Skip Navigation

Inception Report – Action plan – South Cotabato, Philippines, 2021 – 2022

Overview

Name of Evaluator

Raphael S. Tanseco, RPm

Email

rstanseco@addu.edu.ph

Member Name

South Cotabato, Philippines

Action Plan Title

Action plan – South Cotabato, Philippines, 2021 – 2022

Section 1.
Compliance with
co-creation requirements

1.1 Does a forum exist?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Yes. A forum was held initiated by the Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO) of the Provincial Government of South Cotabato (PGSC) through the multi-stakeholder council, South Cotabato Integrity Circle (SCIC) as well as other NGOs and concerned offices coming from the provincial government. It could be said that citizen participation is being observed in the development of the review of the action plan.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.2 Is the forum multi-stakeholder?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

According to its definition in Section 3.1.1.1 of the OGP Local Handbook, a multi-stakeholder forum is where the government, civil society, and other stakeholders are represented and the members are all elected through a just and transparent process. In the case of South Cotabato, the various non-government members (civil society organizations or CSOs) volunteered to join the SCIC. This took place in a forum held specifically to consult CSOs on which local special bodies they wanted to be a part of, with few interventions from PPDO. This just shows that citizen participation is active in the province where the CSOs are involved in the governance process where their voice and representation can be heard and felt.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.3 Does the forum hold at least one meeting with civil society and non-governmental stakeholders during the co-creation of the action plan?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

One co-creation forum-cum-workshop was held virtually last July 21, 2021, and was attended by the members of SCIC. After the mentioned forum though, there were a series of meetings, consultations, and dialogues conducted with the various agencies (both government and NGOs as well as the youths coming from varied sectors) for the action plan.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.4 Has the action plan been endorsed by the stakeholders of the forum or steering committee/group?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The SCIC, which is composed of both government and non-government stakeholders, endorsed the action plan of OGP Local during one of their quarterly meetings which was duly adopted by the Council.

Provide evidence for your answer:

Section 2.
Recommended practices
in co-creation

2.1 Does the government maintain a Local OGP website or webpage on a government website where information on the OGP Local process (co-creation and implementation) is proactively published?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

There is a local OGP webpage in the form of a Facebook page. It is easily accessible to the public as it is a social media page not hidden behind any paywall. It also has information on OGP local processes as the first co-creation process emphasizes Open Information thus access to current news and events regarding the OGP is being sustained for succeeding co-creation and implementation processes. However, there is a need to increase the frequency of posted information as well as schedules in advance for meetings, workshops, and other relative information concerning the action plan.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.2 Did the government provide information to stakeholders in advance to facilitate informed and prepared participation in the co-creation process?

No

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Aside from the main communication letter, no informational document such as the Handbook was attached to provide information in advance to the stakeholders.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.3 Did the government ensure that any interested member of the public could make inputs into the action plan and observe or have access to decision-making documentation?

No

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

No. The main partner of the action plan, Youth Alliance for Freedom of Information (YAFOI), was participative in the creation of the action plan by way of submitting proposals ahead of the co-creation process. However, it could not be said that just any interested member could have made inputs even if multiple sectors were represented in the forum.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.4 Did the government proactively report back or provide written feedback to stakeholders on how their contributions were considered during the creation of the action plan?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

For this Action Plan, 2 other prospective partners submitted proposals (the South Cotabato Convergence Program for Poverty Reduction, and the Mahintana Foundation, Inc. or MFI) and were not included in the final commitments. These parties were present during the finalizations of the commitments and hence, were promptly informed that their proposals were not chosen because of their proposal on peace initiatives for. Conversely, the partner of the chosen commitment, which was agreed upon by all members, was also present during the meeting and was also then informed that their proposals were chosen for the action plan.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.5 Was there an iterative dialogue and shared ownership between government and non-governmental stakeholders during the decision making process, including setting the agenda?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

By way of submitting proposals ahead of time (as in the case of YAFOI), or by punctually signifying their intention to present their proposal during the meeting (as in the case of the other proponents, Convergence, and MFI), it could be said that there was an iterative dialogue and shared ownership between government and non-governmental stakeholders during the decision-making process, including setting the agenda.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.6 Would you consider the forum to be inclusive and diverse?

Moderately

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The diversity can still be further improved though—among the CSOs in attendance, the diverse communities represented were only the youth and indigenous populations. Additionally, there were women’s organizations invited but were not able to attend. Efforts made are inclusive and diverse for far reach but attendance to the forum is not achieved as expected.

Provide evidence for your answer:

Section 3.
Initial evaluation
of commitments

1. Commitment :

Harnessing Youth Power in Integrating Open Government Values and Mechanisms to Respond to Local and Community-Interest Issues in the Province of South Cotabato

1.1 Is the commitment verifiable?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The commitment is verifiable since for each milestone listed in the commitment, the desired outputs were clearly stated, as well as the start and end dates and the responsible agencies.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.2 Does the commitment language/activities clearly justify relevance to OGP values?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The proposed program takes transparency, public accountability, public participation and inclusion, and technology and innovation in consideration, as evidenced by its emphasis on right to information

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.3 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

A continuation of ongoing practice in line with existing legislation, policies or requirements.

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The commitment under this action plan builds upon Open Contracting and Open Monitoring and Evaluation which proves to be quite a success as to the implementation and the results achieved like digitalization of the bidding process easier access to information as to projects for bidding and minimization of slippages while the open monitoring and evaluation with the involvement of the private sector and NGOs lead to check and balance on government projects.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.4 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

Is a positive change to a process, practice, or policy but will not generate a binding or institutionalized change across government or specific institution(s).

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Indeed, the chosen commitment seeks to bring about positive but isolated changes in policies or practices and it does not promote binding or institutionalized changes in government.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.5 Are there any recommended changes to the design of the commitment to help improve its implementation?

The evaluator’s main assessment revolves around further utilizing the OGP Local’s website/Facebook page by posting events before their conduct so the public may signify their interest in participation. Additionally, the commitment stops at the submission of proposals of the ambassadors as this commitment focuses on capacity building and hence, it might be an improvement to be able to implement the submitted proposals of the participants.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open Government Partnership