|
Rationale for the RPS
This is an attempt to put order to the present chaos that
characterizes local planning in the Philippines. The chaotic condition owes in
part to the persistence of pre-devolution practices and also the failure to
implement to their full implications the Local Government Code provisions on
local planning.
A. ADDED VALUES OF RPS ON PLANNING
1. To rationalize the local planning
system starts with the intention to faithfully comply with the applicable
provisions of the Local Government Code.
2. Another dimension of
rationalization is to reduce the number of plans that LGUs must prepare to the
two comprehensive plans (CLUP and CDP) that are mandated in the Code. This
implies that national government agencies requiring certain sectoral or topical
plans of LGUs to prepare must integrate these requirements into the CLUP or
CDP, as the case may be, and allow the local planning structure and processes
to respond to these requirements.
3. Corollary to the above dimension is
the need for NGAs that are directly involved in local planning to harmonize or
dovetail their planning guidelines with one another to avoid further confusing
the LGUs. This is specific to the DILG, the NEDA and the HLURB.
4. Another area of rationalization
touches on reconfiguring the planning process from its traditional technocratic
form into one that accommodates the imperatives of multi-stakeholder
participation and consultation. This entails “taming” the planning process so
that even those who are not technically trained can participate meaningfully in
determining public policies and actions that affect their lives.
5. The RPS gives emphasis on the
importance of strengthening the LDC local structures to ensure integration of
sectoral concerns in the LDP. By strengthening the local structures, this would
mean the organization and institutionalization of sectoral committees within
the LDC as provided for in the Code. Existing mechanism in the LGUs works on
the creation of functional committees that sector specific (e.g. SWM boards,
GAD focal points, Local Housing Boards, Tourism Boards, among others).
6. Planning is an integral function of
governance, meaning that the entire organizational structure of the local
government itself including the legislative and executive branches constitutes
the proper structure for local planning.
7. The RPS promotes medium term
planning (6 years) to align with the MTPDP and MTPIP and term-based (3 years)
which becomes the LGUs’ Executive-Legislative Agenda (ELA).
Benefits of rationalizing local planning and simplifying the tools
Put order to the disjointed state of
local planning and rationalize local planning structures and processes
Reconfigure the planning process from
its traditional technocratic form into one that is participatory and
consultative.
LGUs have uneven state of technical
capacities in local planning and resources to carry out local planning
processes; the RPS recommends tools that are adaptable to these varying
conditions and uneven capacities of LGUs
Having a CLUP which serves as a
long-term guide for the physical development of the locality and a CDP that is
multi-year, there is an assurance of rationality and stability of local
development plans.
Encourages the preparation of
financial development policy/plan to support the implementation of priority
programs and projects
Strengthens the linkages of local
plans with higher level plans and clarifies the role of LGUs i.e., province to
municipalities, in ensuring the complementation or linkages of these plans
B. CORE MESSAGES
I- Planning Mandates
LGUs are mandated by the LG Code to formulate two major plans namely: CLUP
enacted through a zoning ordinance and CDP which corresponds to the
multi-sectoral development plans and investment programs
A. Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The CLUP is a policy guide for the
regulation of land uses embracing the LGU’s entire territorial jurisdiction
(15-25 years). It does not only focus on urban land use or the land use
requirements of the various sectoral plans as specified CDP, but looks into the
entire territorial jurisdiction of the LGU to determine the available supply of
land resources.
The CLUP (spatial policy) and CDP (sectoral) are separate plans but follow the
same integrated process.
CLUP should come first before the CDP. If CLUPs are existing, a revisit may be
needed.
The CLUP defines the policy direction for the use of the land resources within
the LGU territorial jurisdiction (defines available supply of land resources);
the CDP defines the specific application of the available land resources
(demand for land resources based on sectoral development goals).
Salient features of CLUP
-
“Comprehensive” meaning encompassing the entire territorial jurisdiction
long-term management of local territory
-
skeletal framework which defines the desired physical pattern of growth of
locality and identifies areas where development can and cannot be located and
directs public and private investments accordingly.
-
has four policy areas – production, settlements, protection and infrastructure
-
local equivalent or counterpart of the physical framework plan at the national,
regional and provincial levels.
-
Legally enforceable through the zoning ordinance
-
The CLUP does not only focus on the land requirements of the CDP neither on the
built up area but looks at entire land (and water, for some LGUs) resources
within the territorial jurisdiction of the LGU and their appropriate uses.
B. The Comprehensive Development Plan, CDP (Chapter 6)
The term “comprehensive” in the CLUP is to be understood in its territorial
sense that the CDP means “multi-sectoral”. To be comprehensive, the CDP must
cover the five development sectors: social, economic, physical, environmental
and institutional.
