WHY PROJECTS FAIL (OR WHY THEY SUCCEED)

For The Bohol Tribune

In This Our Journey

NESTOR MANIEBO PESTELOS

With the advent of a new global development agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals that the international community will pursue for a fifteen-year period, from 2016 to 2030, we are seeing signs of the rush on the part of national governments, their civil society and private sector counterparts, the latter with their corporate social responsibility units, to start identifying projects which can be funded under new financing packages to be made available by the UN member-countries.

As in the case of the previous global agenda, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), there will be a race to prepare project proposals for submission to donors in anticipation of the financial resources available for each country. Providing safety nets for people in extreme poverty will require USD66 billion (Php 3.09 trillion) while improving infrastructure for water, agriculture, transport and power will cost a total  of USD 7 trillion (Php 327 trillion).

These estimates were from calculations made by the UN inter-governmental committee of experts on sustainable development financing. The committee is still debating where to get the money and, more importantly, how to forge partnerships more effectively to achieve financial targets under the SDGs.

No matter how the debates will amount to, the fact is that funds will be available for key activities and projects in efforts to meet agreed targets under the 17 goals.

This brings us to the subject of projects for which the bulk of the funds raised will be allocated in efforts to achieve the goals at various levels. Why think of projects?  According to development guru Dennis Rondinelli: “Projects are the basic building blocks of development. Without successful project identification, preparation and implementation, development plans are no more than wishes and developing nations would remain stagnant or regress.”

Basic stuff, of course. All of us know this fact ages ago, since that time we sit down on how we can address development problems. For many of us, as early as our sophomore years in college, we were taught the basics of writing project proposals to address key problems in development.  Our professors were so successful in doing so to the point that many of us think we cannot solve such problems without depending on outside sources of assistance. But that’s another story!

When I decided that I would write something about projects for this week’s column, I proceeded to google two topics:  why do projects fail, and; why do projects succeed. For the first query, I got more than two million results; for the second, more than five million! Well well, I settled for this piece by Prof. Rondinelli entitled “Why Development Projects Fail” as basic reference for this column on projects just to help situate planners and non-planner alike prior to what could be a mad rush for project identification and formulation in relation to the SDGs during the remaining months of  2015.

Prof. Rondinelli could say it better than myself. He has definitely a better chance of being listened to by those who read this column in Bohol:

“Recent assessments of development planning and administration, and of the lending practices of assistance agencies by international evaluation commissions highlight the importance of well prepared and executed projects.

“As critical leverage points in the development process, projects translate plans into action. As vehicles for social and economic change, they can provide the means of mobilizing resources and allocating them to the production of new economic goods and social services.

“The paucity of well- conceived projects is a primary reason for the poor record of plan implementation in many developing countries. The inability to identify, formulate, prepare and execute projects continues to be a major obstacle to increasing the flow of capital into the poorest societies.”

He adds:

“Despite more than a quarter of a century of intensive experience with project investment, international funding institutions and ministries of less developed countries still report serious problems in project execution. Many are due directly to ineffective planning and management. Analysts have found that most developing nations simply do not have adequate institutional capacity or trained personnel to plan and implement projects effectively.”

Prof. Rondinelli, who is Senior Fellow at the Technology and Development Institute of the East-West Center in Honolulu, cites former World Bank official Albert Waterson who says that in “one country after another … it has been discovered that a major limitation in implementing projects and programs, and in operating them upon completion, is not financial resources, but administrative capacity.”

“

Allow me to quote Prof. Rondinelli on this mismatch between the training given to project officers and staff of developing countries:

“Traditional approaches to public administration, it has been found, are of little value in preparing administrators from less developed countries for the complex tasks of planning and executing development projects.

“Conventional public administration training — based on legalistic, centralized, regulatory procedures — are not adequate to deal with the dynamics of change. Relatively little attention has been given to training administrators from developing countries in effective project management. The training that is available often takes a narrow focus, emphasizing economic appraisal rather than developing broader management skills and capabilities.

“Nor has much attention been given to formulating operational frameworks for viewing project management as an integrated system of elements and activities — identification, preparation, feasibility analysis, design, appraisal, approval, organization, operation, control, evaluation and follow up — requiring performance of skilled managerial functions throughout the project cycle.

“Literature abounds on methods of economic and financial analysis, network planning and work scheduling, but much less has been written and few training programs exist that expand the Knowledge and skills of administrators in project organizing, resource mobilization, complex decision making, problem solving, coordination and institution building. Selection and training of project staff and technical assistance personnel, identification and utilization of a wide range of non-economic resources have also been neglected.

