Responding to urban development challenges

1. Responding to urban development challenges The case of Naga City, Philippines

2. OUTLINE • The setting • Development challenges • Overcoming challenges • The Naga City Disaster Mitigation Project • Conclusion

3. Location Map Naga City, Philippines

4. WHAT NAGA IS • Population - city of 140,000 in Central Philippines • Local economy growing at 6.5% annually; per capita Gross City Product at US$1,953—both higher than national average • Naga as an Inclusive City- The UN-HABITAT survey said the Naga is selected as one of the inclusive cities in SEA • Livable city - one of Asia’s “Most Improved City”, says Asiaweek newsmagazine

5. WHAT NAGA IS • Strong NGO sector - local presence of vibrant civic, business and people’s organizations • Activist church - Catholic Church a very influential institution; Naga is seat of Caceres archdiocese, home to regional patroness • A pluralist society – “with a tradition and fondness for political debates and discourse, which leads to openness to new ideas”

6. WHAT NAGA IS NOT Naga a typical Philippine city: • Medium-sized, not big • 44th in land area, 38th in population among over 115 Philippine cities • Landlocked, not a port city • has no shipping industry • Peripheral, not central • 500 kms away from Metro Manila, Metro Cebu

7. SOME URBAN INDICATORS • Demographic – half of the population below 20 years old • Spatial development – radiating from an urban core (CBD), mostly to the west • Informal settlements ring the CBD • Infrastructure – 74% of households with piped water (unchanged), 94% with electric power (from 75% in 1988) • Poverty incidence – 29% of population (1998), down from more than 35% (1988) • Normalization, livelihood programs keyed poverty reduction

8. DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES • IMMEDIATE: Rebuilding people’s trust in community based disaster mitigation projects • MEDIUM TERM: Turning Naga around • Corporate concerns (within City Hall) • Societal concerns (outside City Hall) • LONG TERM: Sustaining gains

9. CONSTRAINTS • Until to date , the emerging popularity of mitigation is confined to the training halls and tables of planners and managers. The identified problem areas are : • 1. Persistence of the dominant “response” paradigm. (Relief and Response creates “instant” heroes whereas the efficacy or salutary benefits from mitigation may take long in coming.

10. CONSTRAINTS • Until to date , the emerging popularity of mitigation is confined to the training halls and tables of planners and managers. The identified problem areas are : • 1. Persistence of the dominant “response” paradigm. (Relief and Response creates “instant” heroes whereas the efficacy or salutary benefits from mitigation may take long in coming.

11. CONSTRAINTS • 2. Current legislative barriers, e.g. disaster management funds and consequent policy environment discourage pre-disaster accountabilities being incurred by LGU’s. Worst, this stringent injunction is enforced under pains of administrative sanctions, which may be imposed by the Commission on Audit as the case may be. • 3. Lack of immediate results makes mitigation a low priority.

12. INTERVENTIONS • Confidence-building measures • Sustained creativity and innovations • Strong commitment to excellence • Building partnerships and institutions

13. 1st Intervention:CONFIDENCE-BUILDING • City hall reforms • Created an office on Disaster Mitigation • Develop Counter Disaster Plans • Activated NGO’s as partners • Community reforms • Enhanced Community Participation on disaster mitigation planning • Developed disaster mitigation strategies • Leadership by example

14. 2nd Intervention: CREATIVITY & INNOVATIONS • Mobilizing community resources can make up for the city’s limited finances • Examples: • Development of new growth areas by leveraging city’s corporate powers • Metro Naga program • City-owned hospital anchors emergency rescue services

15. 3rd Intervention:“CULTURE OF EXCELLENCE” • Inspiring governance • Aims to restore the people’s faith in their government. Message: Not only “Government works” but “City Hall always does things better.” • Renewed community pride • Aims to restore Naga’s distinction of being the region’s premier city • Revitalizing GIS technology as a tool for emergency management planning

16. THE NCDMP • Begun in 1999 through the creation of the Naga City Disaster Mitigation Project • Assisted by the ADPC through the AUDMP • Demonstrates that with strong political will and a changed, more enlightened perception of the poor, a local government can make a difference in reducing risks, managing urbanization and uplifting the quality of life in urban areas, lessening the impact of hazards

