Effective Governance Towards Development and

Participation

JESSE M. ROBREDOMayor, Naga City

Inaugural Knowledge Sharing SessionKnowledge Development Center (KDC), Ateneo de Naga University

September 7, 2006

Focus Questions

□Does good, effective governance matter?

□Do the foundational elements of good governance work?□Transparency□Accountability□Participation□Predictability

□The road ahead

PARTICIPATIVE URBAN GOVERNANCE

Naga as a ‘Poster Child’□City’s stable political leadership for 18

straight years often understated □Single party executive-legislative team serving

for 14 uninterrupted years □Political stability nearest thing to “Level 5

Leadership”: Collins’ Good to Great□Laboratory for innovations

□Enabled us to experiment with governance innovations, built around partnerships and participation. Affirmed by both national and international entities

□Strengthen local institutions (external), local bureaucracy (internal)

□ Progressive development perspective. Seeks prosperity-building tempered by an enlightened perception of the poor

□ Functional partnerships. Vehicles that enable the city to tap community resources for priority undertakings

□ Participation. Mechanisms that ensure long-term sustainability of local undertakings

THE NAGA GOVERNANCE MODEL

A Guiding Framework

The Naga Governance Model

Guided by its experience, Naga evolved its own governance model

MODERN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Public Governance System□ Uses variety

of manage-ment tools (i.e. NPM, Balanced Scorecard)

DOING MORE WITH LESS

Building Partnerships□ Tapped community resources in implementing

development programs and projects□ By design, almost all city programs are

implemented in partnership with both GO, NGO sector

□ Complements City Hall’s limited resources. Doing more with less

□ Illustrative examples:□ Kaantabay sa Kauswagan – tripartism□ Emergency Rescue Naga – pooling together of people,

equipment, facilities, other resources of local schools, police and fire departments, amateur radio groups, national and local health agencies

□ NEED and School Board education projects – city government, DepEd, NACITEA, PTAs, barangays, other stakeholders

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY TOOLS

Service Quality Improvement□PRODUCTIVITY

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (PIP)

□Sought to improve both processes and procedures (systems change) and values and culture (people change)

□ “Performance Pledge”

□ Annual Very Innovative Person Award for cost reduction measures

□ Productivity Improvement Circles

□ PUBLIC SERVICE EXCELLENCE PROGRAM (PSEP)

□ Linked service values and orientation with existing procedures. Continually proposed improvements whenever possible□ Documentation of City

Government’s frontline services. Laid down foundation for Citizen’s Charter

□ Expanded service listings in the Performance Pledges

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY TOOLS

Service Quality Improvement

ENGAGING INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS THROUGH

The i-Governance Program□A program that identifies and uses

various tools to:□encourage participation in government

decision-making, especially by individual citizens and households

□concretize the governance principles of transparency and accountability

□Allows city government to meet the challenge of sustaining innovative approaches by:□Doing more with less□Improving and ensuring equitable service

delivery

3. Mobile Governance. Uses cellphones which have higher penetration rate than dial-up internet. Around 67% of households own a mobile phone.

TxtNaga

4. Network access improvement. Addresses digital divide through strategic IT investments

Cyberschools (Click Project)

Cyberbarangays

1. Analog or paper-based tools. Addresses need of around 67% of population without ICT access

Performance Pledges Citizens Board Naga City Citizens

Charter

2. Digital or ICT media (eGovernance)

naga.gov initiative, through the city’s website www.naga.gov.ph

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Delivery Mechanisms

The Citizens CharterACCOUNTABILITY, PREDICTABILITY IN SERVICE DELIVERY

□ A guidebook on 130 key services being delivered by the City Government to customers

□Procedure□Response time□Personnel responsible for each

service□Requirements checklist to facilitate

service delivery□Schedule of fees (if applicable)□Location maps sketching office/s

handling the service

□ A “contract” that can be enforced through feedback

□Provides for customer feedback form

□Directory of city hall agencies

DIGITAL-ERA GOVERNANCE

www.naga.gov.ph□ Maximizes web

technology □ Within reach of local

resources and capability in a developing country

□ Offers access to information on Naga, including city government financial reports

□proposed and approved annual operating budget

□quarterly financial statements□bid tenders and outcomes

□ Platform for communicating requests and complaints in cost-effective, efficient manner

□ Contains a digital version of the Charter (called NetServe) and the Citizens Board

□ Allows citizens to send complaints, other concerns to City Hall through SMS or text messaging□ Previously uses Smart

Telecommunication’s 2960 facility

□ Reconfigured early this year to meet local needs more fully□ Owned by city government,

instead of being Smart network dependent

WHY IS D YOUTH CNTER\'S POOL W/C S SUPPOSD 2 B PUBLC POOL BEING CLOSED COZ PRIVATE SKOLS\' P.E. STUDENTS R USING D WHOLE POOL EXCLUSIVELY? why?

TxtServe NagaA MOBILE GOVERNANCE ENGAGEMENT TOOL

TxtServe Naga, Reloaded i-GOV’S MOST PROMISING FRONTIER

Consists of□ a PC□ a GSM/GPRS modem□ TXTNAGA hotline with

Globe Telecoms (0917-TXTNAGA or 0917-8986242), and

□ SMS applications developed by local programmers

ADVANTAGES:□ Locally managed, customizable and therefore more flexible, instead of being network dependent□ More accessible to ordinary citizens. Less than P1 per SMS sent vs. P2.50 under the 2960 service□ More cost-effective in the long-run

□ TXTNAGA Hotline – a locally managed and controlled SMS messaging system

Does it work?□ NCSB, “Estimation of local poverty in the Philippines”

(Nov 2005). Poverty Mapping Project with World Bank funding support

Locality Poverty Incidence

Rank (Poorest=1)

BICOL 36.35 3

CAM NORTEDaet

42.0623.95

45

CAM SURNaga CityIriga City

47.2318.9129.87

31

ALBAYLegazpi CityLigao CityTabaco City

47.4133.8750.9645.87

29

SORSOGONSorsogon City

49.5328.41

22

MASBATEMasbate City

64.2941.18

3

CATANDUANESVirac

43.9927.56

39

The Road Ahead

□Focus on attaining city vision (“Maogmang Nagueno sa Maogmang Lugar”), MDG goals by 2015□Reduce poverty by half□Improve access to basic social services□Enhance quality of life through livable

communities□Broaden access to participatory mechanisms

□Continuous Improvement mantra: “There is always a better way”

□Inspire other localities in Southeast Asia in their own paths to development