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
15 Department of Health (DOH) Department of Health National Capital RegionThe Department of Health - National Capital Regional Office (DOH-NCRO) started with theimplementation of health-related Bottom-Up Budgeting (BuB) Programs in FY 2013 in ten LGUs of theNational Capital Region. These LGUs were selected by the Human Development and Poverty ReductionCluster (HDPRC) to pursue the Millennium Development Goal of reducing poverty. These are Caloocan,Valenzuela, Marikina, Pasig, Taguig, Quezon City, Manila, Muntinlupa, Las Piñas, and Pasay. In FY 2015,the BuB Program was opened to the remaining seven LGUs of NCR, in accordance with JMC No. 04 datedNovember 26, 2013.A menu for health programs or projects was also made available to guide the stakeholders. Since theDOH is one of the agencies identified with projects that have technical requirements and programdesign, all the approved projects on health in the National Capital Region were implemented by the DOHRegional Office, in collaboration with the concerned LGUs, as stipulated under the Joint MemorandumCirculars issued.Below is a summary of the Total Project Cost and Total Approved Projects/Programs per year: FY Number of LGUs Total Project Cost Total No. of Total % Weight of with BuB Projects Projects Completed Completed Projects2016 25,797,126.00 11 25 Projects 47.37%2015 39,297,498.00 (*19 for NCRO2014 13 35,331,720.00 implementation 9 90.70%2013 6 50,590,317.00 and 6 thru LGSF) 41.03% 8 39 73.47% 43 16 36 39 49For the funds allocated in the GAA of the Depart- And 2014 has the least number with six LGUs.ment of Health - NCR, CY 2013 had the highestfund allocation which is equivalent to 34% of For the amount utilized, 2015 has the highestthe total funds for the BuB program. The year 2016 disbursement rate which is recorded at 90.70% ofhas the smallest fund allocation comprising only its total fund allocation for the said year. It is also17% of the total amount of BUB allocation since the highest percent of utilization compared to the2013. other fiscal years. On the other hand, the year 2014 recorded a 41.03% utilization rate, as shownThe year 2015 recorded the most number of in the table above.participating LGUs with a total of thirteen LGUs,RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Health (DOH) 16What Went Right? What Went Wrong? Strengthened Inter-Agency Coordination Some health projects were approved without through the RPRAT ensuring the capability of concerned LGUs to comply with the requirements (e.g. securing Validation of Project Proposals prior to Available Lots for Infrastructure projects). implementation Some funds were erroneously released Projects/Programs were focused to priority (Capital Outlay requirements were released as beneficiaries MOOE) to region thus hindering the implementation.Areas for Improvement Since all projects were implemented by the Project Identification/Menu of Projects should DOH-NCRO, coordination of activities to be be in proper coordination with concerned agen- conducted at the concerned LGUs always cy’s program and project coordinator. remain a challenge (i.e. constant rescheduling of LGUs). Ensuring correct and timely release of funds Program Menu is very limiting.Recommendation Change in leadership and point person at the More flexibility in the issued guidelines/ LGU resulted in the delay of project program implementation implementation. Direct release of funds to concerned LGUs Difficulty in procuring small quantity of logistics/commodities. Strengthen monitoring at the Regional level (site visits)Implementation Challenges Numerous BUB projects being implemented at a specific time frame. Bureaucracy. Weak coordination between BUB Point Person and specific program managers/coordinators at the LGU level.Priority Areas for Action/Recommendation Strengthened Monitoring and Evaluation System. Menu of Programs should be expanded to cover the specific needs as identified by the priority population. Project Implementation at the LGU Level.Enable Factors The DOH's Kalusugan Pangkalahatan (KP) Roadmap provided a clear direction on BUB project implementation Strong Management Support Close coordination with BUB Point Persons at all levels ( LGU, Regional, National) Since DOH-NCRO led implementation of all projects (due to unliquidated funds of LGUs), DOH-NCRO was able to closely monitor the progress of project implementation. Presence of specific policies and guidelines on BUB projects on health. Inter-Regional consultation/sharing of good practices and monitoring initiated by the DOH-Central Office. RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
17 Department of Health (DOH) Budget Performan PHYSICAL STATUS APPRYEAR IA CITY/MUN. PROJECT Approved Completed PROJEC (AGENC20162016 DOH -NCRO CALOOCAN Pharmaceutical Access, Health Emergency, 6 2 6,982,2016 DOH -NCRO MALABON Health Facility Enhancement 12016 1 1,000,2016 Health Facility Enhancement 1 0 748,42016 2 0 2,152,2016 DOH -NCRO NAVOTAS Pharmaceutical Access 1 0 1,350,2016 1 1 1,100,2016 DOH -NCRO PASIG Environmental Health 3 1 700,02016 1 2 4,147,2016 DOH -NCRO PATEROS HRH Development 3 1 1,696, 52015 DOH -NCRO MARIKINA Pharmaceutical Access 25 2,600,2015 6 2 3,320,2015 DOH -NCRO QUEZON CITY HRH Development 4 9 25,7972015 DOH -NCRO 1 6 9,259,2015 DOH -NCRO MANDALUYONG Health Emergency, HRH Development, Envi- 1 4 2,150,2015 DOH -NCRO ronmental Health 7 1 1,971,2015 DOH -NCRO 4 1 734,52015 MANILA Infectious Diseases 3 7 2,300,2015 4 3 2,803,2015 SAN JUAN Pharmaceutical Access, Health Facility En- 3 2 6,650,2015 PASAY hancement 2 4 1,855, 2 2 1,604, Health Emergency, HRH Development, Envi- 2 2,700, ronmental Health 1 1,912, SUB-TOTAL FY-2016 DOH -NCRO CALOOCAN Family Health, Infectious Diseases DOH -NCRO MALABON DOH -NCRO NAVOTAS Family Health, Infectious Diseases, Multi- Funded Projects Family Health DOH -NCRO PASIG Health Emergency DOH -NCRO PATEROS DOH -NCRO MARIKINA Family Health, Infectious Diseases, Human DOH -NCRO QUEZON CITY Resource for Health DOH -NCRO MANDALUYONG Family Health, Infectious Diseases, Multi- DOH -NCRO MANILA Funded Projects DOH -NCRO SAN JUAN DOH -NCRO PARAÑAQUE Family Health Family Health, Health Emergency, Infectious Diseases Infectious Diseases, Multi-Funded Projects Health Emergency, Health Facility Enhance- ment Family Health, Infectious DiseasesRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Health (DOH) 18nce / Project Cost FUNDSROVED DOWNLOADED OBLIGATED DISBURSED SAVINGS/ UNU- REMARKSCT COST TILIZED/ DROPPED/CY COST) RETUREND TO NATL TREAS.,300.00 - 1,834,000.00 4,348,300.00 1 Project still Ongoing amounting to,000.00 1,000,000.00 P800,000; 3 LGSF Project-- dropped435.00,350.00 - thru LGSF,000.00 -,000.00 - P748,434.60 worth of logistics still on-000.00 - going procurement,542.00 -,500.00 - 2,152,350.00 One (1) BuB Project - Dropped,000.00 -,000.00 2,100,000.00 1,350,000.00 Two (2) BuB Project -Dropped7,127.00 -,000.00 3,100,000.00 672,400.00 672,400.00 427,600.00,000.00 - 648,749.70 648,749.70,200.00 - 870,445.00 870,445.00 51,250.30500.00 - 1,696,500.00 1,696,500.00,000.00 - 3,277,097.00 One (1) BuB Project - Dropped,200.00 -,000.00 - 748,864.82 748,864.82 1,171,135.18 1 Project still Ongoing amounting to,006.00 - 4,636,959.52 6,470,959.52 P500,000; 2 ongoing LGSF Project,000.00 -,000.00 - 8,516,753.76 8,516,753.76 2 Project still Ongoing, amounting to,000.00 - 1,663,276.00 1,663,276.00 P1,400,000; 1 Project- dropped - 1,916,200.00 1,916,200.00 585,053.47 585,053.47 12,777,732.48 1,628,330.50 1,628,330.50 1,711,567.51 1,711,567.51 742,246.24 2,112,360.00 2,112,360.00 1,635,810.00 1,635,810.00 486,724.00 983,360.80 983,360.80 2,676,100.23 2,676,100.23 55,000.00 932,480.00 932,480.00 149,446.53 671,669.50 1,091,632.49 4,537,640.00 219,196.00 620,639.20 23,899.77 979,520.00 RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