17. OBJECTIVES • Normalization – giving sense of permanence and legitimacy to informal settlers by addressing tenurial issues • Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment • Mitigation Planning • Institutional Frameworks

18. KEY FEATURES (1) • Tripartism - a credible and effective mechanism where government, NGO’s and Community associations work together in finding developing mitigation strategies

19. KEY PLAYERS IN TRIPARTISM • Government • City – gives program strength and credibility through pro-poor bias, “partner-beneficiary” perspective • National - extends operational and financial support to the Program's land acquisition thrust • ADPC-AUDMP - signify their support and commitment through technical assistance and capacity building • Community - cooperate by exploring more alternative issues to lessen the impact hazards

20. LEVERAGED LAND SHARING+ • A variant of straight land sharing, this involves the purchase of an adjoining property by a landowner where urban poor occupants of his main property can be relocated • LCC finances Metroville Housing Project to free main landholding for development, anchored on a shopping mall Scheme ensures minimal displacement and sparks urban renewal

21. Flood Mitigation Strategies • Maximizing GIS technology for risk management planning • Risk Assessment and Hazard Mapping • Implementation of • Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program Depopulation and Elevation

22. Flood Mitigation Strategies • Maximizing GIS technology for risk management planning • Risk Assessment and Hazard Mapping • Implementation of • Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program Depopulation and Elevation

23. Loss Minimization • While the occurrence of floods cannot be stopped, losses in lives and property could be minimized through appropriate counter measures. The specific activities undertaken by the city government are detailed as follows. Risk Assessment and Hazard Mapping Flood Hazard Mapping Land Use Mapping Wind Hazard Mapping

24. Disaster Mitigation Strategies • Maximizing GIS technology for risk management planning • Risk Assessment and Hazard Mapping • Depopulation and • Elevation

25. Loss Minimization • While the occurrence of floods cannot be stopped, losses in lives and property could be minimized through appropriate counter measures. The specific activities undertaken by the city government are detailed as follows. Risk Assessment and Hazard Mapping Flood Hazard Mapping Land Use Mapping Wind Hazard Mapping

26. LEVERAGED LAND SHARING+ • A variant of straight land sharing, this involves the purchase of an adjoining property by a landowner where informal settlers of his main property can be relocated The Scheme ensures minimal displacement and sparks urban renewal,deterring the effects of floods

27. IMPACT • City at large • Becomes more livable, equitable and sustainable • Boosts urban upgrading and provision of urban basic services. Helps restore dignity and decency to urban poor community • Enhances living conditions of residents through better health and sanitary facilities • Contributes to environmental protection by addressing urban poor concerns along rivers and waterways in the city

28. FUNDING • Current – • Sourced mainly from the city government budget • City spent PhP114.1 million over last 10 years • Augmented by equity contribution by urban poor association members and one-time counterpart investments by the private sector involved on a project basis • Future – • Local ordinance mandates 10% of annual city budgets, net of personal services, to support program • ODA eyed to support area upgrading for medium and long-term

29. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strong community participation very evident, consistent with city’s commitment to partnerships • Community organizing – being handled by COPE Foundation, Inc., the city’s main NGO partner • From only 9 in 1989, there are now more than 80 urban poor associations in Naga • Strong community support for local tax collection – notwithstanding bearish economy, collection efficiency remains high

30. FUTURE DIRECTIONS • Stronger economic component • Look for the Possibility of continuing grants from partners • Enhance Emergency Response Mechanism

31. REPLICABILITY • Adjudged one of the Philippines’ 20 most outstanding local programs • The focus of studies, site-visits and conferences by local and foreign entities • Contributed heavily to project design of the ADB-funded Integrated Urban Development Project in Muntinlupa City • Project sought to pilot-test a community-based, self-help approach for resettlement of informal settlers

32. CONCLUSION • The Naga City experience highlights the fact the need not to dissociate disaster mitigation with development. While disaster may set back development efforts, its mitigation and the eventual rehabilitation effort should always be viewed as part and parcel of a locality’s overall development program. To isolate disasters from development is to aggravate its impact and indeed, truly set back development itself.