Local Development Planning in the Philippines

at the Local Level A report by: Sheryl I. Fernando “Local governments do not have the luxury d of time to delay the development of their de own capabilities whic will allow them to ch achieve their cherishe objectives. ed They should help them mselves and not stagnate while the rest of the world go by. st Local governments he elping themselves is the essence of the home ru It is also the ule. cornerstone of democr ratic and just institutions. “ ?? LOGODEF, 1993 Local governments in the Philippines have th roots in the colonial administration of Spain, heir which lasted in the Philippines for some 32 years. These three centuries under Spanish 27 government were characterized by a highly ce entralized regime. The Spanish Governor General in Manila actually governed the provinces and cities in the whole country. After Spain, the US d came in the early 1900s and Filippinized local government administration. The last 50 years of the present century saw several developments towards decentralization. The Local Autonomy Act of 1959, the passage of the Barrio Charter and the Decentralization Act o of 1967 were all incremental national legisla ations in response to the clamour for a self? rule concept. The Philippine Constitutions of 1972 and 1987 also significantly influenced the movement for political devolution.
The most significant constitutional provisions (Article 10 on Local Government) are the following: s The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of s decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative n and referendum allocate among the different local government m, units their powers, responsibilities and resources and provide for the qualificati ions, election, appointment, removal, terms, salaries, power functions and duties of local officials and all rs, other matters relating to the organization and operation of the r local units”. The legislative initiative promoting local auto onomy was strongly supported by academics and public servants who spearheaded the nec cessary reforms in changing the structure and organization of local governments and includ new functions to enable local governments to ded address a changing environment. The strugg for decentralization that lasted more than 50 gle years culminated in the passage of the Loca Government Code in October 1991.
The Local al Government Code is a most comprehensiv document on local government touching on ve structures, functions and powers, including tax xation and intergovernmental relations. ” ?? unescap. org According to Panadero (2008) the dece entralization of governance was influenced  by local  and international events (see Figure e 1). He also added that at the International Internat tional Events POSITIVE ? Technological Advances ? Globalization crisis ? Trade/Investment liberalization ? Poverty focus flu) Political • 3 changes in  administration • EDSA II & III • Increase Insurgency • Terrorism • Charter Change • Political Uncertainty NEGATIVE ?

Episodes of world economic Slowdown & economic ? Rising oil prices ? Terrorism ? Heath problems (e. g. SARS, Eco onomic • Boom bu ust economic  growth/cr rises • Liberaliza ation/  Deregular rization  Policies • Rising Ur rbanization • OFW Deployment • Fiscal & d debt problems DECENT TRALIZATION Social • Persistent poverty • Lower budget  allocation For social services • Rising inequality • Disasters Figure 1. Economic, Social & Political Environme ent in the Last Years of Decentralization level, globalization has the most pervasive influence on the decentralization, which was hastened by trade and investment liberalization and technological advances.
On the Social Sector, there was a focus on the reduction of poverty; on the Economic Sector, the new international issues such as terrorism had positive and negative impacts at the local level, while the economic scenario at the national level significantly shaped local development. The national government in the 1990 sought to upgrade local government by 0s delegating some limited powers to local su ubdivisions and by encouraging people to participate in community affairs. Local auto onomy was balanced, however, against the need to ensure effective political and admin nistrative control from Manila, especially in those areas where communist or Muslim ins surgents were active. During Marcos’s authoritarian years (1 1972? 86), a Ministry of Local Government was instituted to invigorate provincial, mu unicipal, and barangay governments.
But, Marcos’s real purpose was to establish lin of authority that bypassed provincial nes governments and ran straight to Malacanang. All local officials were beholden to Marcos, who could appoint or remove any provincial governor or town mayor. Those administrators who delivered the votes Marcos asked for were rewarded with community development funds to spend any way they liked. y After the People’s Power Revolution, the new Aquino government decided to replace all the local officials who had served Marcos. Corazon Aquino delegated this task to her political ally, Aquilino Pimentel. Pimentel named officers in charge of local governments all across the nation. They served until the first local elections were held under the new constitution on January 18, 1988.
Local officials elected in 1988 were to serve until June 1992, under the transitory clauses of the new constitution. Thereafter, terms of office were to be three years, with a three? term limit. Local government units (LGUs) are territo orial political subdivisions of the Philippines that include provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays (the smallest political unit in the country). Because local government officials ar voted into power by the people, their primary re role is people’s welfare. Their offices are the major institutions responsible for the e coordination, overseeing and monitoring of dev velopment projects at the local level.