19 Department of Health (DOH) Budget PerformanYEAR IA CITY/MUN. PROJECT PHYSICAL STATUS APPRO20152015 PROJECT Approved Completed (AGENCY20142014 DOH -NCRO PASAY Family Health, Health Emergency, Health 5 5 4,110,592014 DOH -NCRO LAS PINAS Facility Enhancement, HRH Development,2014 Infectious Diseases 1 1 1,248,002014 43 39 39,297,42014 Multi-Funded Projects 5 1 1,660,08 6 4 2,188,002013 SUB-TOTAL FY-2015 7 0 12,838,42013 5 3 11,516,12013 DOH -NCRO CALOOCAN Health Facility Enhancement, Human 5 3 4,248,582013 DOH -NCRO MARIKINA Resource for Health, Multi-Funded Projects 11 5 2,880,502013 DOH -NCRO QUEZON CITY 39 16 35,331,72013 DOH -NCRO MANILA Family Health, Health Facility Enhancement,2013 DOH -NCRO PASAY Infectious Diseases, 12 8 8,178,462013 DOH -NCRO MUNTINLUPA Health Facility Enhancement, Multi-funded 1 1 7,500,00 DOH -NCRO Projects DOH -NCRO 4 3 1,548,25 DOH -NCRO Family Health, Infectious Diseases, DOH -NCRO Multi-Funded Projects 19 13 10,370,0 5 1 15,809,1 Family Health, Health Emergency, Infectious 2 2 3,691,68 Diseases 5 3 3,000,00 1 1 492,800 Family Health, Health Emergency, Health 49 32 50,590,3 Facility Enhancement, Infectious Diseases 156 96 151,016,6 SUB-TOTAL FY-2014 CALOOCAN Infectious Diseases, Family Health, Health Emergency, Pharmaceutical Access, HRH Development, Health Facility Enhancement VALENZUELA Family Health MARIKINA TAGUIG HRH Development, Family Health, Environmental Health, Health Facility Enhancement Family Health, Health Facility Enhancement DOH -NCRO QUEZON CITY Family Health, Health Facility Enhancement DOH -NCRO MANILA DOH -NCRO MUNTINLUPA Environmental Health, Health Facility DOH -NCRO LAS PINAS Enhancement Infectious Diseases, Family Health, Pharmaceutical Access Health Facility Enhancement SUB-TOTAL FY-2013 TOTAL BUB Project CostRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Health (DOH) 20nce / Project CostOVED OBLIGATED FUNDS SAVINGS/ UNUTILIZED/ DROPPED/ REMARKS COST DISBURSED RETUREND TO NATL TREAS. COST) DOWNLOADED92.00 - 3,450,095.12 3,450,095.12 660,496.88 78,133.0000.00 - 1,169,867.00 1,169,867.00 10,316,243.6198.00 1,576,927.0087.00 - 28,981,254.39 28,981,254.39 203,000.0000.00 12,838,450.0050.00 - 83,160.00 83,160.00 4,935,000.0003.00 2,320,080.0080.00 - 1,985,000.00 1,985,000.00 1,270,500.0000.00 23,143,957.0020.00 - 2,304,960.00 - 6,581,102.50 6,581,103.00 - 28,000.00 - 1,928,500.00 1,928,500.00 351,000.00 10,602,333.00 - 1,610,000.00 1,610,000.00 - - 12,187,762.50 12,187,763.00 1,000,000.0060.00 - 5,873,500.00 5,873,500.00 46,237,933.0900.00 - 7,500,000.00 7,500,000.00 1,520,250.00 1,520,250.0050.00 - 10,019,000.00 10,019,000.00 5,206,789.00 5,206,789.0000.00 - 3,691,685.00 3,691,685.0022.00 - 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.0085.00 - 492,800.00 492,800.0000.00 -0.00 - 45,805,976.41 47,639,976.9117.00662.00 3,100,000.00 RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
21 Department of Social and Welfare and Development (DSWD) Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) National Capital RegionIn order to contribute to the government's BUB projects amounting to ₱295,221,299.00strategies to alleviate poverty and empower the which was downloaded from DBM thru thecommunity, the Department of Social Welfare and Department’s GAA under DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPCDevelopment in cooperation with other line Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1 Series of 2012,agencies and stakeholders committed to which shall ensure the inclusion of the fundingimplement the Bottom-Up Planning and Budgeting requirements for the development needs offor the achievement of the Millennium selected focus LGUs identified and approved byDevelopment Goal in reducing the poverty the Human Development and Poverty Reductionincidence from 26.5% in 2009 to 16.6% by 2015. Cluster (HDPRC) in the budget proposals of partici- pating National Government Agencies.For the year 2013 to 2016, the Department ofSocial Welfare and Development has a total of 173Please see table below for the Budget Allocation per cycle. CATEGORY CY 2013 TOTAL ALLOTMENTDirect Release Funds (DRF) 24,117,000.00Centrally Managed Funds (CMF) under CY 2014Protective Services Bureau CY 2015 21,511,300.00CMF under Sustainable Livelihood Program CY 2016CMF under KALAHI-CIDSS 13,470,563.00Total 14,156,000.00 73,254,863.00Protective Services BureauSustainable Livelihood Program 20,885,450.00KALAHI-CIDSS 9,569,104.00Total 595,000.00 31,049,554.00Protective Services BureauSustainable Livelihood Program 33,079,170.00KALAHI-CIDSS 35,584,500.00Total 31,472,000.00 100,135,670.00Protective Services Bureau 64,216,955.00Sustainable Livelihood Program 20,509,532.00KALAHI-CIDSS 6,054,725.40Total 90,781,212.40RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Social and Welfare and Development (DSWD) 22Protective Services Programs - set of programs and through a two-track program: the Micro-Enterprise Development Track andservices designed to prevent abuse and Employment Facilitation Track. The Micro-Enterprise Development Track supportexploitation among children, youth, women, the participants' micro-enterprises in becoming organizationally and economically viable whileperson with disability, and senior citizen or to the Employment Facilitation Track assists participants to access appropriate employmentprovide treatment and rehabilitation to victims and opportunities.survivors of abuse and exploitation. It is provided The projects under SLP - BUB employs the Community Driven Enterprise Developmentboth in the community and residential care (CDED) approach, which equips program participants to actively contribute to productionfacilities. Community-based services are and labor markets by looking at locally available resources and accessible markets. It relies onpreventive, rehabilitative and developmental multi-stakeholder partnership and participatory community planning, implementation and mon-programs and initiatives that mobilize/utilize the itoring. Likewise with CDED, interventions are done by linking the participants tofamily and community to respond to a problem, non-government organizations (NGOs) and private sector groups that provide businessneed, issue or concern of children, youth, women, development services such as:person with disabilities, older persons and (i) Product and marketing developmentfamilies who are in need and are at risk. This in- (ii) Skills enhancement and business management in preparation for theclude social pension, assistance to individual in Self-Employment Assistance-Kaunlarancrisis situation (AICS), Early Childhood Care and Association's (SKA's) market integration and;Development (day care service and home-based or (iii) Diversified loan packages for further financial assistance.supervised neighborhood play), supplementary The Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP) aimsfeeding, child care and placement, travel clearance to improve the socio-economic capacity of the poor through capacity building program thatfor minors traveling abroad, services for women in will develop the personal, social, entrepreneurial and technical skills of the poorespecially difficult circumstances, welfare and households from the selected LGUs identified and approved by the Humandevelopment programs for person with disability, RPRAT-NCRdisaster management, response and rehabilitation. 