Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Policy paper for lmda

497

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
497
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE EXTENSION STUDIES Surigao City Study Center Lake Mainit Development Alliance A Paper Requirement in PA 201(Theories and Practice in Public Administration) Submitted to: DR. FLORENCIO F. SUNICO, JR., CESO VI Submitted by: JOHN S. NATAD March 2009
  • 2. ACRONYMSAusAID - Australian Agency for International DevelopmentAWFP - Approved Work and Financial PlanBFAR - Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesBOT - Board of TrusteesCBRMP - Community-Based Resource Management ProjectDA - Department of AgricultureDENR - Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesDOST - Department of Science & TechnologyDOT - Department of TourismEMP - Environmental Management PlanFOCAS - Focal Community Assistance SchemeFPE - Foundation for the Philippine EnvironmentGLAs - Government Line AgenciesGOPA - Governance of Philippines AgendaHIPADA - Hinatuan Passage Development AllianceIFAD - International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentLBDA - Lanuza Bay Development AllianceLCE - Local Chief ExecutiveLGSP - Local Government Support ProgramLGUs - Local Government UnitsLMDA - Lake Mainit Development AllianceMLGUs - Municipal Government UnitsMSU - Mindanao State UniversityNEDA - National Economic Development AuthorityNMCIREMP - Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives & Resource Management ProjectNRM - Natural Resources ManagementPLGUs Provincial Government UnitsOMO - Operations Management OfficePACAP - Philippines-Australia Community Assistance ProgramPIA - Philippine Information AgencyPCAMARD - Philippine Council for Aquatic Management and Resources Development i
  • 3. PMO - Program Management OfficeODA - Overseas Development AssistanceRDC - Regional Development CouncilSEC - Security and Exchange CommissionSIPLAS - Siargao Island Protected Landscapes and SeascapesSNCAT - Surigao del Norte College of Agriculture & TechnologyTAG - Technical Advisory GroupTWG - Technical Working GroupVSO - Voluntary Services Organization ii
  • 4. INTRODUCTIONBrief Background of Alliance The Lake Mainit Development Alliance (LMDA) is an association created sometimes in March 1999 through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed among the eight municipalities, two provincial government units (PLGUs) like Surigao del Norte and Agusan del Norte and six government line agencies. The member local government units (LGUs) are the Municipalities of Alegria, Mainit, Tubod and Sison in the Province of Surigao del Norte and the Municipalities of Kitcharao, Jabonga, Santiago and Tubay in the Province of Agusan del Norte. The government line agencies (GLAs) who are member of the Alliance is composed of the regional government offices like National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), Department of Tourism (DOT), and Philippine Information Agency (PIA). The Alliance recognized by the Regional Development Council through RDC Resolution No. 03 series of 2002. Presently, Hon. Erlpe John M. Amante, the Provincial Governor of Agusan del Norte is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees (BOT), the highest policy-making body of the Alliance which is composed of all member Municipal Mayors, Provincial Governors and Regional Directors of member government agencies. A Program Management Office (PMO) established and hosted by the Municipality of Kitcharao managed by a ProgramDirector and his two administrative personnel with the technical assistance ofTechnical Working Group (TWG) composed of the Action Officers and Point Personsfrom the member LGUs and GLAs respectively. The BOT shall meet quarterly whilethe TWG shall meet monthly or as need arises.Fund of the Alliance The Alliance shall have two sources of funds for project implementation andits operations. These are (a.) contributions of the eight municipal and two provincialLGUs as indicated in an approved work and financial plan; and (b.) other sources, iii