“In many cases, project management practices used in advanced countries — those developed in defense, corporate R&D, and space programs — have been prescribed for increasing the implementation capacity of developing nations; an attempt has been made to install complex project management techniques and procedures.

Cultural, political and social traditions, in many cases, inhibit the use of American or European project management procedures. Even the most efficient multinational corporations undertaking new ventures in Third World countries find unanticipated crises arise continuously to obstruct the smooth execution of major projects.”

I agree with Prof. Rondinelli’s observations based on my direct implementation experiences with projects during the past forty years, particularly those funded by UNICEF, USAID, World Bank, UNDP, AusAID, CIDA, EU, Habitat for Humanity International in a total of sixteen (16) countries (Philippines, Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Western Samoa, Palau, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Timor Leste, Cambodia, Malaysia , Indonesia, and Maldives). 

In each of these countries, we organized as a key strategy for project replication a National Core Team of Trainers (NCTT) composed mostly of government officers and their NGO counterparts. We used training tools and methodologies from external donors. Always we ended up doing revisions to suit to local situations but some constraints, such as lack of resources and limited project duration, would prevent us to do a more substantial assessment of training impact on the results produced.

More importantly, despite heavy inputs on the importance of making projects sustainable, practically all projects ended as donor assistance withered away in another round of assessment workshops. At the end of this wrap-up process, there would always be the conclusion that the project was a success, which was more to accommodate the donor’s eternal quest for success stories. This is quite understandable knowing that the funds used are normally from donor countries of the UN and other international organizations.

Throughout the international development decades, and even during the time of the MDGs, I have yet to see continuity in projects within a legitimate replication phase. I can almost see the usual rounds of consultations and workshops to get the SDGs going and then the identification of new projects and I expect the old projects will just die a natural death, the genuine lessons in project planning and implementation buried in the memories of those who have been once part of its aborted flowering.

My suggestion is for our development colleagues in Bohol to take the new global agenda quite 

seriously, mobilize the precious human development assets, its sons and daughters who have spent their years “eating projects for breakfast,” as we always say, both on the domestic and international scene and motivate them to find an institutional home for their insights, tools and methodologies produced and engage them on  how best to take advantage of the global agenda to serve both the short-term and long-term needs of the province. Bohol is not that big a development stage and everybody knows who are these sterling personalities who can be relied upon to achieve a breakthrough in doing development in our midst.

Yes, it’s about time we resurrect the idea that perished when PPDO Head, Atty Nitz Cambangay, left the scene years ago. It’s about time we proceed to establish the Institute of Governance, Development and Culture that he dreamed about to ensure the continuity of plans, programs and projects rather than have only short-lived development initiatives in Bohol. Our people deserve a better and more worthy gift from the brightest and finest among its young people. For my part, I can only pray this happens before we reach our expiry date.  #SDGsbohol.

NMP/11 Sep 2015/ 1.48 p.m. 

DECLUTTERING DEVELOPMENT

For The Bohol Tribune

In This Our Journey

NESTOR MANIEBO PESTELOS

Now that the world is about to embark on a journey to achieve milestones under the banner of Sustainable Development Goals, the question foremost in the minds of many people in Bohol is how do we best prepare for the new global agenda to get the most benefits from it. In our view, the first step is to declutter the development landscape and do away resolutely with slogans, frameworks and so-called empowerment tools which will weigh us down rather than help us pursue, say SDG No. 1 – End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

This begs the question that we know with a degree of accuracy which prescription or technical advice works and does not work to help us bring down poverty incidence in our province. Hence, we must first focus on our situation, get the lessons right from previous plans and projects and determine the approaches, strategies and tools that can best address local poverty and its attendant ills, malnutrition, infant mortality, illiteracy, unemployment, to name a few, with focus on the most marginalized and disadvantaged among the people,  in ways that also protect the environment, foster economic growth  and further enhance local culture and values.

 Quite a mouthful, doubtless an effect of donor-powered inputs, but is this not what sustainability mean in the end?

If we cut through the verbiage, the pursuit of the SDGs, as far as Goal No. 1 is concerned, will require that we know - pause for breath - who are the poor; what are their priority needs; where they are located; which services are already reaching them; what are their sources of livelihood; and how can we help them sustain and improve their income sources to enable them “to liberate themselves from the constraints of underdevelopment.”