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORTCenter-based services on the other hand provides24 hour residential care to individuals whose needscannot be met by their own families and relativessuch as residential care facilities for children, youth,women, senior citizens, and persons with disability(particularly mentally-challenged) andnon-residential such as Rehabilitation ShelteredWorkshop, National Vocational RehabilitationCenter, Area Vocational Rehabilitation Centers,Center for the Handicapped and Ina Healing Cen-ter.1. Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP) - is a community-based capacity building program that seeks to improve the program participant's socio-economic status. It is implemented
23 Department of Social and Welfare and Development (DSWD)Development and Poverty Reduction Cluster aspect of project decision-making. Financial(HDPRC) and the Good Governance and management of project funds is open andAnti-Corruption Cluster (GGAC) under EO No. 43 shared with the entire community.Series 2011. SLP enables the poor to manage What Went Right?sustainable micro-enterprise in order to enhance LGUs and Partners’ commitment, support andtheir access to basic social services and improve ownership in the implementation of thetheir standard of living. program Effective program implementation and3. Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan - Comprehen- services of LGUs, NGOs, NGAs, POS and CSOs Localized decision making where all decisionssive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services also about community projects are taken into public forums and meetingsknown as KALAHI-CIDSS is a community-driven Transparency in all aspects of the project What When Wrong?development project that aims to empower Disapproval of capital outlay projects Land tenure issuecommunities by enhancing their participation Failure of bidding Transfer of personnel handling the BUB projectin village-level governance where community Prolonged procurement process Project proposal is not feasible for some LGUsmembers are involved in designing, implementing LGUs non compliance in the submission of Sub project Completion Reportand managing development activities that reduce LGUs failure to liquidate on time Areas for Improvementpoverty. Increase in the level of performance in all aspects of program implementation,The objective is to use improved local governance accountability, transparency and participationto reduce poverty by: not only by the Government Agencies but by the Local Government Unit. Empowering communities throughparticipatory planning, implementation andmanagement of local development activities Improving local governance by strengthening formal and informal institutions to become more inclusive, accountable and effective Providing seed funds for community investment programsThe KALAHI is based on the following principleswhich the Department sums up into acronym LETCIDSS. Localized Decision-Making - All decisions about community projects are taken in public forums and meeting. Empowerment - Communities take ownership of all aspects of projects, from planning and decision-making to implementation. Transparency - The community knows everyRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Social and Welfare and Development (DSWD) 24Best PracticesProject Highlights and Best PracticesThe Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), as the lead agency in the social welfareand development sector, aimed at improving the level of well-being of the poor thus ensuring that theBUB projects is implemented accordingly thru monitoring and assessment of the implementation. Thiswas done thru series of meetings with the LGUs and the Regional Technical Working Group. List of LGUs/Agencies Intermediate resultsCaloocan PROVIDED CAPACITY BUILDING FOR 220 DAY CARE WORKERS,30 SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL WELFARE STAFFLas Piñas PROVIDED 220 DAY CARE CENTERS WITH APPROPRIATE TOOLS ANDMakati INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALSMandaluyong 13 SESSIONS (DONE WEEKLY EVERY SATURDAY)Muntinlupa AT LEAST 85% OF CHILDREN AGES 6-12 WERE INVITED TO ATTEND THEPasig VALUES FORMATION EVERY SATURDAY FOR 13 WEEKS 400 CSOS Capacitated thru Capacity Building 100 BENEFICIARIES were trained for Sustainable Livelihood 100 SOLO PARENTS WERE TRAINED FOR THE SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD PROGRAM FOR SOLO PARENT AND WOMEN IN DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES 200 BENEFICIARIES WERE GIVEN ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN CRISIS SITUATIONS 200 BENEFICIARIES/PWDS WERE PROVIDED AUXILIARY SERVICE AND SPEECH AND SIGN LANGUAGE TRAINING 200 YOUTH WERE TRAINED IN THE UNLAD KABATAAN PROGRAM YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND PARTICIPATION 120 PARTICIPANTS WERE GIVEN PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN IN NEED OF SPECIAL PROTECTION 75 PARTICIPANTS WERE GIVEN AUXILIARY SOCIAL SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND OLDER PERSONS RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
27 Department of Social and Welfare and Development (DSWD) Budget Performan Status of 2013 BUB fu CATEGORY/ TOTAL ALLOTMENT OBLIGATED CONTINUING FUNDS (SOURCE OF FUNDS (As of December 31, (For utilization until end 2013) of December 2014)Direct Release Funds 24,117,000.00 21,605,561.90 2,511,438.10 (DRF) 21,511,300.00 21,048,185.17 463,114.83 Centrally Managed Funds (CMF) under 13,470,563.00 10,705,914.03 2,764,648.97 Protective Services 14,156,000.00 73,254,863.00 13,748,966.86 407,033.14 Bureau 67,108,627.96 6,146,235.04 CMF underSustainable Livelihood Program CMF under KALAHI-CIDSS Total Status of 2014 BUB fuSOURCE OF FUNDS TOTAL ALLOTMENT OBLIGATED CONTINUING FU (As of December 31, 2014) (For utilization until December 201Protective Services Bureau 20,885,450.00 8,842,031.08 12,043,418.9 Sustainable Livelihood 9,569,104.00 1,195,954.00 8,373,150.00 Program 595,000.00 31,049,554.00 0.00 595,000.00 KALAHI-CIDSS 10,037,985.08 21,011,568.92 TotalRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Social and Welfare and Development (DSWD) 28nce / Project Costunds are as follows: OBLIGATED TOTAL OBLIGATED FUNDS Refund BALANCE(As of December31, (Not obligated as of De- 2014) cember 31, 2014)1,257,593.40 22,863,155.30 1,253,844.70459,768.83 21,507,954.00 3,346.002,388,800.00 13,094,714.03 6,377,000.00 For refund but 375,848.97 still on process with PITC. 33,605.57 373,427.57 14,122,394.43 1,666,645.244,479,589.80 71,588,217.76 2.28% Percentage 97.72%unds are as follows:UNDS OBLIGATED TOTAL OBLIGATED FUNDS BALANCE l end of (As of Dec. 31, 2015) (Not yet obligated as of Dec. 31,15) 2015)92 11,925,011.68 20,767,042.76 118,407.240 7,985,158.70 9,181,112.70 387,991.30 499,500.00 499,500.00 95,500.00 601,898.542 20,409,670.38 30,447,655.46 1.94% Percentage 98.06% RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