As an implementing instrument of the
CLUP, the CDP has the following salient features:
-
“Comprehensive” meaning multi-sectoral development
-
Promotes the general welfare of the constituents
-
Multi-year: medium-term (six years) to coincide with the MTPDP and the MTPIP
-
Provides a convergence mechanism to integrate all existing topical and thematic
plans required by NGAs such as disaster management plan, IACPSP, 4 gifts of
children (LCPC)
Five development sectors
of CDP
-
Social
-
Economic
-
Physical/Land Use
-
Environmental Management
-
Institutional Development
For a truly comprehensive coverage of every conceivable aspect of local
development the LDC must organize sectoral committees and not merely content
themselves with creating sub-sectoral committees. The LDC should also make sure
that technical committees draw membership from all societal sectors:
government, private, academe, religious, professions, and so on. Even the
members of the Sanggunian, NGOs/POs, whether accredited or not, and individuals
without any group affiliations can be accommodated in the sectoral committees
The physical/land use component of the CDP is different from the CLUP in that
the former determines space allocation for various land using activities
specific to the requirements of the plan, whereas the CLUP defines the
available land resource and indicates desired location of land using activities
within the territorial jurisdiction of the LGU.
Key Points and Recommendations on the sectoral committees
(workshop with select regional DP specialists)
Objective is to strengthen the LDC by
activating the sectoral and functional committees
Activate the sectoral and functional
committees to provide necessary technical support to the highly political
composition of the LDC, and to facilitate the integration of other mandated
local plans (the 27 different plans) to their corresponding sectoral plans.
To align the work of existing mandated
formal local bodies/councils with the appropriate LDC sectoral committees. As
such, the LDC shall be the lead convenor which can call on members of the other
bodies for their specific concerns. Sectoral committees created under existing
statutes such as RA 9003, RA 8335 maybe be subsumed as sub-committees of the
LDC.
DILG to be included as core member of
the physical/land use and institutional development committees and as member in
the other sectors of the expanded Sectoral Committee composition
NEDA participation in the sectoral
committees should be demand-driven (as requested by the LGU).
II- Relationship of the Plans
CLUP – CDP Integration
Although the CLUP and the CDP may be
prepared in an iterative way, it is highly desirable that the CLUP be completed
ahead of the CDP. This is to ensure that the location policies in the CLUP will
guide the identification screening and prioritization of programs and projects
in the CDP.
Considering that some public
investments, especially of the “hard project” type, have a powerful impact on
the long-term structuring of the built environment and on land use change in
general, such projects should be properly screened to ensure that they are in
consonance with, if not actually supportive of the preferred spatial strategy
for the community.
The programs and projects identified
in the CLUP however, invariably take a long time to carry out. On the other
hand, the CDP has a relatively short time frame. This should not be used as a
reason for ignoring the long-term programs of the CLUP and implementing instead
other projects with shorter time frames. Rather, the short time frame of the
CDP should be used to carry out the long-term CLUP programs in phases. This
way, local development will appear less disjointed, arbitrary, or random but
will acquire stability, continuity and rationality.
Timeframe of the Plans
-
CLUP – 10 or 15 years depending on the pace of development/urbanization of the
LGUs
-
CDP – six years to align with the MTPDP, MTPIP
-
ELA – three years, or term based, to coincide with the term of office of the
LCE
Executive – Legislative Agenda
When the medium term CDP (6 years) process has reached
this stage, the sectoral programs and projects and the proposed legislations
are compiled, reconciled, and otherwise processed and refined to form the
term-based CDP (3 years) which now becomes the LGU’s Executive – Legislative
Agenda (ELA).
III- The Local Planning Structure
Philippine planning has traditionally
been a technical exercise in need of political support. Legislators before
rarely used the plan as basis for enacting ordinances. They thought that after
mandatory adoption of the plan, their role in planning and development is over.
The new LGC sought to change all that.
Planning is ought to be an integral
function of governance. As such, it should not be regarded as an activity
reserved for a particular office or unit of the local government bureaucracy.
RPS follows the intent and provision of the Code where every office of the LGU
has an embedded planning function.
Planning is embedded in the dual
function of the LGUs:
-
As a body politic, the LGU is endowed with powers to manage its territorial
jurisdiction for and on behalf of the national government
-
As a body corporate, the LGU represents its residents, the inhabitants within
its territory therefore endowed with powers and resources necessary for its
efficient and effective governance and to deliver basic services and facilities
to enable inhabitants to develop fully into self-reliant communities
The institutional structure of local
planning and development is spelled out in Title Six, Sections 106-115 of the
Local Government Code. The principal function of this planning structure is to
initiate the formulation of the “comprehensive multi-sectoral development plan”
for approval by the provincial, city, municipal, or barangay level legislative
council.