The devolution of significant powers and functions formerly held by national line agencies mmunity development and poverty alleviation in to LGUs made them powerful conduits for com the countryside. Among the responsibilities tr ransferred to the LGUs were agriculture, health, social services, environment and natural resources, maintenance of local infrastructure facilities (such as farm? to? market roads, bridges and irri igation) and others. Local legislative powers such as decision? making, resource allocation, rule? m making and enforcement of laws related to these powers were also delegated to LGUs. Governor Lilia G. Pineda meets with barangay officials of flooded? municipalities in the province as she instructs them to further  intensify their efforts in ensuring the welfare and safety of their r respective constituents. Board Member Cris Garbo, Provincial  Social Welfare and Development Officer (PSWDO) Elizabeth Bayb bayan and Agriculture Consultant Roy Imperial join the meeting of  the local officials. (Photo by Jun Jaso,Pampanga PIO) The planning process in starts at the barangay level. Plans are prepared by the Barangay Council, and then adopted by the Barangay Development Council, composed of barangay y officials elected by the people (Figure 2). Gene erally, barangay officials have completed only the elementary levels of schooling, and have little or no training in development? related activities.
Hence, barangay development plans usually consist only of lists of projects that focus mainly c on the infrastructure facilities that are the most obvious and easiest to identify. Some communities do have better planning processe but these are rare. es, Level National Planning Institutions National Economic Development  Authority (NEDA), Central Office Regional NEDA,  Regional Office Provincial Provincial Planning and  Development Office (PPDO) Municipal Municipal Planning and  Development Office (MPDO) Barangay Figure 2. Planning process and institutions in the Philippines Barangay Council/ Sangguniag Barangay Barangay development plans are submit tted to the Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO), which comes under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Mayor.
The MPDO is in charge of planning activities at the municipa level. Generally, the MPDO consolidates the al “shopping lists” of projects and prioritizes them in accordance with the plans of the municipality. Before this consolidated plan bec comes the official Municipal Development Plan, it must first be adopted by the Municipal Develo opment Council. From the municipal level, plans are forwarded to the Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO) where they are again D consolidated and prioritized on the basis of the province’s own particular plans. e The provincial development plans are also reviewed by the Provincial Development Councils before adoption.
They are then sub bmitted to the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Regional Office, which cons solidates all the provincial plans and prioritizes them, based on regional importance. The plans should also be reviewed by the Regional p Development Councils before adoption. The plans are then forwarded to the NEDA Central Office Inter? Cabinet Coordinating Committee for consideration, together with the priorities of f the various government line agencies. Based on the national thrusts and priorities, the projects o that are selected are then consolidated and included in the National Medium? Term Development Plan. The Local Government Code (LGC) man ndates the LGUs with significant local planning functions.
In particular, Section 106 of the Code provides that “each LGU shall have e comprehensive multi? sectoral development pla to be initiated by its development council and an approved by its Sanggunian. The institutional responsibilities for plan formulation, e financing and implementation are likewise clearly g, prescribe by the Code: ed ? The Loc Development Plan (LDP) shall be prepared by the cal Local Development Council (LDC); P ? The LDP will be approved by the Sanggunian; ? Funds for the development plan shall be allocated by the Local Fin nance Committee (LCF); and ? The Loc Chief Executive (LCE), together with the executive cal departm ments, will implement the development plan. This case study highlights the experience of undertaking a Priority e Implementation Partnership on incorporating disaster risk impact assessments into the construction of new roads in the Philippines, implemented by the National Disa aster Coordinating Council (NDCC) and Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) with support from Asian Disaster Preparedness Cent (ADPC), UN International Strategy ter for Disaster Reduction (UN/I ISDR) and Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). ” Towards Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into the Planning Process of Road Construction Safer Roads A Priority Implementation Partnership between the National Disaster Coordinating Council and the Department of Public Works and Highways, Philippines Under the Regional Consultative Committee on Disaster Management (RCC) Program on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into Development in Asia Road Sector a priority for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction
BACKGROUND The Regional Consultative Committee (RCC) on Disaster Management under its program on Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into development (MDRD) have identified Roads and Infrastructure, Agriculture, Education, Health, Housing and Financial Services as priority sectors to initiate mainstreaming disaster risk reduction . With the massive infrastructure development in Asia underpinned by the investment in highways, roads and bridges, prioritizing the Road Sector is certainly a necessity. In the RCC which comprises of heads of the National Disaster Management Offices of 26 Asian Countries, members had submitted expression of interest (EoI) to mainstream of disaster risk reduction into particular sectors depending on the development priorities of their country.