29 Department of Social and Welfare and Development (DSWD) Budget Performan Status of 2015 BUB SOURCE OF FUNDS TOTAL ALLOTMENT OBLIGATED CONTINUIN 33,079,170.00 (As of December 30,Protective Services Bu- reau 2015) 20,694,116.88 12,3Sustainable Livelihood 35,584,500.00 8,140,500.00 27,4 Program KALAHI-CIDSS 31,472,000.00 7,500,000.00 23,9 Total 100,135,670.00 36,334,616.88 63,8CATEGORY/ SOURCE OF FUNDS APPROVED BUDGET Status of 2015 BUB f CURRENT ALLOTMENT Protective Services Bureau 64,216,955.00 36,356,000.00Sustainable Livelihood Program 20,509,532.00 KALAHI-CIDSS 6,054,725.40 20,509,000.00 Total 90,781,212.40 6,054,725.00 Percentage 62,919,725.00RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Social and Welfare and Development (DSWD) 30nce / Project CostB funds are as follows:NG FUNDS OBLIGATED TOTAL OBLIGATED FUNDS BALANCE (As of October 28, 2016) (Not yet obligated as of December 29, 2016)385,053.12 6,147,074.22 29,063,191.09 2,916,622.18444,000.00 12,286,000.00 32,107,500.00 3,477,000.00972,000.00 - 7,780,000.00 18,264,000.00801,053.12 Percentage 68,950,691.09 24,657,622.18 74.21% 25.79%funds are as follows: TOTAL OBLIGATED FUNDS BALANCE REFUND 572,500.00 29,447,396.61 6,908,603.39 722,500.00 10,909,382.00 9,589,618.00 1,295,000 6,054,725.00 0 46,411,503.61 16,498,221.39 74.57% 25.43% RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
31 Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Department of Trade and Industry National Capital RegionIn line with the Tuwid na Daan battle cry of the Aquino administration, Bottom-Up Budgeting (BuB) aimsto achieve community empowerment by encouraging participation from citizens in determining whatprojects should be implemented in their community in accordance to their needs.Department of Trade and Industry-National Capital Regional Office (DTI-NCRO) started its BuBimplementation with one participating LGU and one BuB project in the year 2014. By year 2015, thenumber of participating LGU increased to six LGUs with eight BuB projects. It was also increased to nineBuB projects proposed by four LGUs by 2016. To date, the budget allocated to DTI-NCRO for the BuBimplementation totaled to PhP 31,143, 910.00.PROJECT BACKGROUND OVERVIEWProject Type1. Yaman Pinoy2. Shared Service Facility3. Support to SSF4. OTOP Express5. Green Growth6. Industry Clustering and Development Program7. Local Region Economic Development8. Price Mapping and ProgramNumber of project by type and year of implementation Project Type 2014 % YEAR 2016 % ALL % 2015 % YEARSUrban Microenterprise Promotion 1 100 - - - - 1 5.5ProgramYaman Pinoy - - 4 50 3 33.3 7 44.4OTOP Express - - 2 25 2 22.25 4 22.5Industry Clustering and Develop- - - 1 12.5 1 11.15 1 5.5ment ProgramShared Service Facility - - 1 12.5 - - 1 5.5Support to SSF - - - - 3 33.3 3 16.6ALL TYPES 1 100 8 100 9 100 18 100RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) 32Fund allocation by project type and year of implementationProject Type YEAR % 2015 (₱) % 2016 (₱) ALL YEARS 2014 (₱) - % Urban Microenterprise 1,786,610.00 100 - - % (₱) Promotion Program - 1,786,610.00 6 Yaman Pinoy - - 6,343,900.00 49 10,300,000.00 62 16,643,900.00 53OTOP Express - - 3,600,000.00 28 2,275,000.00 14 5,875,000.00 19Industry Clustering - - 1,428,400.00 11 810,000.00 5 2,238,400.00 7and DevelopmentProgram - - 1,500,000.00 12 - - 1,500,000.00 5Shared ServiceFacility - -- 3,100,000.Support to SSF - 3,100,000.00 19 00 10ALL TYPES 1,786,610.0 12,872,300 10 16,485,000.0 10 31,143, 100Milestone and Success of the ProjectProgram as outlined Output / Accomplishment Remarksin Project Menu (Completed) (On going /Non-moving/ Dropped) -2014 1 Project Completed (100%) 4 Projects Non-Moving (50%)2015 3 Projects Completed (38%) 1 Project On-Going (12%)2016 2 Projects Completed (22%) 7 Projects On-going (78%) RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
33 Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)What Went Right? Close coordination with the LGUs and CSOs The different players and stakeholders showed their commitment to the program Promoted transparency in governance Fully established the role of CSO’s in project identification and prioritization Close coordination with the LGUs and CSOsWhat Went Wrong? LGUs failed to fulfil commitments Very slow procurement processes Transition in LGU leadership hampered documents completion thus delaying project implementation Lack of regular and proper coordination between NGAs and implementing LGUsAreas for Improvement and Recommendations Despite the improvements brought by the BuB Program, some issues and concerns in terms of social preparation, process facilitation, CSO engagement, project identification and prioritization, identifi- cation and prioritization of beneficiaries, and service delivery still need to be addressed Continue monitoring of status of project implementation and regularly visit project sites Better inter-agency coordination and communicationProject Highlights and Best Practices:Project HighlightsBuB-Pasay participated in our National Food Fair and will participate in our Regional FairProvision of follow-up assistance thru other DTI programsRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) 34Best PracticeConduct of regular communication (Phone, meetings, dialogues and e-mails)Pending Issues/Tasks:Completion of on-going projects of the following LGUs Year LGU Project Name Valenzuela SSF \"Community Based2015 Pasay Livelihood Program - Rag and Quezon City Rubber Mat Making\"2016 Support to SSF San Juan OTOP Store Express; OTOP Stores at the Barangay Yamang Pinoy Yamang Pinoy OTOP Store Express Support to SSF Industry Clustering RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