This last phrase has been our favorite for decades. We have cited it in countless proposals as part of efforts to squeeze grants from external donors. Just an aside: we have been doing these proposals for more than half a lifetime along with other project planners the world over hoping we can contribute to pro-poor development on this our planet gradually being diminished by all kinds of violence, ecological abuse and on the whole, by bad governance in most nation-states. And yes, in most cases, we all end up a victim by projects badly planned and implemented.

In the final analysis, efforts to localize the SDGs and benefit local communities and households will be through projects expected to be relevant to the lives of the people. These projects are supposedly created by supportive policies and relevant plans resulting in adequate administrative and funding support that will make possible effective multi-level governance.

This collaborative process starts necessarily with a common database which functions as baseline to serve as initial basis for identifying policy gaps and prioritizing interventions to identified problems. Later, it serves to establish the impact of such interventions to the actual situation of households and local communities.

With 17 goals and 169 targets, and presumably hundreds of indicators for both progress and impact monitoring, the new global development agenda will run the risk of overwhelming local government units and their partner NGOs and People’s Organizations with requirements to conduct surveys at community and household levels for activities undertaken in support of each of the 17 SDGs. The world will do nothing but conduct surveys!

As early as this stage, technical inputs are needed from the National Government through the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) to provide timely guidelines on how to facilitate database building in support of the new development agenda which advocates for localization in the pursuit of each of the 17 SDGs.

Let me repeat here what localization means according to a UN Report on this issue:

“Localization refers to the process of defining, implementing and monitoring strategies at the local level for achieving global, national and subnational sustainable development goals and targets. This involves concrete mechanisms, tools, innovations, platforms and processes to effectively translate the development agenda into results at the local level.

“The concept should therefore be understood holistically, beyond the institutions

of local governments, to include all local actors through a territorial approach that includes civil

society, traditional leaders, religious organizations, academia, the private sector and others. We firmly believe, however, that a strong and capable local government provides the fundamental leadership role to bring local stakeholders together.”

As I noted in a previous column, lessons could be learned from localizing the MDGs done in Bohol where a project on localization was implemented in 2005 or five years after the launch of the MDGs. The project was carried out by the Action for Economic Reforms (AER) in partnership with PROCESS Bohol, the Provincial Government of Bohol, Social Watch, La Aldea, and Novib, a Dutch NGO.

European Union provided the funding, The project was implemented in the municipalities of Tubigon, Bilar and Jagna. NEDA Director Erlinda M. Capones said in her message published in the project report, Making a Difference, Localized Monitoring System on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), The Bohol Experience:

“The essence of localizing the MDGs is to build ownership and empower people to better articulate their local needs under the umbrella of an internationally agreed development agenda. Involving the local government, civil society organizations and donors provides a solid basis for sustainable dialogue and a broad-based ‘constituency of support’ for greater policy coherence, resource mobilization, and capacity building. This process of localization will respond to the inherent danger that even if the targets are achieved, the inequalities within a nation across people and places would still persist.”

Her idea reflects basically the same thought expressed by current advocates for the localization of the SDGs, the global agenda for the next 15 years starting in January, 2016:

“Building upon the successes of many localized sustainable development initiatives, the progress towards the MDGs will be determined first and foremost by progress at the local level. In this regard, local actors will need national and global support to develop and strengthen their capacities and generate resources to realizing the MDGs…”

The organizers of the activity hope that the Bohol experience, in localizing the MDGscould be replicated in Tagbilaran City and the other municipalities aside from Tubigon, Bilar and Jagna. For his part, AER Coordinator Filomeno S. Sta. Ana III says: “Our best hope, grand ambition it may be, is to see Bohol’s experience replicated across the country.”

Well, to our dismay probably, neither expectations happened. I believe that this non-event should be the starting point in devising strategies for the localization of the next global development agenda. I have proposed in a previous column that the academe in Bohol, take an active hand in reviewing previous experiences in localizing the MDGs and systematically draw lessons for doing the same for the SDGs.

One area of interest will be the use of several tools at local level to establish the MDG database: DevInfo, Bohol Info, Local Poverty Action Plan (LPRAP) or its advance version Poverty Database Monitoring System (PDMS), MDG Planning Matrix Software, AER MDG Open Source GIS Toolkit.

Later, outside this localization project, DILG promoted the use of the Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS) while DSWD had its National Household Targeting System (NHTS) both used to establish poverty databases at municipal and local community levels.

I recommend that the academe in Bohol take an active part in this proposed assessment of database tools used at local levels as initial activity for the localization of the SDGs. Of all the institutions here in Bohol, these universities and colleges have the potential to be objective (read: politically neutral) in doing the review of the poverty planning and monitoring tools. They can eventually assume the role of overseeing how the harmonized tools can be used by the Local Government Units, CSOs and all those involved in the planning, implementation and monitoring the SDGs.

The academe can collectively establish an Institute of Governance, Development and Culture to ensure periodic and systematic decluttering of development advocacies and tools and thus achieve the often elusive continuity of policies, plans and programs in support of an international development agenda. Then we can proceed to build a case to get a significant share from the UN allocations if we succeed to show that the project concept will be pertinent to Bohol and other provinces in the country.

This idea was first thought of years ago upon the retirement of Atty. Nitz Cambangay from PPDO. He was serving concurrently as BLDF Vice Chair and shared our vision to establish an entity that could address the lack of sustainability in plans and programs for which vast resources are spent by the Government and its development partners from year to year, from one development decade to another.

When he passed away, the dream vanished with him. Let’s see if we can get support to revive the idea in this era of the SDGs. For comments, email: npestelos@gmail.com #SDGsbohol

SURVIVING DEVELOPMENT

For The Bohol Tribune
In This Our Journey - for 23 August 2015 issue
NESTOR MANIEBO PESTELOS

The other day I received a text message or SMS informing me that on 25 September, a Tuesday, the new global development agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals (SGS), would be launched in the country. I figured that would be less than two weeks after its official declaration by the UN General Assembly in New York. 

,
I was specifically requested to inform the sender, nameless and only a number, on how we intend to launch the SGS in “your municipalities or cities.”

The request made me think that some official or unofficial groups must have been formed some time back to drum up involvement in this new global agenda. This way of announcing a major event is quite a departure from the usual procedure adopted by the UN or the national government. Usually arrangements for such big events is done through planning bodies such as the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) and its counterpart bodies such as the planning and development offices at provincial and municipal levels.

I decided to ignore the request and wait for more details about the source of the message, the event that was announced in so informal and unorthodox way and to focus more on the purpose of this week’s column to continue to orient readers on the new global development agenda coming their way. I am doing this not in any official capacity with the Government but as a development worker with a development NGO.

The reader will recall that so far I have discussed in the two previous columns the basics about the 17 SDGs and the focus on Localizing SDGs, as well as the implications of the global agenda to our development work here in Bohol.

On the eve of the international community’s adoption of a new development agenda, it is important to pause, review what have gone before and understand precisely how do we relate to the new global development agenda which emphasizes local action and commitment more than in previous advocacies.

To be sure, the past four decades or so has been an exhilarating ride for those in the emerging development industry, the planners, implementers, evaluators, and consultants, mostly paid for by international donors. It is not yet a thrilling ride yet for the millions who have yet to be brought to the mainstream of global development and partake of the services, benefits and entitlements under a global partnership.

With this in mind, let’s take a quick look at this journey taken in efforts towards achieving global development during the previous decades -
In the 1950s , the UN recognized that the emphasis on economic growth was misplaced, that there should be practical measures adopted to address poverty other than to increase the Gross National Product (GNP). Consequently, during the First UN Development Decade (1960-70), the conversations were mostly about economic growth and its integration with social development.

The UN realized that development focused almost exclusively on economic growth “leaves behind, or in some ways, even creates, large areas of poverty, stagnation, marginality and actual exclusion from social and economic progress …,” as stated in the UN Report of the 1969 Meeting of Experts on Social Policy and Planning.

On 24 October 1970, the UN called for the need to formulate an International Development Strategy and launched a project to identify a unified approach to development and planning “which would fully integrate the economic and social components in the formulation of policies and programmes.” The concern for a unified approach among the countries resulted in a grand disarray with each key problem being identified as candidate for integration: environment, population, hunger, women, habitat or employment.

Subsequently efforts failed to produce simple universal strategies which would make possible integration among key problems and within each defined problem area. Those involved in this exercise were “constantly in dispute arising from the old controversy over priorities and the day-to-day disputes among bureaucratic bodies for survival and allocation of resources.”
Although disappointing, this initial search for a unified approach to development was able to characterize the components needed to bring about such sought-after integration.

The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), organized in 1963, cited the need for components designed:

1. To leave no sector of the population outside the scope of change and development;
2. To effect structural change which favors national development and to activate all sectors of the population;
3. To aim at social equity, including the achievement of an equitable distribution of income and wealth in the nation;
4. To give high priority to the development of human potentials … the provision of employment opportunities and meeting the needs of children.

These key ideas have been reflected in succeeding efforts to focus development on people, that the purpose of development “should not be to develop things but to develop man.”

In June 1976, ILO organized the Conference on Employment, Income Distribution and Social Progress which resulted in the popular Basic Needs Approach, “aiming at the achievement of a certain specific minimum standard of living before the end of the century.” The World Bank adopted it as an approach because it could serve as sequel to a strategy it started in 1973 which focused on the rural poor and small farmers. The approach was also promoted by many governments and experts from various international organizations.

The Basic Needs Approach deals directly with the needs of specific target groups rather than meet these needs as a result of a generalized and long-winded development process. It satisfied the need for an approach that can be universally applied and country-specific at the same time.

During the same period, UNESCO advocated the concept of endogenous development. It arose from an analysis that development could not proceed as imitation of the industrial growth model but instead it must take into account the particularities of each country. At a later stage, it was observed that such a model could lead to the “dissolution of the very notion of development, after realizing the impossibility of imposing a single cultural model for the whole world.”

For the 1980s, known as the lost decade for development, adjustments were made in many countries to dismantle previous accomplishments to cope wth massive problems brought about upheavals in the world economy. During this decade, however, UNICEF launched globally its basic services strategy which aimed to deliver integrated services for children in relatively remote and disadvantaged communities.

By the 1990s, among the rich and industrialized countries, the so-called structural adjustments of the previous decade led to reassessment of achievements in the economy and socio-political reforms, as well as use of technologies which posed a threat to the environment. For the poor countries, the decade saw the “last and definitive assault against organized resistance to development and the economy.”

During this decade the phrase “Sustainable Development” became current as strategy or goal for what was called by the Bruntland Commission a “common future” for humankind. This concept provided a perspective for looking at development in a new light, in the context of economic, social and environmental factors which need to be harnessed for international peace, survival and progress.

In 1990, UNDP published the first Human Development Report which defines human development as both a process of expanding options for relevant human choices and as a level of achievement which compares improvements in human development among countries through the Human Development Index, combining indicators in life expectancy, literacy and income. Through the HDI, countries can be compared as to their performance in achieving human development from year to year.

From 2000 to 2015, the whole world pursued what have been known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) consisting of 8 goals and 21 targets. Now by next month, a new global development agenda will be unfurled termed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
It will consist of 17 goals and 169 targets which will be pursued from September 2015 to September 2030.

All these global development agendas from the First Development Decade (1960s to 1970s) to the MDGs (2000 to 2015) have influenced in some ways development planning and implementation in Bohol. Now that a new development agenda is about to be launched next month, it is best to review previous experiences and formulate a strategy on how best to move the process forward through involvement of local government units, civil society organizations and local communities in translating a global development agenda into actual plans and programs.

Indeed localizing SDGs must result in actual and measurable benefits to specific poverty groups and communities in the province. Otherwise, we will just be surviving development agendas with their avalanche of consultations, workshops and assessments with no significant projects on the ground to benefit the poor . ‪#‎Sustainabledevelopmentgoals‬

NMP/19 Aug 2015/ 6.40 p.m.

PUTTING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDGs) IN LOCAL CONTEX

For The Bohol Tribune

In This Our Journey

NESTOR MANIEBO PESTELOS

Putting Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Local Context

Localization has been an important feature in promoting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and in formulating the successor Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as global agenda to address poverty and other problems which have for decades affected humankind.

While localization for the MDGs was thought of and planned in 2005, five years after its launching, it was the subject of intensive dialogues undertaken by the UN with key governance stakeholders and constituencies which took place from June  to October 2014. 

Discussions on localization followed the unprecedented multi-sectoral consultation process on potential issues and areas to be included in the post-2015 development agenda conducted from 2012 to 2013. The emphasis given to localization during phase two of what has been referred to as “global conversations” on implementation and necessarily, monitoring and evaluation, indicates a recognition by the UN member-states of the need to bring global concerns to the grassroots.

The recommendations that emerged from these dialogues and consultation process seem to me as genuine efforts to make local communities, their governance and local institutions, their traditions and culture, as key ingredients to translate global development agenda into locally-owned aspirations embedded in local plans and programs. Indeed localization has been recognized as strategy to lift people from poverty and  other global problems such as inequality and climate change.

Let us harvest some key ideas from the Report from these dialogues on localization and try to put them in our development context in Bohol:

First, on the definition of Localization, the Report (Localizing Post-2015 Development Agenda – Dialogues on Implementation) says:

“Localization refers to the process of defining, implementing and monitoring strategies at the

local level for achieving global, national and subnational sustainable development goals and targets. This involves concrete mechanisms, tools, innovations, platforms and processes to effectively translate the development agenda into results at the local level.

