Choosing the Battleground

By -
Recently I had the privilege of watching a Provincial Development Council in session. I wanted to be there because I wanted to see how two resolutions important to a project we were working on would be passed. I had made a mental list of possible problems that could crop up, delay or otherwise block the adoption of the measures we wanted.

Before we got to this point our project team had to overcome several hurdles. First of all they had to complete their work, which was all about identification of roads used by different sectors in their respective value chains. They had to hold Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews to be able to do this. They also had to put together a GIS layer of all roads in the Province, from the big national highways to the smallest barangay roads. 

Then they had to convince their own Board about the soundness of their process as well as the correctness of their choices (specific road segments that they believe should be prioritized for repair and rehabilitation).

After they did that they brought their recommendations up to the Infrastructure Committee of the Provincial Development Council. Boy, were they grilled. They were asked questions about their respondents, how different sectors were represented in their consultations, the accuracy of the road network maps, the criteria that they used. And they answered capably, masterfully - making the correct technical points and touching the right political buttons. There was even a suggestion to defer action pending “further study” - administrative lingo, I guess, for “go away”. Luckily a Provincial Director from a National Government Agency who knew a lot about the project stood up and talked about all the hard work done by the team. He argued that they had done their homework and deserved a decision.

Our partners got the endorsement of the Infrastructure Committee. A week after this meeting the endorsement was being taken up by the Provincial Development Council, to which the Infrastructure Committee reported.

The first thing I noted about the audience was that the same people who were in the Infrastructure Committee were also there. I also noted almost all of the province’s elected officials were there - practically the entire Provincial Board, almost all of the Municipal Mayors. The Governor presided, with the Vice Governor at her side. The Congressmen had sent representatives.

When the proceedings reached our item on the agenda, the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee delivered his Committee Report and read the entire Resolution - actually, two. The first endorsed the idea of creating a road investment coordinating body, while the second proposed specific priority road projects. Both were premised on the idea that the Province should prioritize Strategic Road Links - collections of connected roads, regardless of classification, that are being used in the Value Chain of priority sectors.

After the Resolutions were read, somebody moved to approve the Committee Report. Then a Board Member stood up. “Uh-oh”, I thought, “here we go. What objections will she raise?”

She pointed out that one priority road link was cited as strategic to the Agriculture sector. It should not be, the lady said, because that road is significant for Tourism. So it should be tagged as a Tourism road.

Wow, I said to myself. Sure, why not? That’s a beautiful comment, because (to me) it meant the lady Board Member had a stake in the recommendations.

A member of our partner organization thanked her for her inputs. And then somebody seconded the Resolutions, and in two minutes both Resolutions were passed.

That’s it. Our project moves on to the next stage.

Looking back it’s clear to me that the battle was won in Committee. Once the Infrastructure Committee agreed to endorse the resolutions, the reforms were as good as adopted by the Council. After all, perhaps, this is why this particular form of bureaucracy was established - to make sure completed staff work is done at the Committee level, and the Council puts its time to best use.

Lesson for the DE: know where the battles need to be fought and won. It might be at Committee level, or at Sub-Committee or TWG level. It might even be won in a golf course, instead of in the board rooms. Fight and win the battle in the right place (and at the right time) so when your reform is finally brought up to the level of the highest decision makers they’re good as approved. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Orientation in OODA - Discerning Opportunites to Improve the DENR Business Model for Titling Services

By -
O rientation is basically analysis and synthesis of Observations in the light of new information and previous experiences (Boyd says Orientation is also influenced by one’s genetic heritage and cultural traditions).  Each person Orients himself in a different way – consider a game of chess, where both players observe exactly the same pieces on the same squares, but see different opportunities and threats. When we looked at DENR’s old business model for issuance of titles, we observed several things. First, with regards to Customers, it was noted that prior to RA 10023 the only two ways Residents got their titles were to either buy it from the State (through a Miscellaneous Sales Agreement) or go through the judicial process. Both could be costly; the latter could take a long time. RA 10023 provided a great opportunity to speed up titling for Residents. DENR’s Value Proposition is uncontested – it is indeed the authority for public land titling and it does have the m...
Read more

Towards a Development Entrepreneurship Community of Practice

By -
Image
A fter three workshops on Development Entrepreneurship (held in Quezon City, Davao, and Cebu City), we have gathered plenty of feedback from participants, and so there's much to think about. There are practical ideas for improving the workshop, like spending more time for introductions and small-group work, samples of filled-up Tools, guide questions for writing the Theory of Change, etc. Our participants included development professionals, some funders, and members of the academe.  There's been much discussion about how funders can support the DE approach given their traditional desire for certainty, which they try to enforce with deliverables and timetables.  This reflects the dialogue that's going on with the global development community, as all actors find their footing with adaptive development strategies. Two questions from participants that resonate with me are a) will the DE approach still be useful if policy is not the problem?, and b) can the DE a...
Read more

Picking a Development Reform Agenda through Service Analysis

By -
T he Business Dictionary (http://www.businessdictionary.com) defines a Service as “A valuable action, deed, or effort performed to satisfy a need or to fulfill a demand”.  Social, economic and political institutions were established to perform actions to satisfy needs; in other words, to provide services. Failure to provide services effectively leads to undesired conditions (e.g., malnutrition, inefficient industries, low rate of land titling) which attract the attention of Development Reformists. It does not take much for a Development Reformists to know that something is broken somewhere, and needs to be fixed. It takes much effort to find out exactly what is broken, how it is broken, and how it can be fixed. The answers to these questions comprise a set of possible Development Reform agendas, which can be filtered further by the twin lenses of technical soundness and political feasibility. Is there a systematic way to generate ideas for reform? This blog suggests that s...
Read more