35 Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Budget PerformanYear Mun Project Project Fund Statu Physical IA Level Status Obligated Downloaded2014 Pasay Urban Microenterprise Program 1,786,610.00 1,786,610.00 12015 Makati Yamang Pinoy 1,428,400.002015 Makati 1,428,400.002015 Pasay Basurang Yaman ng Kabuhayan Laban2015 Taguig sa Kahirapan Program 2,100,000.002015 San Juan2015 San Juan Yamang Pinoy \"Fabrication and 1,100,000.00 Installation of Eco-Modular Planters\"2015 Valenzuela Womens OTOP Store Express \"Sari-2015 Navotas Sari Store and Finished Products\"2016 Yaman Pinoy \"Establishment and Org2616 of Product Fairs2016 OTOP \"Refurbishment/ Enhancement2016 of Existing Two (2) BSK OTOP Store2016 Express\"20162016 SSF \"Community Based Livelihood2016 Program - Rag and Rubber Mat2016 Making\" Yaman Pinoy \"Likas na Yamang Navoteno Program\" Pasay Support to SSF 600,000.00 600,000.00 Pasay Support to SSF Marikina Yamang Pinoy: Footwear and Leather 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2 goods and other industries with Quezon City Entrepreneurial and Development 7,400,000.00 Training Center 775,000.00 Quezon City San Juan OTOP Store Express; OTOP Stores at San Juan the Barangay San Juan Yamang Pinoy San Juan Yamang Pinoy OTOP Store Express Support to SSF Industry ClusteringRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) 36nce / Project Costus Fund Status Remarksl LGU level Disbursed Savings/ Downloaded Obligated Disbursed Savings/ Remit to Remit to Na- National tional Treas- Treasury ury 1,428,400.001,786,610.00 1,428,400.00 Completed Not Implemented Not Implemented 2,100,000.00 Not Implemented 1,100,000.00 Not Implemented 2,115,500.00 2,115,500.00 2,115,500.00 Completed 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 Completed 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 On-Going 700,000.00 700,000.00 700,000.00 Completed 600,000.00 Completed2,000,000.00 On-Going Completed 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00 On-Going 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 On-Going 500,00.00 500,00.00 500,00.00 On-Going 810,000.00 810,000.00 810,000.00 On-Going On-Going On-Going RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
37 Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department of Labor and Employment National Capital RegionThe Department of Labor and Employment – NCR a. OFW Returnees who are either:has been consistent with its participation in theBottom-up Budgeting Program since 2013. It - Repatriated from jobsites abroad due tostarted with four (4) projects in 2013 and has some cause;grown into thirty-eight (38) projects in 2016. - Terminated from their work due toThe total BUB budget allotted to DOLE-NCR from extraordinary or unforeseen events such as2013 to 2016 amounts to PHP 122,571,599.08. global financial crisis, natural disasters, war, terrorist attack, political uncertainties;Project Overview: - Finished their work contract abroad and1. Livelihood (or Kabuhayan) Program – a grant decided to stay in the Philippines assistance for capacity building on livelihood for the poor, vulnerable and marginalized workers. a. OFW Family Circles (OFCs) It provides a working capital solely for the purchase of equipment, tools and jigs, raw b. OFC Federations materials, among others to be used in their livelihood undertakings. c. OFC Cooperatives2. Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa ating Disadvan- d. OFW Returnees Association taged, Displaced Workers - a community-based (municipality/barangay) package of assistance Field Office No. of Proposed Tot that provides emergency employment for Projects displaced workers, underemployed and unemployed poor, for a minimum period of 10 CFO 8 17,3 days, but not to exceed a maximum of 30 days, depending on the nature of work to be MFO 2 3,7 performed. MPFO 2 5,13. OFWs Reintegration Program – for returning MTPLFO 9 23,8 OFWs and their families, giving them assistance for alternative means of employment and PFO 14 16,7 livelihood undertaking. Said funds shall be treated as grants for livelihood assistance to QCFO 3 6,9 returning OFWs. The program shall cover the following: TOTAL NCR BUDGET 38 73,6RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) 38FUNDS ALLOCATED IN GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT (GAA)CYCLE YEAR NO. NO. OF AMOUNT AMOUNT UTILIZED % OF UTILIZA- OF PARTICIPATING PROJECTS TION 2013 3,278,000.00 3,278,000.00 100% 2014 4 4 8,188,570.00 8,188,570.00 100% 2015 5 11 37,422,300.00 37,422,300.00 100% 2016 13 26 73,682,729.08 58,068,093.52 79% TOTAL 15 38 122,571,599.08 122,571,599.08 79 2016 DOLE-NCR BUB Accomplishmentstal Budget Obligated Utilization Rate (%) Available Balance Types of Proposed Projects304,251.00 16,224,142.52732,273.58 2,370,361.00 BASIC LIVELIHOOD SKILLS TRAINING,122,161.00 4,622,161.00818,610.50 12,706,683.50 94% 1,080,108.48 LIVELIHOOD/ KABUHAYAN PROGRAM, TUPAD, SKILLS TRAINING737,768.00 16,134,068.00 FOR EMPLOYMENT and SPES967,665.00 6,010,677.50682,729.08 58,068,093.52 64% 1,361,912.58 SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM and TUPAD 90% 500,000.00 TUPAD and KABUHAYAN PROGRAM LIVELIHOOD OR KABUHAYAN 53% 11,111,927.00 PROGRAM, GIP, TUPAD, SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAMS and SPES DILP (WORKERS INCOME AUGMENTATION PROGRAM), TU- PAD, STUDENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP 96% 603,700.00 PROGRAM, SKILLS TRAINING, KABUHAYAN PROGRAM and YOUTH ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SPES, TUPAD, and YOUTH 86% 956,987.50 ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 79% 15,614,635.56 RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
39 Department of Education (DepED) Department of Education National Capital RegionFor Department of Education – National Capital Region, BUB Programs/Projects from CY 2013 to CY2015 were all attributions to the Department’s budget. There were some difficulties that hindered theimplementation of those projects. Some projects were subjected to realignment and distribution.FUNDS ALLOCATED IN THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT (GAA) CYCLE YEAR NO. OF PARTICI- NO. OF AMOUNT AMOUNT % OF PATING LGUs PROJECTS UTILIZED UTILIZATION2013 5 6,939,000 2,510,000 36%2014 4 5 7,669,440 7,669,440 100%2015 5 7 9,198,000 0 02016 6 12 19,376,034 0 0TOTAL 7 29 43,182,474 10,179,440 22 ON-GOING 0STATUS OF DepEd-BUB PROJECTS (As of 15 June 2016) 0 2YEAR TARGET COMPLETED STATUS OF REPORT PIPELINED 0 5 2 DROPPED 0 2 2013 5 5 3 0 2014 7 0 0 3 2015 12 0 0 12 2016 29 7 0 15TOTAL 3For CY 2013 projects, three projects were dropped since projects were already implemented by DepEd-NCR. Re-alignment of some projects to Supplemental School MOOE was done in CY 2014. All wereimplemented yielding a 100% utilization rate which is also the highest among all other implementationyears. In order to avoid duplication of projects, CY 2015 projects which were all innovative programs,were withheld for a while thus resulting to 0% utilization rate as of June 15, 2016. CY 2016 projects are to be implemented by the local government thru Local Government SupportFund (LGSF). DepEd-NCR will issue monitoring guidelines to Division Offices to check beforeimplementation.RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Technical Education and Skill Development Authority (TESDA) 40 Technical Education and Skill Development Authority (TESDA) National Capital RegionAt the onset of Technical Education and Skills Pasay, Quezon City, San Juan, and Taguig.Development – National Capital Region’s (TESDA- In line with the