“The concept should therefore be understood holistically, beyond the institutions

of local governments, to include all local actors through a territorial approach that includes civil

society, traditional leaders, religious organizations, academia, the private sector and others. We firmly believe, however, that a strong and capable local government provides the fundamental leadership role to bring local stakeholders together.”

From this definition alone, we can see what can be a major constraint to localizing the SDGs. Local leadership is key to the emergence of multi-stakeholder governance. In Bohol, as in other provinces, we have an abundance of structures mandated by the government at various levels or organized by civil society organizations, such as faith-based organizations and NGOs. Somehow local leadership is not there to bring all the people in these structures together in pursuit of common development goals or less loftily, to implement projects.

We are good at organizing structures at local levels to the extent that management experts have commented that in Bohol, as in the rest of the country, we are afflicted with a malady called “organisitis.” At the drop of a hint, we form groups or organizations but we almost always turn these into paper structures, something to show on the charts and they fizzle out as easily as they are formed. They are mostly built around personalities, mostly around those with political clout or other sources of influence.

Now how can we develop the type of leadership that can breathe life to development councils, inter-agency committees, women’s and youth groups, and other existing structures so that we can pursue and sustain global and localized development goals?  We have to study the few organizations which have withstood intrigues, divisive tendencies, political and other interventions or the usual inertia of rest which afflicts most groups and organiations.

These are some thoughts to chew on while we ponder on this relevant issue about localizing SDGs. This human behavior in organizations will be an excellent field for the academe to get into and come up with fresh insights into leadership issues and organizational behavior on this exciting journey in localizing an externally-crafted global development agenda.

This negative trend in human behavior in organizations is also a reflection of erosion in values that people subscribe to. Here is where culture and the arts, as well as religion, can play its part  by initiating a Renaissance of sort to create a pervasive counterculture of  our common humanity and enable majority of the people, including their leaders, to both internalize and “massify” the adherence to social ethics and values.

The Report notes:

“In the last decade, the development agenda has broadened with the emergence of a wide range of global challenges. It has also seen growing demand for improved access to global public goods and calls for innovative institutional arrangements and solutions. It is evident that the local dimension of development is increasingly intertwined with global and national issues.

“The role of cities in development will grow, as 60 percent of the world’s population will

live in cities by 2030. Issues such as peace, human security, health, employment, climate change, and migration are now addressed mainly at the national and international level, but long-term solutions often require attention to local dimensions, implications and nuances, and most solutions will require local planning, participation and governance.

“Lessons learned from the MDGs show the key role of local government in defining and delivering the MDGs, and in communicating them to citizens. Evidence for this includes the multiplication of decentralized development cooperation initiatives and the use of city-to-city cooperation as a cost effective mechanism for implementation”

I recall that in 2004 as a consultant on governance and poverty reduction, I submitted to the late Atty. Juanito Cambangay, Bohol’s Provincial Planning and Development Coordinator, a bare-bones concept of creating a Metro Tagbilaran Development Authority. As proposed , the MTDA will be composed of Tagbilaran City and the surrounding municipalities of Dauis, Panglao, Baclayon, Albur, Cortes, Corella, and Sikatuna,

The idea was the same that led to the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Bicol River Basin Authority and the Metro Manila Development Authority which is to bring about a predominantly technical body to oversee and coordinate efforts to address common problems.

In the case of Bohol, it would be to achieve greater coordination among the LGUs in solving common problems related to garbage disposal, water and sanitation, public infrastructures and facilities, unemployment  Later, the concept was expanded to having similar structures but instead of using the existing BIAD (Bohol Integrated Area Development), the identified rapidly-urbanizing municipalities was to be considered the focal LGU for the surrounding municipalites in the creation of a sub-provincial development authorities more technically and morally competent to work alongside politically-controlled governance structures.

Nothing came out of this concept. No donor was interested to have it developed into a full-blown proposal.

It may be a good time to revisit these rough ideas and draw up an enchanced concept in the light of this broadened development areas that LGUs, CSOs and the private sector have to contend with in pursuing the localized SDGs.

Moreover, the task environment since the first global development agenda. The fast growth in Information Technology and its impact on making available tools, information and innovations while creating job opportunities also helps to add complexities to the work environment of ordinary people. Closing the digital gap will be needed in pursuing inclusive growth and equality. It will have impact, too, in reconfiguring local governance structures.