  • 5. local or international, (loans, grants and donations fall into this category) as may beaccessed by the PMO (Manual of Operations, 1999). The Province of Surigao delNorte through the Provincial Treasurer was the custodian of LMDA fund from 1999-2001. In April 12, 2002, the BOT through its Resolution No. 03 approved the transferof fund to the Municipality of Kitcharao one year after the transfer of LMDA-PMO inFebruary 6, 2001 to Kitcharao, Agusan del Norte as the host municipality. TheMunicipality of Kitcharao and the PMO shall co-manage the funds using thegovernment accounting procedures. As agreed in the MOA, the two PLGU shall contribute an initial amount ofPhp150,000.00 each while the eight MLGU shall give Php50,000.00 eachrespectively. All these fund contributions will be deposited to LMDA trust fund, whichis under the custody of the Municipality of Kitcharao and the Municipal Treasurer asthe designated custodian.Paper Research Methodology This paper undertakes to present the feasible alternative policy on the LakeMainit Development Alliance concerning the fund contribution from the member localgovernment units and accessing of fund from other partners. The research is primarily based on the actual interviews, reports, publication,MOA, resolution and manual of operations of the Alliance. iv
  • 6. TABLE OF CONTENTI. SOURCE AND BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM A. Description of Problematic Situation ……………….1 B. Outcome of Prior Efforts to Resolve Problem ……………….2 C. Assessment of Past Policy Performance ……………….2 D. Significance of Problematic Situation ……………….3II. THE POLICY PROBLEM A. Problem Statement ……………….4 B. Approach to Analysis ……………….4 C. Major Stakeholders ……………….5 D. Goals and Objectives ……………….5 E. Measures of Effectiveness ……………….6 F. Potential Solutions ……………….6III. POLICY ALTERNATIVES A. Description of Alternatives ……………….8 B. Comparison of Alternatives ……………….8 C. Spillovers and Externalities ……………….9 D. Constraints and Political Feasibility ……………….10IV. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS A. Criteria for Recommending Alternatives ……………….11 B. Description of Preferred Alternatives ……………….12 C. Outline of Implementation Strategy ……………….12 D. Provisions for Monitoring and Evaluation ……………….13 E. Limitations and Unanticipated Consequences ……………….13REFERENCES ……………….14 v
  • 7. POLICY PAPER ON FUND CONTRIBUTION FOR LAKE MAINIT DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCEI. SOURCE AND BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM A. Description of Problematic Situation The source of fund for Lake Mainit Development Alliance (LMDA) isdependent largely from the contribution of the eight municipal local government units(MLGUs) and two provincial government units (PLGUs). According to the approvedMOA signed in 1999, the PLGU shall initially contribute One Hundred Fifty ThousandPesos (Php150,000.00) while the MLGU shall contribute the amount of FiftyThousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) which are all deposited into the LMDA trust fund atthe Municipality of Kitcharao. Subsequently then, the BOT agreed that same amountof contributions will be given to LMDA in annual basis. Based on the status of the LGU contributions from year 1999-2008, the twoPLGUs are consistent with their annual contributions of Php150,000.00 each with atotal of Php3,000,000.00 within the span of ten years. However, some MLGUs didnot adhere to the agreement of contributing Php50,000.00 per year because of leanbudget and urgent priorities. With the span of 10 years, LMDA received a totalamount of Php 4,985,000.00 from the LGU fund contribution. The expectedPhp 700,000.00 contribution per year or a total of Php7,000,000.00 within 10 yearswas not realized. The supposed approved work and financial plan (AWFP) of theAlliance was affected wherein some of the expected programs and servicesespecially to the MLGUs were not sufficiently delivered. Surigao Del Norte 5,000,000.00 Agusan del Norte 4,500,000.00 4,000,000.00 Sison 3,500,000.00 Tubod 3,000,000.00 Mainit 2,500,000.00 Alegria 2,000,000.00 Kitcharao 1,500,000.00 Jabonga 1,000,000.00 Santiago 500,000.00 Tubay 0.00 TOTAL Figure 1. Status of LGU Contribution for LMDA 1999-2008 1
  • 8. The LMDA has been using the annual fund contributions from each partnerLGUs in the implementation of the priority programs and services, which will bereturned to partner MLGUs in form of projects like agroforestry and riverbankstabilization (Gidacan & Harting, 2008). However, some other environmental priorityprojects will not be implemented due to lack of operations budget. B. Outcome of Prior Efforts to Resolve Problem The PMO brought and discussed to the TWG the issue about some MLGUslapses on their annual contributions to LMDA. The Action Officers from the MLGUsand Point Persons from PLGUs and GLAs are members of the TWG. The PointPerson of PLGUs, who are also the Deputy Directors of the PMO primarily demandduring meetings for the fund contribution from the MLGUs to LMDA. The TWG asthe coordinating, planning and fund sourcing body of the PMO recommended thatthe LMDA should implement and provide relevant projects and services to eachpartner MLGUs especially those who consistently giving their share as part ofstrategy. The PMO is expecting the favorable action of the concern Action Officers toreport and appeal to the concerned Local Chief Executive (LCE) to give theircommitted contributions. At the BOT level, the Chairperson of the board, who consistently contributedthe annual financial contribution to LMDA also appeal the municipal LCE tocontribute the needed funds. However, only some LCE respond to the call due tosome considerable reasons. As part of the strategy, the PMO Director has been regularly visiting eachLGU partners to solicit feedbacks regarding LMDA operations and on the projectimplementation (LGUMTP, 2008). This is strategy would somehow facilitate toensure the giving of LGUs annual contributions to LMDA. The LMDA also senddemand letter signed by the BOT Chairperson to partner LGUs regarding their fundcontribution. In spite of this, some MLGUs still have significant lapses in term of theirfund contribution to LMDA. C. Assessment of Past Policy Performance Engr. Kaiser B. Recabo, Jr., Director of LMDA, who is serving the Alliancesince LMDA’s inception in 1999 said that there is no strict policy as to the collectionof fund contribution from the partner LGUs and there is no new policy introduced. Hedescribed the fund contribution policy as stated in the MOA to be “a loss or flexiblepolicy”. This is to give ample and favorable time for the LGU partners to provide theircommitted financial contributions. This flexible policy would facilitate complimentaryconsiderations that will build positive relations and understanding among membersof the Alliance. There is no legal sanction or coercive action to those members whoneglected to pay their contribution because this would create adverse effect that willlead the gradual abolition of the Alliance. 2
  • 9. It is significant to note that there is no separate written policy with regards toguidelines or procedure for fund collection from partner LGUs except that it wasstated in the MOA. The MOA serves as the basis on this policy while the actualguidelines for such policy are based only on the “verbal gentlemen’s agreement”. Inhere, the policy is considered as conservative policy. This flexible policy may sometimes deem a workable policy since LMDAhighly considered those MLGUs who give their share. According to Engr. Recabo,Jr., the LMDA will prioritize in giving projects and services to MLGUs based on theirfund contribution. It is for this reason that some MLGUs received more projectscompared to other member MLGUs. The concrete example of this is theimplementation of Focal Community Assistance Scheme (FOCAS) projects fundedby Australian Aid for International Development (AusAID) - Philippines-AustraliaCommunity Assistance Program (PACAP), which are implemented in sevenmunicipalities except Tubay, Agusan del Norte. It was the fruit of complimentarynetworking and collaborative effort of Province of Surigao del Norte and LMDA forthe inclusion of the Lake Mainit area as part of the AusAID-PACAP intervention. It is remarkable that the municipalities of Sison and Mainit have two FOCASprojects each with an estimated of Php5.9 million PACAP grant fund eachmunicipality. The municipalities of Santiago, Jabonga, Kitcharao, Alegria and Tubodreceived an estimated of Php3 million PACAP grant fund each. This is the limited butadvantageous effect of the flexible policy. In this situation, the flexible or loss policywould be considered as the positive-generous policy of LMDA. Despite of the favorable effect of the flexible policy which accommodatesprojects to MLGUs, this does not always follow that MLGUs are assured to providetheir regular fund contribution. Thus, in effect this erstwhile flexible policy wouldsomehow considered inefficient policy. D. Significance of Problematic Situation The significant momentary failure in the fund contribution by some partnerMLGUs will really effect the implementation of priority projects and services of LMDAin Lake Mainit area (Gidacan & Harting, 2008). On the other hand, this has allowedthe LMDA pursuing flexible policy and accommodating partner MLGUs for thedelivery of limited projects and services. This would somehow encourage LGUs togive their committed fund contribute. While there are considerable lapses on fund contribution by some MLGUs,this does not discourages LMDA but rather it significantly pushes LMDA to findinnovative but acceptable alternative policy. 3
  • 10. II. THE POLICY PROBLEM A. Problem Statement The loss or flexible policy of LMDA with contented “verbal gentlemen’sagreement” regarding to fund collection on the LGU contribution has hamper thedelivery of programs and services of LMDA based on the approve AWFP.Nevertheless, LMDA has able to counter the problem on the collection of fund bygiving some kind of privileges to MLGUs in form of projects, which is resulted fromthe positive-generous policy. This motivational strategy has somehow gainedfavorable effect to MLGUs who might entice to give their committed fundcontribution. However, it takes time and lot of effort for LMDA to wait for theircontribution since partner MLGUs are not regularly paying that certain amount ofcontributions as expected. Thus, the flexible policy of fund collection is not alwaysconsidered efficient and effective. In order to achieve the efficient and effective policy on fund collection, it issine qua non that the LMDA shall: 1. Introduced and apply another acceptable but written alternative policies that will be useful to supplement and/or enhance the operative and resourceful fund collection; and 2. Institute an independent, effective and efficient strategy and policy for accessing of fund from external agencies other than present multi stakeholders (e.g. foreign donors) that would complement or intensify the present flexible policy. B. Approach to Analysis To come up with the possible policy options, LMDA needs the MixedScanning or the combination of Incremental Approach and the Rational-Comprehensive Approach.Incremental Approach Since LMDA needs to have acceptable policies, there is a requirement ofconsidering the old but prevailing flexible policy with customary oral gentlemen’sagreement. And in order to reinforce such kind of verbal covenant, it has to be put inthe black and white document. A written policy and mechanism to be published isthe incremental value of the customary gentlemen’s agreement. Other possible policy options must be explored and presented which shalleither contribute to the augmentation of the present flexible policy or contribute to thecomplementation to the gentlemen’s agreement. It could be also necessary toconsider searching for reliable strategy and policy that could facilitate not only tosupplement the current policy (i.e. flexible policy with customary gentlemen’sagreement on fund collection to LGUs) but also has incremental value that 4
  • 11. contributed to the general goal of the policy which is dependable fund sourcing andaccessing independent from LGU fund contribution.Rational-Comprehensive Approach After considering all the possible policy alternatives, LMDA is necessary toselect the best policy option with the greatest reliable value and/or incrementalvalue. Criteria should be set while considering the comparison of advantages anddisadvantages of each alternative. Presentation of difference of policy options will bethoroughly discussed in Comparison of Alternatives. C. Major Stakeholders In accordance to the membership of the Alliance being strengthened by MOA,the LGUs and the GLAs are the major stakeholders of LMDA. Additionalstakeholders have been involved in the Alliance like the Civil Society Organizations(i.e. including Non-Government Organizations and People’s Organizations),Academic Institutions (e.g. SNCAT and MSU-Naawan) and business sectorconsidering the vision of LMDA which is about the preservation of Lake Mainitecosystem and resources sustainably managed by the empowered citizen. Thesestakeholders especially the LGUs and GLAs have played significant role in shapingstrategies and policies towards the realization of vision, goals and objectives of theAlliance. However, they are also the reason for the inefficient implementation of thepolicy. D. Goals and Objectives The Alliance has implicitly defined the goals and objectives of its policyparticularly on fund collection on their MOA and Manual of Operations. However, itcould be understood that the Alliance was successfully established as thecoordinating body for the Lake Mainit LGUs and the fund to be collected from LGUsare necessitate in the operation and delivery of relevant programs and serviceswhich are anchored from the goals and objectives of the Alliance. The goal of the Alliance is to properly manage the Lake Mainit ecosystem anddevelop potential resources in order to reduce poverty and improve the quality of lifein the area. Specifically, the Alliance is aiming to: 1. Conserve aquatic resources and enhance their economic, ecological and recreational value; 2. Properly manage forestland and improved the land cover within the watershed; and 5