The following are the planning
structures in the LGUs:
-
The LDC and the Executive Committee – Secretariat and NGO Representatives
-
The Sectoral and Functional Committees
-
The Local Planning and Development Office
Political
-
Local Sanggunian·
-
Local Development Council·
-
Congressman’s Representative·
-
Civil Society Organizations
Technical
-
Local Planning and Development Office
-
LGU Department Heads
-
Local Special Bodies
-
LDC Sectoral/Functional Committees
-
NGA Office Chiefs in the locality
-
Private Sector Representatives
Roles in Local Planning
A. Political
The unique role of the Sanggunian in
local planning and development derives from its power to “prescribe reasonable
limits and restraints on the use of property” which is the basis of local land
use planning. If planning is policy making then the Sanggunian being the
highest policy-making body is the ultimate planning body in the LGU.
-
The Local Sanggunian and the LDC laid down policy guidelines and take decisions
on the direction, character and objective of the local development. They do
these in their capacity as elected representatives of the people.
-
The automatic membership in the LDC of the appropriations committee chair of
the sanggunian ensures an effective linkage between the planning and the
legislative functions, and by implication, lends political support to an
otherwise isolated technical exercise.
-
With the present composition of the LDC, the local planning structure has a
very strong political component.
-
Adoption as a continuum process implies that political component participates
in plan preparation to legitimization to implementation and monitoring
-
Sanggunian has the sole power to appropriate public funds.
-
If planning is policy-making, then the Sanggunian being the highest
policy-making body is the ultimate planning body on the LGU.
B. Technical
Although the heads of national
government agencies and local government departments are not members of the
LDC, the latter can still avail of technical inputs from the former during
consultations whenever matters pertaining to their areas of competencies come
up for deliberations.
-
Technical component consist of non-elective officials of LGUs, heads of NGAs
and NGOs operating in the area. The LPDC serves as the technical arm and head
of the LDC secretariat. The LPDC coordinates the different programs of the LGU
departments and the NGAs operating locally.
-
The LPDC also coordinates the different sectoral committees that provide
detailed inputs to the comprehensive multi-sectoral development plan and
investment program.
-
The LPDC calls on the heads of local government departments and the national
government agencies in the preparation of local development plans and public
investment programs.
-
Most of the functions of the LPDO are covered by the functions of the Sectoral
Committees within the LDC. It is obvious that the LPDO needs to change its
internal organizational set-up. In terms of staff capabilities, two generic
abilities must be developed by the LPDO staff: 1) familiarity with all aspects
and stages of the planning process; and 2) ability to coordinate activities of
the different sectoral committees and integrate their outputs.
-
The RPS suggests for the expansion of the LPDO structure. However there is need
to define model LPDO structure per type of LGU
Most local planning and development offices have inadequate
staff with which to organize a full-blown structure described above.
But those LGUs that have the capability are strongly encouraged
to reorganize their LPDOs accordingly.
Others can do it gradually, making use of such stop-gap
measures as matrix organization, inter-office secondment of personnel, and the
like..
The RPS contends that the SEP still
remains the most important information base for the comprehensive planning of
the city/municipality. For completeness of coverage, the SEP should now be
changed into the Ecological Profile to give due recognition and proper space
for the bio-physical or ecological dimension. The Ecological Profile should
have as its basic minimum content the five development sectors, namely,
population and social services, the local economy, bio-physical base, the
existing infrastructure support, and the institutional capability of the LGU.
For consistency, these five sectoral headings must be retained in all editions
of the Ecological Profile to allow comparison between sectors across time.
(Refer to chapter 6 for the core concerns of each of the five sectors.)
Beyond Profiling: Understanding The Planning Area
The Ecological Profile, for all its
usefulness as a general reference material on practically every aspect of local
development, is not readily usable for planning purposes. Being a snapshot of
the conditions of the locality at a particular point in time, the EP hardly
indicates change over time. To indicate change, two or more editions of the EP
are needed. This implies that the Profile should be consistently maintained and
regularly updated using the same sectoral headings and capturing the same data
sets in every edition.
For purposes of building a database for planning, an intermediate analytical
tool is needed. It is called the local development indicators system (LDIS), a
table that portrays information in three dimensions: topical or sectoral,
temporal, and geographical or spatial.
The Local Development Indicators System
The LDIS goes beyond mere profiling.