The National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) of the Philippines which is a member of the RCC expressed interest in taking-up MDRD into road sector in partnership with the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the agency responsible for national road construction in the country. Accordingly in the first quarter of 2006, the Priority Implementation Partnership for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into the planning process of road construction in the Philippines was started by NDCC and DPWH. The partnership was technically supported by the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) with financial support from UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) through Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). ource: Mapping Philippine Vulnerability to Environmental Disasters – Manila Observatory/Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Floods and earthquakes make the road system in the Philippines prone to landslides, road slips, embankment scouring and other sediment related disasters. Roads are often closed for several days when hit by such disasters causing disruption in transportation services that affects the access of passengers, goods and services. The impact of flooding and typhoons in creating havoc to the country’s economy as well as to damage to property is recognized in the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan of 2001-2004 and accordingly the DPWH has also aligned its policies and strategies.
Priority Implementation Partnership (PIP) – a Process towards mainstreaming disaster risk reduction Similar to other countries, the Road sector in the Philippines also works in close collaboration with various government departments like Planning, Finance, Environment and Local Government. While the development of national roads (30,000 km of length) is under the jurisdiction of DPWH, the remaining road network (172,000 km of length) falls under the concern of local government units. In addition, road projects are based on area development plans produced by the National Economic Development Agency (NEDA) and the Regional Development Councils (RDC). Similarly the feasibility reports prepared for each road project undergoes an environmental and a social impact assessment led by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
In order to mainstream disaster risk reduction, further collaboration is required with NDCC and technical agencies responsible for producing hazard information related to natural disasters like the Philippines Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), Philippines Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). A MULTI-AGENCY TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP TAKES THE LEAD With this understanding, the PIP formed a technical working group of the NDCC at the beginning with multi-agency membership to steer the process of implementation of mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into the planning process of road construction. procedure of road planning and identifying the windows of opportunity to introduce disaster risk reduction.
Accordingly the scope of activities was detailed as follows: • Documentation of existing procedure for development of road projects with respect to hazards; Documentation of contents of pre feasibility/ feasibility report of road projects in the country over the past 20 years; Analysis of past damage to road infrastructure; Identification of specific steps that can be taken for incorporating hazard considerations in project development and approval process; List of future priority projects for construction of roads in the Philippines. • PIP Technical Working Group comprises: • • • • • • • • • Chairperson; Planning service, DPWH Co-chairperson; Planning division, NDCC Members Bureau of research and standard, DPWH Bureau of design and bridge division, DPWH Philippines Institute of Civil Engineer Department of Environment and Natural Resources Philippines Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
Philippines Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration Asian Disaster Preparedness Center • • • The technical working group met frequently over the PIP implementation period to look at the mentioned activities above and developed the final report which details recommendations for integrating DRR into the planning process of new road construction in the Philippines. BROADER CONSULTATION PIP LOOKED INTO The technical working group engaged in consultation and decided on the following activities for initiating mainstreaming. Since it was realized that the ultimate aim of mainstreaming could only be achieved by bringing change in the entire system, which road projects are developed, designed, constructed and maintained.
Hence this particular partnership would emphasize on understanding the existing The findings of the PIP were shared during a national workshopheld in February 2007, in which a wide range of stakeholders particpated including the Government, technical agencies, UN agencies and the Asian Development Bank. The recommendations were discussed in detail and future steps were identified. The Project Development of a typical infrastructure project in DPWH follows a cyclic process consisting of four phases: Project identification, Project preparation, Project implementation and Project operation and evaluation. consolidated form, with limited access to detailed report on damages and their corresponding costs. Also of equal importance is to benchmark hazard intensities with their Return periods/Damages.
This is particularly difficult due to: lack of updated topographic maps at 1:5,000 or higher resolution, a sparse network of hazard monitoring stations (seismic and flood) as well as short monitoring period and limited processed data on hazards. The following key documents were collected during the project to conduct the analysis: • Standard Terms of Reference for Strategic Environment Assessment for Plans and Programmes Standard Report Format for Strategic Environment Assessment for Plans and Programmes Sample of Damage Report DPWH District Office Sample of Consolidated Damage Report by NDCC Sample of Bridge condition Inspection Form Sample of Pre- Feasibility and Feasibility Reports of Road projects starting 1984 List of future projects of DPWH
After the projects are identified, feasibility studies are conducted which includes investigations and analysis to determine the extent and degree of desirability of a project against technical, economic, social, environmental, financial and operational aspects. As part of this project, sample feasibility reports over last 20 years were analysed in terms of content and it was realized that the structure of the report largely depends on the source of funding of the project. Typically due to lack of funding for construction of national road projects, DPWH administers a basic feasibility study, but for foreign-assisted projects the assessment process is more in-depth and extensive.