  • 12. 3. Promote greater involvement of the government, private sector, local communities and other stakeholder in the sustainable management of the lake and other critical resources. Its objectives are explicitly stated per major component programs concerningthe protection, preservation and promotion on: • Upland & Lowland Development & Management • River Management • Lake Management • Urban Settlement Areas • Institutional Management and Strengthening Generally, the policy of LMDA highly considers the above-mentioned goalsand objectives of the Alliance. E. Measures of Effectiveness As explained earlier, the verbal-flexible policy of LMDA concerning fundcollection from partner LGUs are highly considered as conservative and positive-generous policy but it also inefficient policy. In effect, the expected programs andservices of LMDA as approved in the AWFP, which are culled and highly consideredfrom the goals and objectives of the Alliance were not sufficiently delivered. The endurance and determination of LMDA has been challenged by themeager financial supports from LGUs. Nonetheless, LMDA has been successfullymanaging the constraint budget. F. Potential Solutions In spite of financial constraints, LMDA has successfully delivering its mandatewith the financial assistance from the foreign-funded project. This is the upshot of theeffective and continuous networking and accessing of funds from other fundingdonors which has happen due to the endurance and determination of LMDA-PMO. LMDA has been successfully initiating relevant project and services andbecome an active partner in the implementation of projects. The meager budget forthe operations of PMO has considerably amplified with the presence of foreign-funded projects (Gidacan & Harting, 2008) and other funding from the nationalgovernment. For the span of ten years, LMDA has successfully delivered relevant projectsand services with the help of PLGUs, GLAs and funding donors. The following aresome funding donors that significantly complemented and contributed to the 6
  • 13. implementation of LMDA priority programs and services to partner MLGUs and LakeMainit communities: Funding Donor Projects & Services Rendered Philippines-Australia Community Assistance Natural Resource Management Program (PACAP) thru Focal Community (NRM) project like Agroforestry; Assistance Scheme (FOCAS) & Responsive sustainable organic agriculture; Assistance Scheme (RAS) capability building trainings; enterprise/ livelihood, IEC and advocacy Department of Science & Technology (DOST) Limnological study; profiling of thru Philippine Council for Aquatic Management Lake Mainit; and Sustainable and Resources Development (PCAMARD) Fishery Program for Lake Mainit conducted by Mindanao State University (MSU) at Naawan Voluntary Services Organization (VSO) Provision of volunteers with high technical services and researches especially on the study of lake resources and stock assessments International Fund for Agricultural Development Infrastructure (e.g. water & (IFAD) thru Northern Mindanao Community irrigation systems, farm-to-market Initiatives & Resource Management Project roads, multi-purpose building); (NMCIREMP) NRM; enterprise; capability building Local Government Support Program (LGSP) Enhancement of Lake Mainit “Localization of Governance of Philippines Environmental Management Plan Agenda 21 (GOPA 21) for Fresh Water (EMP) and mainstreaming Civil Ecosystem” Society Organization (CSO) in the LMDA structure World Bank thru Community-Based Resource Infrastructure (e.g. water system); Management Project (CBRMP) NRM; enterprise; IEC and advocacy; capability building Foundation for the Philippine Environment (FPE) NRM, Biodiversity Monitoring & thru Lake Mainit Community-Based Biodiversity Evaluation, capability building, Conservation Project alternative livelihood Nevertheless, there are some foreign donors who are hesitant in establishingpartnership with LMDA for simple reason that LMDA is not yet registered to Securityand Exchange Commission (SEC) or any government registering agencies which willgive the Alliance the legal personality. This issue should be highly considered as thepolicy option since it will affect the fund policy concern of LMDA. 7
  • 14. III. POLICY ALTERNATIVES A. Description of Alternatives Generally, the possible alternatives for the effective and efficient contributionof fund for LMDA is favorably complementing and contributing to the present flexiblepolicy of LMDA to ensure its acceptability to all concerned partners. But in here, thealternative policy should be put in a black and white document which is quite formaland logical policy to fortify the traditional flexible-verbal policy. Innovative-incremental policy especially on establishing external policy togenerate reliable funds also demonstrates the potential policy of LMDA which wouldenhance dependable and sustainable funds for the operations of LMDA-PMO. B. Comparison of AlternativesPolicy Option #1: Ensure adaptable and flexible continuation of LMDA funding arrangement with active participation of major stakeholders and also ensure that the amount fund received is commensurate with the amount needed to undertake only priority services equally delivered to all partner LGUs and its communities. This policy ensures the implementation of the current policy which will beenhanced or supported with proper black and white documentation after revisitingthe flexible policy. Advantage: • Acceptable by all partner LGUs. • It provides ample and elastic time for the partner LGUs to pay the committed contribution. Disadvantage: • Ineffective and unproductive collection of funds. • Insufficient and poor delivery of services to all partners. • No assurance for LGUs to regularly contribute their funds. • More efforts for LMDA for the collection of fund contribution.Policy Option #2: Ensure strict and inclusive continuation of LMDA funding arrangement with active participation of major stakeholders and also ensure that the amount fund received is commensurate with the amount needed to undertake only priority services delivered to only 8
  • 15. consistent partner LGUs and its communities who significantly contribute. In here, the revisited policy will be strictly implemented with the concealedpolicy which is to give priority privileges to consistent partners while covertsanctioned policy for those who are inconsistent partners. Advantage: • Guarantee LGUs to contribute regularly in return of adequate and appropriate projects and services. Disadvantage: • It is rigorous policy which might result to the unwillingness of partners to contribute and in effect would lead to steady and drastic termination of the alliance.Policy Option #3: Ensure expandable continuation of LMDA funding structure with active participation of major stakeholders and institutionalized fund arrangement with other funding donors to ensure that the amount fund is commensurate with the amount needed to undertake priority services to all partners LGUs and its communities. It is highly considered that LMDA in this policy should be registered to anygovernment registering agency like Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) tosecure financial assistance from other funding agencies like foreign donors/officialdevelopment assistance. Advantage: • Allows LMDA to access additional external and equitable funds for projects to be implemented to all partner LGUs. • Ignite partner LGUs motivation and active support which may include regular financial contribution to LMDA. Disadvantage: • Extra endeavor for LMDA to make and establish efficient and effective linkage and networking activities. C. Spillovers and Externalities The continue existence of LMDA for 10 years in building partnership withmajor stakeholders and complementally working as the coordinating body of bothgovernment and non-government organizations in Lake Mainit area has beenconsidered a successful indicator that influences and replicates other focal areas 9
  • 16. who encourage to establish its own alliance. Example of this is the Lanuza BayDevelopment Alliance (LBDA), which established on August 25, 2004(http://www.lbda.ph/background.htm) and the recently institutionalized HinatuanPassage Development Alliance (HIPADA). In Surigao del Norte, the intervention of AusAID-PACAP through FOCASprojects are divided on three cluster areas namely, the Siargao Island ProtectedLandscapes and Seascapes (SIPLAS), HIPADA and LMDA. The SIPLAS areacovers all municipalities in Siargao Island while HIPADA composed on main landmunicipalities like Malimono, San Franciso, Taganaan, Placer, Bacuag and Claverand the city of Surigao (http://surigaofocas.wordpress.com). With the sharing of LMDA experience being the only successful and existingalliance in Surigao del Norte and Agusan del Norte, the city of Surigao andmunicipalities along Hinatuan Passage agreed to formally institutionalized HIPADA.And with the assistance from AusAID-PACAP, HIPADA was successfully establishedin October 10, 2008. Like LMDA, the HIPADA has similar policy of fund contributionwhich partner municipalities shall contribute an initial amount of fifty thousand pesos(Php 50,000.00) each and shall be deposited to a trust fund of the host municipality.They have the HIPADA Council composed of City and Municipal Mayors; theTechnical Advisory Group (TAG) composed of City/Municipal Planning andDevelopment Coordinators and representatives from Province of Surigao del Norteand GLAs; and the Operations Management Office (OMO) manage by an ExecutiveDirector. The institutionalization of HIPADA is one of the productive milestoneactivities of PACAP-FOCAS intervention in Surigao del Norte and the positive spillover effect of LMDAs significant experience as functional alliance. The LGUs and its communities will be benefited with the potentials of LakeMainit’s eco-tourism, agroforestry, hydro electric power and other relevant projectswhich have been identified by some funding donors and investors. These potentialshave been made due to the existence of LMDA. Likewise, the agroforestry, NRMand enterprise development projects funded by AusAID-PACAP have spill overeffects to economic and environmental aspects in Lake Mainit that give benefits notonly to the areas where the project implemented but to the entire Lake Mainitecosystem. D. Constraints and Political Feasibility The changes in LGUs direction and priorities may hinder the effectiveimplementation of contribution policy of LMDA. It has been an experience by LMDAthat there are some newly elected LCEs who have indifferent understanding aboutthe Alliance. Gidacan & Harting (2008) explains that, “newly-elected LCEs have setsof priorities for their respective LGUs which may or may not support the overallattainment of LMDA’s goals on sustainable development”. 10
  • 17. IV. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS A. Criteria for Recommending Alternatives 1. Effectiveness. One of the desired result to say that LMDA policy effectiveness is that all partners are demonstrate consistency in giving their committed counterparts for LMDA to effectively provide relevant services in return. 2. Efficiency. Partner LGUs shall diligently contribute their share on regular schedule at a given period of time (assigned month or quarter of the year). It is expected that LMDA has less effort in collection of funds from partners. 3. Acceptability. Policy should no condition of coercion and should be clear and understandable so that it will be acceptable to all partners especially the newly elected officials. 4. Adequacy. Most partners are expected to have inadequate fund resources –a reason that opt them to ignore their financial obligation. But this might be solved if there is sufficient and proficient information regarding the policy to all concern in the LGUs especially the offices of the Mayor, Governor, Planning & Development Coordinator, the Sanggunian, and other concerned offices to ensure that budget for contribution to LMDA is available and appropriated for example in LGUs 20% development fund. 5. Flexibility. It is wise consideration that given timeframe of fund contribution should be flexible and the amount of fund itself should be paid in stagger schedule since not all partners have stable and adequate money in their coffers. 6. Equity. As coordinating body, LMDA should always provide fair and just delivery of programs and services to all concerned partners. This must be defined and explicitly stipulated in the policy. 7. Responsiveness. The need for economic benefits and development is the main and crucial direction and priorities of the partners. Thus, it is imperative that the policy should ensure efficient and just delivery of programs and services in response to this essential development agenda, vision and mandate of the partners. 8. Appropriateness. It is appropriate that there is black and white document for a formal implementation of the policy. Registration of LMDA to SEC is extremely appropriate for LMDA to have legal personality. 9. Complementation. The policy should harmonize and work with the acceptable policy of the partners (vision, mission, mandates, and development agenda) and the customary policy of LMDA. 11
  • 18. B. Description of Preferred Alternatives Based on the comparison of alternatives, the Policy Option #3 is most appropriate and favorable policy which is highly recommended and to be undertaken. This policy help ensure dependable financial resources for LMDA provided however that LMDA must ensure extra effort needed for the networks and linkage to the funding donors other than the LGUs. Nevertheless, it is an important requirement that LMDA should be first registered to government registering agencies such as to SEC as this is one of the best considerations needed in establishing partnership with the funding donors especially the Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) The very crucial criterion for the Policy Option #3 is that it complements and supports to the old policy which is more considerate, flexible, and acceptable by the LGUs which would later produce into strong and dynamic Alliance with the policy that are then efficient, effective, equitable, responsive and appropriate. C. Outline of Implementation Strategy Regular activities of LMDA such us meetings, proper coordination and courtesy with the partner LGUs must always be ensured. This is to give enough and favorable ways for the implementation of the policy. Below are some considerable activities in the strategy implementation of policy: Activity Timeframe Logistics Responsible OutputInquiry for SEC April Travel documents, LMDA-PMO Acquisition of pro-registration allowances forma of legal documents and relevant informationTWG meeting May-June Communication LMDA-PMO, Policy paper, letter, venue & Action Officers registration paper, logistics, meeting and Point endorsement to kits including policy Persons BOTBOT meeting July Communication LMDA-PMO, BOT resolution for letter, venue & Action Officers the approval of logistics, meeting and Point LMDA registration, kits including policy Persons, commitment & registration Mayors, resolution documents Governors, Regional DirectorsFinalization of July Relevant LMDA-PMO Completeregistration documents documentsdocumentsLMDA registration August Travel documents, LMDA-PMO Approved SECto SEC registration registration papers documents, allowances 12
  • 19. Activity Timeframe Logistics Responsible OutputPresentation to September Travel documents, LMDA-PMO, Obtained RDCRDC Meeting approved SEC NEDA-Caraga resolution registration, endorsement allowancesInformation September Relevant LMDA-PMO Publication to Thedissemination to documents, policy Lake Mainitpartners paper, Chronicle and to communication LMDA websites letterStaff Development • Hiring of October Job qualification LMDA-PMO 1 Project Project standard & other Development Development hiring documents Officer hired Officer • Training on November- Training design, NEDA-Caraga Training conducted Project December funding, venue and Proposal other logistics PreparationProject proposal January Project proposals LMDA-PMO, Submitted projectsubmission NEDA-Caraga proposal to ODA for funding considerationsMulti-Stakeholder February Workshop design, LMDA-PMO, Identification ofProject Proposal funding supports, ODA fund donor priority projectsWorkshop venue and other proposals, logistics commitment of fund donor for the project implementation D. Provisions for Monitoring and Evaluation The PMOs Administrative staff shall regularly monitor on monthly bases the contribution payments of the partner LGUs. The PMO Director shall ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the newly hired Project Development Officer base on the number of project proposal formulated and submitted. Accomplishments updates and issues and problem must be discuss and resolve at the TWG level during the regular meetings. The TWG shall help ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the LMDA policies and plans. E. Limitations and Unanticipated Consequences Lack of political will and support and lean financial resources of the partner LGUs will really affect and hinder the implementation of LMDAs policies and plans. 13
  • 20. REFERENCESBOT Resolution No. 03 S. 2002 “Approving the transfer of funds to the Municipality of Kitcharao from the Province of Surigao del Norte”Gidacan, E. Z & Harting, G. C. 2008. A Case on Networking for the Conservation of a Shared Lake Ecosystem: Lake Mainit Development Alliance (LMDA) in the Caraga Region (Local Government Unit Management Training Project Benchmark Case Study # 10). Local Government Unit Management Training Project and National Economic and Development Authority – Caraga.Lake Mainit Environmental Management PlanLake Mainit Executive AgendaLMDA Status of LGU Contribution 1999-2008Manual of Operations of Lake Mainit Development Alliance, April 1999Memorandum of Agreement forming Lake Mainit Development Alliance, 1999RDC Resolution No. 11 S. 1999 “Resolution officially recognizing the Lake Mainit Development (LMDA)”Internet Sources:About LMDA, http://lmda.wordpress.com/about-lmda/ Date accessed: February 25, 2009Background of Lanuza Bay Development Alliance http://www.lbda.ph/background.htm Date accessed: March 27, 2009Lake Mainit Development Alliance http://lmda.blogspot.com/ Date accessed: February 25, 2009Surigao del Norte FOCAS, http://surigaofocas.wordpress.com Date accessed: February 23, 2009 14

×