The sectoral-temporal presentation of data allows an in-depth characterization
of the planning area by enabling the analyst to appreciate changes in certain
attributes over time. The sectoral-spatial data display, moreover, allows the
analyst to appreciate the differences between areas with respect to a given set
of characteristics: on one hand, between the planning area and larger areas
within which it is nested, and between smaller component parts and the planning
area, on the other. Moreover, the portrayal of data in three dimensions enables
the analyst to make more meaningful observations and thereby identify problem
situations more systematically and formulate solutions which are place or area
specific.
V- Integration of other “Mandated” Plans with the
CDP
The main theme of this chapter is
setting up the local planning structure and enabling the structure to perform
the functions required to fulfill the planning mandates of the local
government. This chapter serves as the road map to help the user negotiate the
rest of the preceding chapters.
In this chapter, the RPS highlights discussions on the following:
A. The LGOOs
-
As mobilizer and organizer. After every local elections, the LGOO shall
initiate the reconstitution of the local development council (LDC).
-
As trainer or training facilitator. The LGOO shall lead or organize a core team
of workshop facilitators from the staff of the HRDO or from selected key
departments of the LGU. This core team shall be trained on techniques and
approaches to participatory planning facilitation. This core team shall take
charge in conducting all future planning workshops.
-
As a strong advocate for local governments. As an advocate for local
governments, the DILG should persuade other NGAs and organizations that require
LGUs to prepare certain sectoral or topical plans to recognize the existing
local planning system, avoid creating new ones and learn to integrate their
planning methodologies and analytical techniques into the regular planning
processes.
-
As facilitator of comprehensive planning. Should this intervention to set up
and mobilize the local planning system take place at any time between election
years, the procedures described in 1 and 2 above can still be followed. Then
the local planning structure can be mobilized to prepare the mandated plans:
the CLUP and Zoning Ordinance, and the CDP and LDIP. Because of the varying
levels of readiness of the local planning structures and quality of existing
plans across LGUs, an assessment may be done using some relevant indicators in
the existing Local Governance Performance Management System (LGPMS). The
following scenarios will help such assessment.
B. Integration of National Requirements in Local
Planning
Even as LGUs are being encouraged and
assisted to become self-reliant communities they are also looked upon by the
national government as effective partners in the attainment of national goals.
National development goals are embodied in two major plan documents: the
National Framework for Physical Planning (NFPP) for long-term goals and the
Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) for goals that a particular
administration wishes to pursue during its 6-year term.
To rationalize the practice to the extent of integrating NGA requirements
substantively and procedurally into local planning, at least two pre-conditions
must be satisfied:
1) The local planning structure as
described in this book is in place and functioning.
2) The local plans are truly
comprehensive, that is,
– the comprehensive land use plan
covers the entire LGU territorial jurisdiction, both land and water, and
– the comprehensive development plan embraces all development sectors and
subsectors and the concerns of each. If the local planning structure is already
existing and properly functioning, any NGA requirements can be referred to
appropriate sectoral or functional committees. The particular NGA need not go
to the extent of creating a new planning body or structure to produce the
desired plan output. If there is an existing NGA office operating in the area
the officers and staff should be invited to join the relevant sectoral or
functional committee. Within the particular local sectoral or functional
committee the NGA representatives shall serve as coach or mentor on technical
matters of their expertise in the following planning tasks:
The following plans that impinge on
local land and water resource use should be incorporated into the CLUP:
(1) Agriculture and Fisheries
Management Plan, including the Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development
Zone (SAFDZ)
(2) Forest Management Plan or Forest
Land Use Plan (FLUP)
(3) Sustainable Integrated Area
Development Plan or Local Agenda 21 (SIADP)
(4) Integrated Watershed Management
Plan (IWMP)
(5) Ancestral Domain Sustainable
Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP)
(6) Protected Area Management Plan
(PAMP)
(7) Coastal Resources Management Plan
(CRMP)
The comprehensive development plan
(CDP) is likewise comprehensive in the sense that it embraces every sector and
aspect of local development. In the case of topical plans that involve several
sectors, functional committees could be formed drawing membership from the
sectoral committees themselves.
Plans that require inter-sectoral functional committees
(a) Local Poverty Reduction Action
Plan
(b) Disaster Management Plan
(c) Sustainable Development Plan
(d) Gender and Development Plan
(e) Food Security Plan
(f) Integrated Area Community Peace
and Order and Public Safety Plan
Plans that fall within the concern
of individual sectors
(a) Action Plan for the Council for
the Protection of Children
(b) Annual Culture and Arts Plan
(c) Agriculture and Fisheries
Management Plan
(d) Local Tourism Plan
(e) Small and Medium Enterprise
Development Plan
C. The Strategic Role of the Province
The province is the most strategic point of entry of future
interventions. Being at the apex of the 3-tier local government system the
province could be the most effective channel for cascading information and
technology to all levels of local government.