However, it was noted that post 2000, the feasibility reports do tend to include a section on “Review of hazard specific threats on road sections” though it is primarily limited to protecting the road segments from geological hazards such as landslides and debris fall. In addition, DPWH feasibility study includes an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The EIA report structure considers the impact of hazards by defining an “environmentally critical area” of the project site where it is frequently visited by the natural hazards. However, it does not explicitly provide details on how to address natural hazard vulnerability and risks to infrastructure and the consequent impact from its damage or failure.
Similarly, Cost-benefit analysis cover only the planned use of the facility and does not factor in other costs (risk based cost) arising from potential damage or possible failure of the structure to function to a certain event. Assessment of damages to roads affected by a natural disaster is carried-out by DPWH at the district level. There is no fixed format followed for collecting information needed for the assessment and the reports are directly sent to NDCC for the preparation of an overall disaster assessment report. Hence, it becomes difficult to trace these records at the regional or central offices of the DPWH. Similarly the damage information of past disasters available from NDCC is in a • • • • • •
It is also realized that since mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction involves a broad range of stakeholders, interrelated plans and programs, disaster risk reduction concerns need to be linked with ongoing projects of DPWH such as: • • • • The earthquake rehabilitation program and similar seismic vulnerability assessments DPWH national roads improvement and management program, Phase II DPWH road maintenance investment programs The study on the nationwide flood risk assessment and the flood mitigation plan for the selected areas in the Philippines Technical Assistance for risk assessment and management Benefit monitoring and evaluation of selected roads, Phase II, ADB Capacity Building Study on risk management for sediment related disaster on selected national highways Similarly close linkage needs to be established with the ongoing project of NDCC in partnership with UNDP on Hazard Mapping and Assessment for effective community-based disaster risk management (READY). • • • •
KEY FINDINGS • DPWH adopts a basic “one size fits all” format for feasibility studies of road projects that does not specifically require assessment of disaster risks. During detailed design, disaster risk reduction aspects are incorporated into the project if required. Mostly national budgets do not provide funds for surveys and investigations at the feasibility study stage, and it is therefore unusual for disaster risk reduction measures to be incorporated at early stages of project preparation. Externally funded projects are prepared to higher standards, particularly in relation to environmental assessments (where disaster risk aspects are described if required by the particular agency) and resettlement planning.
There is uneven application of building codes and design standards between national and local roads. Absence of one fixed format for collecting information on damage to roads and bridges from natural hazards prepared by district-level offices. Hydrological data are available for major river basins in the Philippines but these information have not uniformly been processed to provide flow/stage relationships for different return periods, which could be used for road design. Learning The key to successful integration of disaster risk reduction on road projects lies in the planning phase of the project cycle which includes project identification and preparation of the feasibility study.
Assessing the possible impact on the project of natural disasters or other hazards at this stage means that the appropriate risk reduction measures can be included in the scope, layout and arrangement of the project’s major components—and that these measures will be allowed for in the cost estimate. If such measures are not included at the planning phase, their inclusion at the later stages is unlikely, or could be costly and inconvenient (i. e. possibly requiring a supplementary budget). Attempting to include risk reduction measures at the design stage (after major elements of the project have been decided and the budget has been allocated) cannot adequately satisfy the need for disaster risk reduction. • • • • • Recommendations DPWH needs to have a standard on project identification and preparation procedures to eliminate quality discrepancies between nationally and externally funded projects and to pave the way for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction in road projects. Feasibility reports should include assessments of the impact of potential disasters. An enhanced natural hazard/impact assessment component should be included in the EIA for nationally-funded and foreign-assisted projects The existing system for monitoring road needs to be improved to allow for the recording of damage caused by natural disasters. Standard formats and reporting standards should be introduced for monitoring and for collecting damage data from the impact of natural disasters on roads.
Capacity of staff to assess the impact of natural disasters needs to be increased, particularly at the regional and district levels. The key to successful integration of disaster risk reduction on road projects lies in the planning phase… • • • • • Next Steps for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into road sector in the Philippines In order to take forward the momentum gained under the PIP, the technical working group has identified the following next steps to realize the recommendations: • Identifying two pipeline road projects in a hazard prone area of the Philippines. The two projects would be at different stages namely a pipeline project without a feasibility study and a pipeline project with a feasibility study completed.
Integrating disaster risk reduction (DRR) into the planning process of two identified pipeline project. Capacity building of officials from DPWH responsible for conducting feasibility studies on how to integrate DRR. Experience of PIP incorporated in the RCC Guideline on mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into Infrastructure • To share the experience gained during the process of implementation of the PIP with the remaining RCC member countries, the technical working group represented by DPWH and NDCC participated in a regional technical workshop on developing the RCC Guideline on incorporating disaster risk assessments as part of planning process before construction of new roads.
The lessons learned from the PIP acted as the guiding approaches for initiating mainstreaming disaster risk reduction. • • Regional Consultative Committee on Disaster Management (RCC) The RCC comprises of members who are working in key Government positions in the National Disaster Management Offices of countries of the Asian region. To date, 26 countries are represented by 30 RCC Members from the Asia and Pacific regions, namely, Afghanistan, Bangladesh Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor Leste and Vietnam.
RCC Program on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into Development Policy, Planning and Implementation in Asia (RCC MDRD) A key priority identified by the RCC is the integration of disaster risk considerations into development planning. To initiate action on this agreed direction, the RCC Program on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into Development Policy, Planning and Implementation (MDRD) was launched at the 4th RCC meeting in Bangladesh in March 2004. The RCC 5 adopted the Hanoi RCC 5 statement on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into Development in Asian Countries which prioritizes mainstreaming of DRR to be initiated in National development planning process as well as Sectoral development.
It identified six priority sectors namely Agriculture, Education, Health, Housing, Urban Planning and Infrastructure and Financial services for mainstreaming of DRR. The program has five components for implementation: • • Component 1: Developing Guidelines and Tools for MDRD Component 2: Undertaking Priority Implementation Partnerships (PIP) in MDRD in RCC Member Countries Component 3: Showcasing good practice on MDRD and Monitoring Progress Component 4: Advocacy for Building awareness and Political Support to MDRD Component 5: Mobilizing Partnerships for ongoing and sustainable implementation Lay-out and graphic design by: Philipp Danao • • •
The Hanoi RCC 5 statement identified the following sub themes within the Urban Planning and Infrastructure to initiate mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction: For more information, please contact: • Aloysius Rego, Director and Team Leader Email: [email protected] net • Arghya Sinha Roy, Project Manager Email: [email protected] net Disaster Management Systems Team Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) P. O. Box 4 Klong Luang Pathumthani 12120 Thailand Tel: (66 2) 516 5900-10 Fax: (66 2) 524-5350, 5360 Email: [email protected] net website: www. adpc. net Introducing Disaster Risk Impact Assessments into the construction of new roads and bridges; Promoting the use of hazard risk information in land-use planning and zoning programs
This case study highlights the experience of undertaking a Priority Implementation Partnership on incorporating disaster risk impact assessments into the construction of new roads in the Philippines, implemented by the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) and Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) with support from Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ ISDR) and Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). References:   ONLINE :  Guide to Comprehensive Development Plan  http://www. mongabay. com/reference/country_studies/philippines/GOVERNMENT. html  Accessed: June 26, 2012 Local Government Code. http://www. chanrobles. com/localgov1. htm  Accessed: June 26, 2012  Local Government in Asia and the Pacific: A Comparative Study. Country paper: Philippines  http://www. unescap. org/huset/lgstudy/country/philippines/philippines. tml                   Accessed: June 26, 2012  Luz Seno? Ani. Participatory territorial planning: the farming systems development approach in  community planning in the Philippines, 1995–2002. http://www. fao. org/docrep/005/Y8999T/y8999t06. htm    Accessed: June 26, 2012    Philippines? Government  http://www. mongabay. com/reference/country_studies/philippines/GOVERNMENT. html  Accessed: June 26, 2012    Rationalizing the Local Planning System  http://www. dilg. gov. ph/PDF_File/reports/DILG? Reports? 2011712? ea7ba5859e. pdf    e? BOOK/BOOK:    Panadero, Austere A. (2008). Strategy to Further Decentralization in the Philippines. LOGODEF  Journal on  Local Governance.
Towards Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into the Planning Process of Road Construction      PHOTOS:  Gov. meets with brgy officials:  http://pampangacapitol. ph/2011/10/06/gov? meets? with? barangay? officials/    cory caricature??? from the Filipino mind: Bobby Tuazon  http://thefilipinomind. blogspot. com/2009/08/cora? aquino? how? politics? of? reform? lost. html    Cover photo by Sheryl Fernando, documentor, Executive management course for  PSWDOs and  MSWDOs in Mindanao A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in  Development Management in n Development Organizations Submit tted to: Dr. Jedida L. Aquino Profe essor Submitted by: Sheryl I. F Fernando MD DM