According to the Philippine Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Center, “There are currently 12 awarded projects in the Philippine PPP pipeline, with 14 other projects in different stages of procurement, two other projects for roll out, five projects for government approval and four projects with ongoing studies.” The PPP Center hopes to double the country’s PPP output before the end of the term of President Aquino.
The 26 projects consist of four roads, three rails, two transport terminals, three water, one market, six airports, one seaport and three information-technology projects. There are also two school buildings, one hospital (but aborted) and one prison projects. The first cluster is popularly referred to as “hard” projects, while the second, “soft”. Soft projects, while they have a physical component, have built-in social welfare- or development-related purposes.
(1) More “hard” and “soft” projects, please. The country needs more of both types. We need more “access” or “connectivity” projects, such as roads, bridges, airports, seaports, telecommunications and terminals. We also need “platform” projects, such as
reclamation and land development.
We also need more classrooms, prisons, health-care facilities, socialized-housing units, agriculture-related projects and evacuation centers. Special emphasis should also be given to climate-change mitigation and adaptation projects.
(2) More “bundled” projects, please. For cost efficiency, synergy, faster turnaround and greater impact, “bundled” projects must be prioritized. Related activities may be combined in one project rather than procuring separate proponents for each activity. The terminal-mall, multiple airport and the three-in-one dike-expressway-reclamation projects are examples of hard-hard bundled projects.
Hard and soft activities can also be fused. In fact, this should be the rule. Every PPP project should have a social-development aspect. The notion that PPP is only promoted to raise revenues to address resource scarcity should be disabused and clarified. The bottom line of PPPs is to serve and be responsive to the general welfare and the public good.
When soft components are underscored, the true purpose of PPPs becomes evident. The public sector could also expect greater social acceptability and less protesters’ risk if the true meaning of PPPs is made more prominent. So high-end types of residential PPP projects can have socialized-housing units; reclamation projects can house schools and hospitals; and land-development projects can accommodate evacuation centers.
(3) More LGU projects, please. Rather than diluting the powers of local government units (LGUs), LGUs must be encouraged to enter into more PPP projects. Less, instead of more, bureaucratic red tape should be the norm. We must all believe that there can be no national development without the development of LGUs and vice-versa.
LGUs are duty-bound to promote the general welfare. They can do so through PPPs. Autonomous regions, provinces, cities,
municipalities and even barangays can implement “hard” and “soft” projects, as well. They are in a better position to address local concerns than other agencies that are not in the frontline or immersed in local conditions.
(4) More Mindanao projects, please. Aside from the PPP for classrooms, there is no other PPP project in Mindanao awarded under the build-operate-transfer law under this administration. There should be more. The infrastructure deficit is more glaring in the south. Power, water, airport, seaport, land development, disaster risk reduction, peace-related, rail and transportation projects must be identified and procured under this development strategy.
(5) Interagency PPPs, please. Rather than just securing the consent of participating agencies or requiring them to purchase or sell services offered in PPP arrangements, another option that should be developed is interagency PPPs. Under this scheme, more than one government agency implements a project and signs the contract with the proponent.
An LGU and another LGU can undertake a solid waste-management project together with the private sector rather than just paying a tipping fee. A water district and an LGU can jointly undertake a bulk water-supply project rather than just being a buyer or
supplier. The Department of Transportation and Communications, National Telecommunications Commission and a city can enter into a PPP for a telecommunication tower project.
(6) More innovative PPPs, please. Aside from the “run-of-the-mill” PPP projects, more innovative projects must be explored. Aside from the above, there should be bulk water-hydropower-irrigation, waste-to-energy, monorail, intra-Asean, bridges, LGU-wide and smart city-related PPP projects.
(7) Greater social accountability, please. Future-proofing PPPs is not about avoiding protests and suits from civil-society organizations (CSOs). CSOs should not remain and should not be treated as fence sitters or rubber stamps. They must be active participants in PPPs. CSOs must constructively engage the public and private proponents. They must have knowledge about PPPs and PPP contracts. They must be allowed to audit PPP projects. They must be allowed to vote in PPP awards, not just consulted.
With these seven, the future of PPP projects and development in the country ought to be bright. Despite the challenges, delays and six evils/Cs, there is hope. The degree of responsiveness rests on how innovative, market-driven and responsible our government officials and institutions are and will be. We hope that the next administration, at all levels, will pick up where previous presidents, secretaries, administrators, governors and mayors have left off.
And my last New Year’s wish is a fervent hope that the drive for “inclusiveness” should include an admission of a state of “exclusiveness” and a genuine belief that no one has a monopoly
of good intentions and ideas.
PPP Learn No. 6
The PPP Core
The real purpose of PPP is shown in this triangle: