by Nicasio Angelo Agustin
THERE are only 2 reasons I can think of why some local governments cannot provide their communities the goods and services they require. One is the lack of funds to bring them about. The other one is the lack of political will.
The lack of funds is real. It is a recognized problem. Lack of political will is something abstract, vague and subjective. Yet, I believe that when there’s political will, there’s also a strong possibility that everything could be done, including the generation of enough development funds. Political will is not about the absence of any problem; it is how problems and challenges are and should be addressed and responded to.
Nowadays, lack of funds – which is real – is hardly an excuse for not being able to provide what communities should and must have. There are many ways to generate funds for local development as there are a thousand ways to skin a cat. The local government code (circa 1991 yet!) has placed enough powers and authorities to local governments so that they could generate and mobilize the financial resources they need. How local officials take these mandates is what I see as an ultimate gauge of their political will on this particular respect.
RA 6957, as amended by RA 7718, or more commonly known as the BOT Law, provides creative approaches in the delivery of goods and services to the public. It enables the government – national and local – to build facilities or provide services without necessarily draining its coffers. Under this arrangement, the private sector shoulders all the financial burdens, and in the end, it takes its handsome share of the profit that could be generated from the operation of facilities or from the provision of services.
Again, there are 2 reasons why this kind of arrangement is not seemingly attractive to both local government and the business sector. One is political will (again!) on the part of the local government to encourage its development counterpart, the business sector, to partner in the delivery of goods and services. The other reason is the reality and the magnitude of risks in financial investment.
Yet, financial risks, according to the RA, could be addressed. It only takes the partners to recognize them and make resolve to manage them together. While it’s a shared responsibility, much is expected of the concerned local government in ensuring that the risks are mitigated, if not totally eliminated. Then again, that’s political will.
This arrangement – traditionally called joint venture and now called public-private partnership – has many variants, namely: build-operate-transfer, build-and-transfer, build-own-operate, build-lease-transfer, build-transfer-operate, contract-add-operate, develop-operate-and-transfer, rehabilitate-operate-and-transfer, rehabilitate-own-operate, management or operation and maintenance contract, lease or affermage, concession, divestiture, and joint venture.
Public-private partnership (PPP) can be applied for most development projects that are otherwise difficult for local governments to provide on their own. These projects may include water and sanitation, flood control and drainage infrastructure; health services including hospitals and other tertiary hospital services; agriculture, fishery, livestock, and maintenance of irrigation systems; tourism services, including the development and promotion programs; social welfare services; computerization and other information technology; telecommunication services; low cost housing; maintenance and repair of infrastructure projects; community-based forestry projects; and other activities in sectors devolved to the LGUs requiring special and technical managerial skills or know-how.
Given these, there are plenty of prospects, opportunities and possibilities to bring about progress to the community and profit to the willing funding entity.
This kind of arrangement only entails creativity and political will (again?).