In terms of vertical integration of plans, the provincial governor is the vital
link of LGUs to the national government by virtue of his/her membership in the
Regional Development Council. At the lower level, the power of automatic review
of all policies and actions of component LGUs by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
can be utilized to effect reconciliation and integration between the plans of
component LGUs and those of the provincial government. The provincial
government can also utilize its review and oversight powers to resolve issues
between adjoining municipalities including those of conflicting land use
proposals and zoning policies and boundary disputes.
VI. Investment Programming: The LDIP and the AIP
There are a number of misconceptions surrounding the current
practice of preparing the LDIP. One is the practice of coming up with an
exhaustive list of projects regardless of whether the projects are of local or
national jurisdiction. Another is the conspicuous absence of the “investment”
part. Yet a third shortcoming of current practice is that the programs and
projects included in the AIP are to be funded out of the 20% of the LGU’s share
in the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) only. Some clarifications are in order.
The RPS seeks to clarify the above-cited misconceptions.
A. Local Development
“Local Development” pertains to the mandates and
responsibilities of local government units as defined in Sections 16 and 17 of
the Local Government Code (RA 7160). The local development component of the
LDIP therefore must consist of programs and projects that are local, that is,
those that are in pursuance of the LGU’s exercise of its powers and in the
discharge of its duties and functions necessary for effective governance and
essential for the promotion of the general welfare. These duties and functions
of the LGU also include those which are traditionally discharged by national
government agencies but which have since been devolved to the LGU under the
Code.
Using Sec. 17 as template, the RPS
seeks to identify projects that are owned by the LGU and only such projects
should be included in the LDIP.
B. Public Investment
The RPS introduces the concept of investment in public finance
which consists of that portion of income that is retained after satisfying all
the expenses necessary or for running the affairs of the organization. In the
case of firms, the claims of investors for dividends must be paid as well as
taxes, before “savings” can be realized and converted into investments.
Investment is what is left after deducting all expenses necessary to run the
government machinery, to satisfy the claims of creditors if public debt has
been incurred, and to comply with statutory reserves. The LGU is not supposed
to realize “savings” without plowing these back to the people in the form of
services and/or investments in development projects and activities.
The LDIP therefore is not simply a list of programs and projects that the LGU
wants to carry out. It should also contain a program for planned financing or
for using the investible portion of the local budget to finance the
implementation of those programs and projects and/or raise additional funds
utilizing the LGU’s fiscal management powers and authority. Necessarily, two
important bodies in the local planning structure are involved in the LDIP
preparation, the LDC and the Local Finance Committee.
The Development Fund
Most local government officials believe that the development
fund is limited to 20% of their IRA share. This is a misconception because in
reality the LGU spends much more on “development” than the 20% of IRA. The RPS
broadly defines development fund as that portion of the local budget that is
“plowed back” to the people in the form of programs, projects and services as
opposed to that portion which is consumed by the local government machinery
(salaries and wages and other personnel costs, office maintenance and other
operating expenditures, and office capital outlay).
The development fund consists of
· 20% IRA share
· Non-office MOOE and non-office capital outlay of the different
offices/departments
The 20% of the IRA is not the development fund alone. It is
intended as the minimum, not the ceiling, in determining the LGU’s development
fund.
The development fund consists of 20% of IRA plus non-office MOOE and non-office
capital outlay, conceptually illustrated in the pie chart below.
The LGU Investible Fund
Total funds available for investment, or the amount available to finance the
-
LGU’s priority programs and projects
-
And the costs of functions and services of the different LGU offices and
departments that are not office-related but incurred in the provision of direct
services to the public.
The LGU investible fund consists of
-
The development fund (20% of IRA share + non-office related MOOE and CO)
-
Additional funds generated through the exercise of the LGU’s fiscal management
powers and authorities (locally sourced revenues such as revenue from taxes and
non-tax revenues)
Local sources of revenues of LGUs
-
Revenue from Taxation - Real Property Tax and Business Permits
-
Non-Tax Revenue - Receipts from Economic Enterprises, User Fees and Charges and
Loan Borrowings
-
Others Receipts
1. expenditure trends, projected revenues and expenses to arrive at available
investible funds
2. Matching the fund requirements with projected funds available and deciding on
financing options should the funds available be insufficient.
Other Chapters in the RPS
-
Goal Formulation
-
Tools For Implementing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
-
Monitoring And Evaluation: Towards Cyclical Planning
Back To Top
|