mandate of the agency, BuBNCR) implementation of projects in 2014 under the projects under TESDA are primarily geared on theBottom-Up Budgeting Process (formerly known as provision of technical-vocational skills training.the Grassroots Participatory Budgeting Process),there were only six approved projects identified by The intention of the BuB is highly commendable,the Local Poverty Reduction Action Teams (LPRATs) and is gaining the limelight from neighboringfrom three local government units (LGUs): countries. Another major gain is theCaloocan City, City of Manila and Quezon City. participation of the public and the sense of ownership at the grassroots level for proposingIn 2015, five approved projects proposed by and implementing government programs. OfLPRATs of four LGUs were for implementation in course, the “birth pains” were there; felt both bypartnership with TESDA-NCR. These LGUs include the service suppliers (NGAs and LGUs) andCaloocan City, Las Piñas City, Pasay City, and Pasig customers (beneficiaries). This is inevitable. ButCity. bearing the end in mind, all of the struggles can beIn 2016, the numbers considerably increased to construed as lessons learned and shall serve asseventeen approved BuB projects proposed by springboard in improving the program to impactLPRATs of ten LGUs, namely Las Piñas, Malabon, positively both on the governance capability of theMandaluyong, Marikina, Muntinlupa, Navotas, LGUs and the lives of the beneficiaries.STATUS OF BUB PROJECTS (As of 15 June 2016)CYCLE YEAR STATUS OF PROJECTS 2014 Target Completed Dropped Pipelined On-Going 2015 6 4 0 2016 5 0 20 3 TOTAL 17 0 0 28 4 02 3 0 17 2 19 RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
41 Technical Education and Skill Development Authority (TESDA)TESDA-NCR received the budget allocation only in concerned TESDA-NCR district offices are simulta-October 2015, thus, the delay in the implementa- neously coordinating with the concerned LGUs intion of approved BuB projects for the said year. The their respective jurisdictions, facilitating the sub-said projects are being implemented this year. mission of the requirements for project imple- mentation of approved BuB projects for 2016. While implementing the 2015 projects, IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGESA. Phases in BUB the projects are outside the agency’s menu.Pre-Implementation Phase 2. Implementation Phase For 2014, the identification of project and Some LGUs preferred technical-vocational institution (TVIs) to partner with for the pro-corresponding funds was not properly ject implementation. However, proposed training programs were not offered by thecoordinated that resulted to the dropping chosen TVI. For the LGU-chosen TVI, the latter has to register programs. Prepara-and/or non-implementation of two (2) pro- tions for the program registration took time (especially on the purchase of requiredjects. Again, this may be one of the “birth tools/materials/equipment/consumables takes time) and eventually caused delay inpains”. Since this is being addressed during the project implementation.the RPRAT validation of the LPRAPs, this Specific identification of beneficiaries for the project took time, which also caused delay inshould be continued. the project implementation. The LGU usually did the beneficiary-identification. Non-eligibility of the LGUs for fund transfer to implement the projects on their own. Hence, the implementation of BuB projects is through the agency. This became an add- ed task or responsibility and accountabil- ity of the office, given the limited number of personnel catering to a big volume of clients. Difficulty in the preparation and submission Delayed submission of reports (enrolled andof technical requirements for the BuB pro- terminal reports).jects, which became the cause of delays inproject implementation, and eventually re-sulted to low fund utilization (e.g. late/non- 3. Post-Implementation Phasesubmission of technical requirements includ- Delayed submission of billing reports. Pay-ing project proposals, MOA, LPRAT Resolu- ment shall only be facilitated upon submis-tions, etc.). sion of billing. If the submission of billing is Even if recommended changes were already delayed, the effect will be a low fund utiliza- made after the RPRAT validation, LGUs failed tion rate.to change/update or submit their updatedLPRAPs. Nevertheless, said projects were still B. Other Operational Issues and Concernapproved by the DBM. Since the recom-mended changes were not acted upon or Delay in the release of funds to the office/ agency.applied, there were difficulties encounteredin the project implementation especially ifRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Technical Education and Skill Development Authority (TESDA) 42 Annual selection of LPRAT members was not aligned with the 3-year term of the LCEs. Incumbent LPRATs are at a lost, especially if the previous set of LPRAT did not turn-over the BuB projects to the incoming set. Change in the administration at the local level wherein previously approved LPRAPs were not prioritized by the incoming administration (e.g. case of 2013 change in administration). IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGESA. LPRAP Workshop No workshops have been conducted yet at the agency level since most projects are still in the pro- ject proposal stage and completion of documents.B. Consolidation/Review and Validation of LPRAPs at the regional level At the agency level, the reviewer found it hard to analyze the project proposal since most of the proponents were not technical writers; they could hardly justify how to sustain the project in the next 2-3 years.C. Project Implementation Non-submission or incomplete submission of documentary requirements by the LGUs that’s essen- tial for project implementation. The proponent LGUs were not diligent enough to comply in sub- mitting initial requirements like final project proposal and its formal endorsement, Sangguniang resolution, Certificate of Availability of Fund (CAF) for 40% LGU counterpart and signed MOA.D. Provision of Technical Assistance to LGUs to expedite BUB project implementation (Provided reviews and comments to all submitted draft project proposal for the project to be more feasible and realistic) PRIORITY AREAS FOR ACTION/ SUPPORT NEEDED/ RECOMMENDATIONSPolicyYearly issuance of new version of Joint Memorandum Circulars creates confusion to the proponentsAdministrativeTenure of LPRAT members is too short that sometimes disrupts the proposed project to be implement-ed. There are some scenarios that the LPRAT’s member who prepares the project brief is no longerelected or present during the implementation year, which makes it hard for the new proponent to re-construct or finalize the project proposal. RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
43 Department of the Interior and Local Government - (DILG) Department of the Interior and Local Government National Capital RegionThe Bottom-Up Budgeting (BUB) aims to achieve Action Team – NCR (RPRAT-NCR). By year 2014,community empowerment by encouraging the number doubled to four LGUs which alsoparticipation from citizens in determining what increased to seven LGUs by 2015; however, by theprojects should be implemented in their year 2016, only three LGUs proposed their projectcommunity in accordance to their needs. under the Department. The Department becameDepartment of the Interior and Local Government the Chairperson for the RPRAT-NCR since 2015 up– National Capital Region (DILG-NCR) started its to 2017. To date, the budget allocated to DILG forBUB implementation with two (2) participating the BUB implementation totaled to PHPLGUs in the year 2013 and served as the 64,200,880.00.Secretariat for the Regional Poverty Reduction FUNDS ALLOCATED IN GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT (GAA)CYCLE YEAR NO. OF NO. OF PROJECTS AMOUNT AMOUNT UTILIZED % OF UTILIZATION PARTICIPATING LGUs 2013 4 3,006,000.00 2,250,000.00 74.85% 2014 2 14 8,273,500.00 6,873,500.00 83.08% 2015 4 7 8,962,900.00 2,061,000.00 22.99% 2016 7 3 43,958,480.00 TOTAL 3 28 64,200,880.00 - - 11,184,500.00In terms of funds allocation in GAA, CY 2016 has the highest with PHP 43,958,480.00 which is 68.47% ofthe total GAA funds downloaded to the Department since the beginning of the BUB process in 2013.In contrast, CY 2013 had the lowest funding with PHP 3,006,000.00 equivalent to 4.68% of the fundssince the beginning of the BUB Process up to present.In terms of utilization rate, the Department received the highest rate with 83.08% while 2015 is thelowest with 22.99%.PROJECT BACKGROUND OVERVIEW1. PROVISION OF POTABLE WATER SUPPLY - provides access to potable water systems for cities andmunicipalities that have unserved or underserved communities.RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) 442. EVACUATION FACILITY – construction or repair/rehab/upgrading of evacuation center capable ofproviding temporary shelter for displaced families in times of calamities and also serves as commandcenter and training venue for calamity drills and other disaster preparedness activities.3. RESCUE EQUIPMENT – Procurement of rescue equipment like boat, mass transport vehicles, andheavy equipment4. FLOOD CONTROL – construction/installation of slope protections, drainage structures and otherinfrastructure that will mitigate soil erosion and flooding5. COMMUNITY BASED-MONITORING SYSTEM (CBMS) - an organized process of data collection andprocessing at the local level and of integration of data in local planning, program implementation andimpact monitoring. It Is a system that promotes evidenced-based policy making and programimplementation while empowering communities to participate in the process.MILESTONE YEAR Number of projects No. of projects complet- % OF ACCOMPLISHMENT ed2013 3 100%2014 12 3 100%2015 5 100%2016 3 12 75% 5 2What went right? The different players and stakeholders showed their commitments to the program BuB promoted transparency in governance Planning and budgeting were more inclusive and reflective of the local needs from the grassroots level Established the role of CSOs in project identification and prioritization The BuB program created a more LGU-NGA-CSO collaboration agreement What Went Wrong? As to policy - Yearly issuance of new version of Joint Memorandum Circulars creates confusion to the proponents - Strict COA policy - Menu of program is limited and does not capture what is really needed in the locality - Different agencies with different guidelines on the implementation of projects RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
45 Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Administrative - Tenure of LPRAT members is too short that sometimes prevents the proposed project to be implemented. There are some scenarios that the LPRAT members who prepare the project brief are no longer elected or present during the implementation year, which make it hard for the new proponent to reconstruct or finalize the project proposal. During the Planning Process - Challenges encountered in the conduct of the CSO Assembly: It is noticeable that same participants or representatives are invited to attend the CSO Assembly. Also, invitations are limited only to those CSOs that visit the LGU Offices regularly. JMCs state that the invitation of CSOs to the CSO assembly is open for all. Most community organizations organized by the poor are not registered and has no capacity to register their organization. Same participants/representatives are elected yearly. Most CSOs are not poor and do not represent the poor. Some are members of major national CSO networks who are not representatives of grassroots organizations. Some are not residents of the city/municipality. Most are regular recipients of LGU programs. Most are LGU-organized or controlled organizations. Political intervention in the CSO selection Challenges encountered during project identification and validation: Lack of knowledge about the projects listed in the Menu of Programs. CSO Representatives are only advocating for their organizational/parochial interests. Lack of participation from the real representatives of the marginalized grassroots sectors. Absence of some agencies during LPRAT validation Challenges encountered during implementation of projects LGU failed to fulfill commitments especially on the LGU counterpart funds which were not realized Delayed submission of documentary requirements Limited capacity of the CSOs in the preparation of the project’s technical requirements such as project proposalsRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) 46 Numerous BUB projects being implemented with specific time frame; Weak coordination between BUB Point Person and specific program managers/ coordinators at the LGU level Very slow procurement process Approved budget not enough for some projects Transition in LGU leadership hampered documents’ completion thus delaying project implementation; Lack of manpower to handle all activities concerning BuB; Lack of regular and proper coordination between NGAs and implementing LGUs; Confusion on what unit/group in the LGU is the project implementer; Some of the LGUs are not responsive in the submission of technical requirements for the BUB projects which delayed project implementation resulting to low fund utilization. (e.g. late/non- submission of technical requirements including project proposals, MOA, LPRAT Resolutions, etc.) Some implementing LGUs do not have a clear grasp of the technical aspect of their projects BUB project implementation is less prioritized by some of the LGUs. (e.g. postponement of scheduled activities, etc.)AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT/RECOMMENDATION Strengthened Monitoring and Evaluation System Menu of Programs should be expanded to cover the specific needs as identified by the grassroots Project Implementation at the LGU Level Strong Management Support Close coordination with BUB Point Persons at all levels (LGU, Regional, National) Provision of Technical Assistance to LGUs RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
