LGSF-AM) Program
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MARCH 2020 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2020-03 Baseline Study on Policy and Governance Gaps for the Local Government Support Fund Assistance to Municipalities (LGSF-AM) Program Charlotte Justine Diokno-Sicat, Catharine E. Adaro, Ricxie B. Maddawin, Angel Faye G. Castillo, and Maria Alma P. Mariano The PIDS Discussion Paper Series constitutes studies that are preliminary and subject to further revisions. They are being circulated in a limited number of copies only for purposes of soliciting comments and suggestions for further refinements. The studies under the Series are unedited and unreviewed. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute. Not for quotation without permission from the author(s) and the Institute. CONTACT US: RESEARCH INFORMATION DEPARTMENT Philippine Institute for Development Studies [email protected] 18th Floor, Three Cyberpod Centris - North Tower https://www.pids.gov.ph EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines (+632) 8877-4000 Baseline Study on Policy and Governance Gaps for the Local Government Support Fund Assistance to Municipalities (LGSF-AM) Program Integrated Report Charlotte Justine Diokno-Sicat Catharine E. Adaro Ricxie B. Maddawin Angel Faye G. Castillo Maria Alma P. Mariano PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES March 2020 (Updated June 2020) Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 2. Scope, Methodology and Discussion Flow .............................................................. 3 2.1 Scope and Methodology ....................................................................................... 3 2.2 Discussion Flow .................................................................................................... 6 3. Local Development Instruments and Fiscal gaps..................................................... 7 3.1 The Local Development Council, Local Development Investment Program and Horizontal and Vertical Alignments ........................................................................ 7 3.2 Fiscal Gaps ......................................................................................................... 15 4. Local Government Performance Monitoring and Governance Gaps ...................... 26 4.1 Local Government Performance Monitoring ........................................................ 26 4.2. Governance Gaps: Results of the Baseline Study nationwide survey of municipalities on LGU Development Planning ..................................................... 36 4.3. Perceptions on the LGU Planning process: The Municipal Planning and Development Coordinators (MPDC) .................................................................... 50 4.4. Perceptions on the LGU Planning process: The Municipal Budget Officer/Accountant............................................................................................... 53 4.5. Perceptions on the LGU planning process: The municipal engineer .................... 56 4.6. Perceptions on the LGU Planning process: Civil Society Organizations .............. 60 5. Summary and General Findings ............................................................................ 65 5.1. Summary of Components 1, 2, and 3.1 ............................................................... 65 5.2. Component 3.2 results ........................................................................................ 67 6. Conclusion and Recommendations ....................................................................... 76 7. References ............................................................................................................ 84 8. Annexes ................................................................................................................ 88 List of Tables Table 1. Types and number of survey respondents for the LGSF-AM primary data collectio . 6 Table 2. Share of LGUs with passing scores for LDC functionality and plans, by region (in percent) .................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 3. Number of municipalities whose LDIPs are aligned with at least one framework (PDP, SDG, or Sendai Disaster Framework), grouped by quartiles of projects aligned per municipality ..................................................................................................... 12 Table 4. Number and value (in PhP) of projects classified as local roads, DRRM, health, and water, as a share of the total number and value of proposed LDIP projects for FY 2019 ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 5. LGU submission rates for PIDS LGSF-AM infrastructure data inventory (as of June 2019), by region .................................................................................................................. 16 Table 6. Municipal submission rates for the infrastructure data inventory ................................ 16 i Table 7. Estimated length and costing of unpaved municipal roads, 2017, by region (in PhP Million) .................................................................................................................... 17 Table 8. Level of water systems in the Philippines ....................................................................... 19 Table 9. Number of barangays that still have access exclusively to Level 1 water system only by municipality, province and region: 2017..................................................................... 19 Table 10. Costing and budget considerations of design recommendations for the construction or repair/rehabilitation/upgrading of evacuation centers ........................ 21 Table 11. Inventory and costing of evacuation centers by region, 2017 ................................... 22 Table 12. Estimation of RHU infrastructure gap using 2015 CPH data and LGSF-AM data submissions, 2017 .............................................................................................................. 23 Table 13. Difference between DOH NFHR data and LGSF AM data submissions, 2017 ...... 24 Table 14. Asset management: Income generating enterprise, 2017 ......................................... 25 Table 15. Asset management: Real property assets, 2017......................................................... 25 Table 16. Asset management: Purpose of loans availed, 2017 ................................................. 26 Table 17. The SGLG 2017 core and essential areas ................................................................... 27 Table 18. Criteria definition of the SGLG 2018 .............................................................................. 28 Table 19. Eligible projects under the Performance Challenge Fund .......................................... 29 Table 20. Scale definition in assessing regular and locally sourced income ............................ 30 Table 21. Scale definition for IRA dependence ............................................................................. 30 Table 22. Rating system for total expenditure per capita across LGU type .............................. 31 Table 23. Number of LGUs with correct/valid CLUP, CDP and LDIP (in terms of coverage or period of validity), as of 2017 ............................................................................................ 37 Table 24. NGAs that are members of the municipal planning team for the CDP ..................... 39 Table 25. Dataset development tool/s utilized by LGUs as the primary source for the preparation/updating of your ecological profile .............................................................. 43 Table 26. Tools/mechanisms utilized by municipalities in screening PPAs for prioritization .. 46 Table 27. Project types included in the ranked list of PPAs of LGUs ........................................ 47 Table 28. Ranking of proposed indicators for PPA prioritization for inclusion in the AIP ........ 47 Table 29. Source of financing sought by LGUs ............................................................................. 48 Table 30. Top five areas of concern faced by the LGUs as viewed by the MPDC .................. 52 Table 31. Perception of MPDC on how CSOs can best engage in the LGU development plans ..................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 32. Perception of Municipal Budget Officer/Accountant on how CSOs can best engage in the LGU development plans ........................................................................... 56 Table 33. Top five areas of concern faced by the LGUs as viewed by the Municipal Engineer ............................................................................................................................................... 59 Table 34. Perception of Municipal Engineer on how CSOs can best engage in the LGU development plans.............................................................................................................. 59 ii Table 35. Sectors of CSO members of the MPT ........................................................................... 60 Table 36. Awareness of CSO in selection criteria for MPT CSO membership ......................... 61 Table 37. Ranking of DILG proposed project readiness indicators ...........................................