The Report notes further:

“All parties concurred that local stakeholders must play an important role in the development and

implementation of the SDGs. Their needs, interests and concerns must be clearly addressed when local and national development strategies are defined. The prioritization of mechanisms to enhance participation was considered critical if people are to contribute to common development.

“The inclusion of individual and territorial stakeholders in the definition of priorities and in

the allocation of funds was perceived as a means to hold governments, both national and local,

accountable and committed to fighting corruption and fraud. This was one of the main issues

expressed by participants globally …In the Philippines, participatory budgeting was seen as

a tool to improve transparency and accountability mechanisms and to prevent local corruption.”

The decentralization of planning to sub-national and sub-provincial levels should necessarily be complemented with financial autonomy. Otherwise, such decentralization will not be effective. I think I do not have to belabor this point since this a lesson learned in more than twenty five years of the Decentralization Law.

On Culture and Development, the Report states: “Culture-led redevelopment of urban areas and public spaces helps preserve the social fabric, attracts investment and improves economic returns. Cities are increasingly faced with the challenges of diversity and inequality, and can benefit greatly from culture to increase inclusion and promote greater social cohesion. The protection of historic districts and cultural facilities as civic spaces for dialogue can help to reduce violence and promote cohesion.”

These are some of the key ideas in the Report which have formed the basis for the recommendations on how to pursue these goals with localization as basic consideration.

To the long list of specific recommendations, the Report adds something which is missing from the previous global development agenda: “Underline the importance of establishing sustainable financing mechanisms to localize the global development agenda and build responsive and accountable local institutions. This includes the full and effective participation of local governments in public expenditure.”

Now we await with bated breath the announcement next month of the final Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the approval of the recommendations for localizing them to ensure their successful implementation for the period 2016 to 2030. #Sustainabledevelopmentgoals

NMP/14Aug/2015/5.32 a.m.

                                         

NOTES ON THE NEW GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT AGENDA

For The Bohol Tribune

In This Our Journey

NESTOR MANIEBO PESTELOS

Exit MDGs or Millennium Development Goals. Enter Sustainable Development Goals, the next global development agenda for another 15 years starting in 2016.

It will be recalled that in the year 2000, 189 member-states of the United Nations signed the Millennium Declaration, described as “a global commitment of countries, rich and poor alike, to achieve peace and security, respect for human rights, good governance, and human development - with attention given to the needs of the poor, the vulnerable and the children of the world.” 

This commitment was translated into what have been known as the Millennium Development Goals - or MDGs - a set of eight time-bound goals and targets designed to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by 2015.

I recall the euphoria felt by many people on hearing the news of the signing of the MDG agreement which happened almost a decade after the end of the Cold War, this conflict between US allies and countries politically aligned with Russia.

Adoption of the MDGs as a common development agenda despite differences in ideologies, religions, economic system and status, geographic and cultural differences was itself a significant milestone for the human race. For the first time, there is an articulated and signed agreement to address problems which blights humanity in many cultures such as malnutrition, infant mortality, illiteracy, maternal mortality, gender inequality, malaria and other major diseases, lack of safe drinking water and sanitation, and on the whole, achieve global partnership towards development through an equitable financial system and a commitment to “good governance, development and poverty reduction … both nationally and internationally.”

I recall intense discussions among UN colleagues in Fiji during the late 1990s while formulating the planning strategies undertaken at country and regional levels the outputs of which became contributions to the formulation of the MDGs. Soon after the MDGs were adopted as the common global agenda, there were talks about the need to create a world government, presumably based at the UN no doubt brought about by the realization that problems such as poverty, climate change, organized crime, including illegal drug trade, conflicts brought about by ethnic, cultural and political differences and corruption in governance cannot be handled by nation-states alone.

This optimism for new world order simmered down with the shocking 9/11 World Center bombing a litte more than a year after the signing of the global development agenda which was generally perceived to herald a regime of peace for all mankind. All the dreams about turning bullets into plowshares vanished into thin air and something close to paranoia set in to discourage if not to totally eliminate the hope for genuine world peace.

Against this backdrop of conflicts arising from the so-called  “Clash of Civilizations,” conflicts due to extremism in religious beliefs fused with ambitions for political domination, the pursuit of the MDGs happened nevertheless. During the last three years or so, there were intense and comprehensive efforts to sum up experiences in pursuing the MDGs at international, regional, national and even at subnational levels both to assess progress or lack of it and, more importantly, to extract lessons to guide current efforts to craft a new global development agenda.

This assessment of the MDGs reflects a consensus shared by political leaders and technocrats among the member-nations of the UN:  
 
“The MDGs have made a huge and significant impact on the lives of billions across countries and over the years; and by unifying the world’s priorities, the MDGs served to provide an overarching framework for development work across the world.
 