47 Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Budget PerformanYEAR IA CITY/MUN. PROJECT PHYSICAL STA- APPROVED PROJECT TUS COST (AGENCY COST) 2016 2016 Ap- Com- 2016 proved pleted2015 DILG MALABON VALIDATION OF COMMUNITY 1 1 1,198,000.002015 BASED MONITORING SYSTEM2015 DILG (CBMS) 1 0 40,678,480.002015 DILG 1 1 2,082,000.002015 MANILA COMMUNITY BASED MONITORING 3 2 43,958,480.002015 DILG SYSTEM 1 1 954,000.00 2015 DILG PATEROS CONSTRUCTION OF EVACUATION 1 1 2,787,100.00 2014 CENTER DILG 1 1 1,114,800.00 2014 DILG SUB-TOTAL FY-2016 1 1 500,000.00 2014 DILG/LGA 1 1 607,000.00 2014 DILG/LGA MANILA Acquisition of flood boats (DILG 18 1 1 500,000.00 2014 boats, LGU 7 boats) 2014 DILG 1 1 2,500,000.00 2014 MAKATI Revalidation of 2014 Household 2014 Survey of Climate Disaster Resilience 7 7 8,962,900.00 Initiative NAVOTAS Construction of Public Market PATEROS Construction of Drainage MUNTINLUPA Capacity Development SAN JUAN Capacity Development LAS PINAS Procurement of prescribed vehicle for rescue and relief operations generation 6x6 all terrain truck SUB-TOTAL FY-2015 DILG CALOOCAN Creation of a Task Force to monitor the 1 1 283,500.00 proper implantation and re-activation of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC) DILG MANILA Training on Cooperative and Savings 1 1 175,000.00 DILG MANILA Program 1 1 700,000.00 DILG MANILA 1 1 700,000.00 DILG MANILA Sports Clinic on Basic Training, 1 1 1,400,000.00 DILG MANILA Coaching and Officiating 1 1 700,000.00 DILG MANILA Installation of Steel Gate/Barrier 1 1 1,050,000.00 DILG MANILA Manila Disaster and Risk Reduction 1 1 700,000.00 Youth Volunteers Youth Health on Watch Capacity Building of LGU Leaders on Mainstreaming Disability Program in Various Institutionalized Barangay Program Patubig sa BarangayRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) 48nce / Project Cost FUNDS DOWNLOADED SAVINGS/ UNUTILIZED/ REMARKS DROPPED/ RETUREND OBLIGATED DISBURSED TO NATL TREASURY 1,198,000.00 1,198,000.00 1,665,600.00 40,678,480.00 1,665,600.00 project is on-going1,665,600.00 2,863,600.00 On-going preperation of documents for 2,082,000.00 954,000.00 liqidation by the LGU.891,840.00 43,958,480.00 -607,000.00 2,087,100.00 954,000.00 LGU requested to utilize the remaining fund 891,840.00 for encoding of the data gathered. 2,787,100.00 500,000.00 On-going preperation of documents for liqidation by the LGU. 1,114,800.00 607,000.00 - 500,000.00 500,000.00 - - 607,000.00 5,539,940.00 500,000.00 2,500,000.00 Dropped. Budget is not sufficient to procure the equipment.1,498,840.00 6,462,900.00 2,500,000.00 283,500.00 278,000.00 5,500.00 175,000.00 175,000.00 - 700,000.00 700,000.00 700,000.00 - 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00 700,000.00 Dropped. Non-submission of documents 700,000.00 700,000.00 - 1,050,000.00 1,050,000.00 - 700,000.00 - 700,000.00 Dropped. 2 failed biddings; negotiated procurement failed RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
49 Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Budget PerformanYEAR IA CITY/MUN. PROJECT PHYSICAL STATUS APPROVED PR Approved Completed COST (AGENCY Promoting Awareness of Human2014 DILG MARIKINA Rights among Barangay Officers 1 1 75,00 (Training/Orientation on Human 12014 1 200,002014 Rights) 12014 1 200,00 Strengthening of organization for 1,865,002014 0 DILG MARIKINA Workers in Informal Economy Local 1 9 70,002013 Development Office 8,273,52013 150,002013 DILG Policy for Creation of Marikina Youth 1 756,002013 MARIKINA Office 1,050,00 1,050,00 Strengthening Capacity of Local 3,006,0 64,200,8 DILG MARIKINA Government offices to serve as 1 Urban Poor Action Center (Infrastructure for Urban Poor) Community-Based Disaster Risk 1 DILG MUNTINLUPA Reduction Management Team in 8 Barangays DILG 2013 Effective Governance Training for Fisherfolks DILG 2013 Updating the Baseline Data for Informal Settler Families DILG 2013 Profiling and Masterlisting of Informal Settler Families DILG 2013 Infomration Campaign Materials (IEC) DRRm Related SUB-TOTAL FY-2013 0 10 TOTAL BUB Project CostRPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) 50nce / Project Cost FUNDSROJECT OBLIGATED DISBURSED SAVINGS/ UNU- REMARKSY COST) DOWNLOADED TILIZED/00.00 DROPPED/ RE- TUREND TO NATL TREASURY 75,000.00 75,000.00 -00.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 -00.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 -00.00 1,865,000.00 1,865,000.00 -00.00 70,000.00 63,000.00 7,000.00 500.00 8,273,500.0000.00 - 150,000.00 6,859,000.00 1,414,500.0000.00 - 756,000.00 150,000.0000.00 3,164,440.00 1,050,000.00 1,035,000.00 Dropped. Project00.00 1,050,000.00 756,000.00 Duplication 000.00 3,006,000.00 1,026,390.00 880.00 2,211,390.00 15,000.00 61,700,880.00 17,473,930.00 23,610.00 794,610.00 4,709,110.00 RPRAT-NCR 2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
51 National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) National Anti-Poverty Commission National Capital RegionUp to this date, many residents of various cities and This hunger mitigation program under the Bottommunicipalities in the Philippines can still be -up Budgeting (BuB) Process shall be known asclassified as food, nutrition and income-deficient. the Integrated Community Food ProductionThis condition is periodically aggravated by climate (ICFP) Program or “Pagkain ni Boss”. Thischange, which results to unpredictable weather, program/project aims to mitigate and/or elimi-increase in planet temperature, decrease in yields, nate hunger among poor families; and help in-and more natural calamities such as typhoons, crease family income. It shall cover home-basedfloods and drought that continuously affect the and/or community-based food production initia-country. tives that produce a combination of at least three (3) of the following food sources: vegetables, ce-The situation has made it difficult for the target reals, rootcrops, poultry & livestock (chicken,project beneficiaries to have enough food duck and goats), fruit trees, among others. At theyear-round. Those who are not gainfully employed household and community level, they establishusually suffer the most. Since 2015, the National home and community gardens and produce theirAnti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) is implementing own organic fertilizer that they will utilize forthe Integrated Community Food Production (ICFP) their crop production activities. It endeavors toProgram under the Bottom-up Budgeting (BuB) demonstrate the link of production and utilizationprocess to address the issue on hunger and both at the household and community levelsmalnutrition and provide additional source of (nutrition and feeding centers, hospitals, mar-income for identified poor households. keting and processing centers).Amount Allocated: 2016 : PHP 3,010,000.00Budget Performance/Accounting for the Project CostsYr IA Prov Mun Project Project Physical Fund St Status IA Lev Downloaded Obligated2016 LGU Metro Manila Malabon Integrated Ongoing Community Food Ongoing2016 LGU Metro Manila Valenzuela Production Program (ICFP) Integrated Community Food Production Program (ICFP)RPRAT-NCR2017 END OF PROGRAM REPORT
Search