“However, progress has been uneven. Continuing gaps – on poverty, hunger, health, gender equality, water, sanitation and many other issues – will still need attention in most of the world’s countries and regions even after 2015.”

A more specific assessment of the MDGs is as follows:

“There is broad agreement that while the MDGs provided a focal point for governments on which to hinge their policies and overseas aid programs to end poverty and improve the lives of poor people – as well as provide a rallying point for NGOs to hold them to account – they have been criticized for being too narrow.

“The eight MDGs – reduce poverty and hunger; achieve universal education; promote gender equality; reduce child and maternal deaths; combat HIV, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; develop global partnerships – failed to consider the root causes of poverty, or gender inequality, or the holistic nature of development. The goals made no mention of human rights, nor specifically addressed economic development. While the MDGs, in theory, applied to all countries, in reality, they were considered targets for poor countries to achieve, with finance from wealthy states. Every country will be expected to work towards achieving the SDGs.

“As the MDG deadline approaches, around 1 billion people still live on less than $1.25 a day - the World Bank measure on poverty - and more than 800 million people do not have enough food to eat. Women are still fighting hard for their rights, and millions of women still die in childbirth.”

By September this year, member-countries of the UN are expected to sign a new commitment to pursue a set of goals determined after the international organization conducted what is considered the largest consultation program in its history. In contrast, the eight MDGs were reportedly drafted, or as legend would have it, by a think tank working in the basement of UN headquarters!

The Rio+20 summit held in 2012 mandated that an open working group, composed of representatives from 70 countries, be formed to conduct consultations and propose the post-2015 goals. In July 2014, the group published its recommendation and by September, it presented its draft report to the UN General Assembly.

An account of this extensive consultation process says: “Alongside the open working group, the UN conducted a series of  ‘global conversations’, which included 11 thematic and 83 national consultations, and door-to-door surveys. It also launched an online My World survey asking people to prioritize the areas they’d like to see addressed in the goals. Representatives from the Philippines, both from the Government and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) were part of this extensive consultation  towards the formulation of the new global development agenda.

The following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are expected to be approved by the member-countries of the UN next month to be pursued globally for the period 2016 to 2030: 

1) End poverty in all its forms everywhere

2) End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable    

    agriculture

3) Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages

4) Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities

      for all

5) Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

6) Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

7) Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

8) Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive

    employment, and decent work for all

9) Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and foster

     innovation

10) Reduce inequality within and among countries

11) Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

12) Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

13) Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (taking note of agreements

       made by the UN forum)

14) Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable

      developmentAdvertisement

15) Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage

      forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity

      loss

16) Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to

      justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

17) Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable

     development

Within the goals are a proposed 169 targets, to put a bit of meat on the bones. Proposed targets under goal one, for example, include reducing by at least half the number of people living in poverty by 2030, and eradicating extreme poverty (people living on less than $1.25 a day). Under goal five, there’s a proposed target on eliminating violence against women. Under goal 16 sits a target to promote the rule of law and equal access to justice.

Of interest to us in Bohol will be the emphasis on localizing the SDGs given this statement from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon:

 “It is often said that, like all politics, all development is ultimately local. As the world strives for a more sustainable path in the years ahead, particularly beyond 2015, local voices and local action will be crucial elements in our quest… it is crucial to preserve and nurture political spaces where local authorities can have an impact on decision-making at the global level. Local authorities have significantly increased their engagement in global processes. The inputs of local leaders and municipal planners have never been more critical …”

Indeed this should be music to our ears since our project experiences in the Philippines and in Bohol particularly have validated the need to engage in more meaningful ways local communities, their organizations and the local government units to ensure the sustainability of  programs and projects.

Let me note here that localizing the global development agenda is not new in Bohol. Localizing the Monitoring System for MDGs was implemented in the province was launched in the  province  on 22 April 2005 and implemented for one year, from 16 March 2005 to 15 March 2006 in the municipalities of Tubigon, Bilar and Jagna with funding from EU and Oxfam Netherlands). Local and foreign NGOs implemented the project: Action for Economic Reforms, Process Bohol, Social Watch Philippines, La Aldea (a Spanish NGO), and the Global Call to Action Against Poverty.

It will be good to review the output of the project, Making a Difference (Localized Monitoring System on the MDGs), prior to the inception of the SDGs next year and gain lessons and insights on how to localize a global development agenda.  #SDGsbohol

NMP/31 July 2015/5.29 a.m.