N AGA KAANTABAY SA KAUSWAGAN (Partners in Development) P ROGRAM

1. NAGAKAANTABAY SA KAUSWAGAN(Partners in Development)PROGRAM Empowering the Urban Poor 2001 INTERNATIONAL AWARDEE Finalist -World habitat Awards 1998 INTERNATIONAL AWARDEE Habitat II Top 40 Best Practices in Improving the Human Environment 1994 NATIONAL AWARDEE Gantimpalang Panlingkod Pook (Galing-Pook Award)

2. Background • Naga City, Philippines • regional center of education • regional center of trade and commerce • attracted rural migrants searching for better opportunities

3. Background The Urban Poor Problem (1988) • Urban poor accounted for 25% of the population (5,000 to 6,000 families) • “Illegally” occupied private and government property • Lived in dilapidated shelters in blighted communities • Grappled with living conditions characterized by congestion, squalor, and lack of facilities and services

4. Background The Urban Poor Problem (1988) • Relationship among the city government, urban poor and landowners on issues involving land tenure problems was adversarial • Previous local administrations indifferent to urban poor plight • The condition of 27 urban poor communities remained blighted • Government passive in the face of squatter ejection and demolition by private landowners

5. Development Perspective CORE PHILOSOPHY: “GROWTH WITH EQUITY” Shows an enlightened perception of the poor. It seeks to: Promote economic development (growth) Politically and economically empower the vulnerable sectors of the community

6. Development Perspective Growth with Equity • Borne out of the recognition that while many benefit from improving the business climate, an equal number are also forced to pay the social cost of the consequences of growth • Requires a pro-poor bias since the marginalized are mainly the beneficiaries of equity-enhancing programs • Requires a readiness to work with similarly-inclined institutions • Requires maintaining a degree of fairness, credibility and reliability so that government can effectively work with other sectors

7. The Program Kaantabay sa Kauswagan A social amelioration program designed to empower the urban poor by responding to their 2 main problems: • Absence of land tenure security • Lack of basic infrastructure and facilities in their communities

8. The Program Beginnings • Before the 1986 EDSA Revolution – COPE Foundation started organizing the urban poor in Naga • 1987 – urban poor plight brought to the attention of President Corazon Aquino during her visit to Naga • May 15, 1989 – Urban Poor Affairs Office set up; Naga was among the first local governments in the Philippines to establish one dedicated to urban poor concerns

9. The Program Goals Seeks to institutionalize a mechanism that will provide permanent solutions to all land tenurial problems involving the urban poor • Normalization – address land tenure issues involving homelots for the urban poor • Poverty Reduction – help urban poor build capital and promote socio-economic empowerment • Urban Upgrading – provide basic infrastructure and facilities in urban poor communities

10. The Program Short-term Objectives • Provide permanent solutions to all land tenure problems involving the urban poor • Uplift the living condition of urban poor residents in the city • Eradicate arbitrary ejection and minimize incidences of eviction/demolition • Explore alternative modes of land acquisition

11. The Program Long-term Objectives • Empower the urban poor sector in Naga City by providing homelots, basic infrastructure and services, as well as livelihood opportunities to all in need • Strengthen the urban poor sector and heighten their participation in local governance • Integrate the urban poor in the mainstream of development and make them more productive members of society

12. The Program Basic Premise • The urban poor is a vital sector in Naga’s quest for total development • They are potential partners in development—kaantabay sa kauswagan—not impediments to progress • But as a marginalized sector, the urban poor needs to be brought back to the mainstream • Only when sufficiently empowered can the urban poor be productive members of society

13. Activities Main Categories • On-site land acquisition and development – involves acquisition, from private owners, of land currently occupied by the urban poor • Off-site land acquisition and development – involves acquisition of land to serve as relocation sites for victims of eviction and demolition • Through direct purchase, land swapping and other modes of acquisition • Through disposition of public lands

14. Activities Main Categories • Capability Building – focuses on social preparation of partner-beneficiaries • Auxiliary Services and Institutional Support – land surveys, and relocation, legal and livelihood assistance

15. Activities Land Acquisition Strategies • Direct Purchase - purchase of land occupied by the urban poor  from its owner by the city government itself. The occupants, then, amortize the cost of their individual homelots to the city government. • Land Swapping - urban poor-occupied property is exchanged by a private owner with another lot, of roughly equal value, purchased by the city government. Amortization on individual homelots is paid to the city government.

16. Activities Land Acquisition Strategies • Land Sharing - involves working out a mutually-beneficial arrangement for a single property that allows both private landowners and urban poor occupants to satisfy their respective needs • Community Mortgage - a scheme that allows the wholesale purchase of a private property occupied by members of an urban poor association, using the Community Mortgage Program of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation • Resettlement and Expropriation – the city government uses its power of “eminent domain” to acquire privately-owned land for the urban poor.

17. Activities Site Development • The city government provides and upgrades the following infrastructure facilities: • Streetlights • Concrete streets • Pathwalks and footbridges • Levels I and II water systems • Multi-purpose halls • Drainage system • Daycare centers

18. Activities Site Development • Within the site’s immediate vicinity, the following are provided: • Public Elementary and High Schools • Satellite Markets • Health Centers • Police Outposts • Opening of transport routes, if there are none existing

19. Implementation Program Policies • “partner-beneficiary" perspective in dealing with clients • strategy of focus in client identification and selection • program coverage delimited only to the urban poor sector in Naga • client identification is facilitated by a single criterion: presence of a land tenure problem. Where there is such a problem, the program responds; for where there is a tenurial issue, there is also urban blight.

20. Implementation Program Policies • tripartite approach to urban poor problem resolution • GOVERNMENT • City and national government agencies • URBAN POOR SECTOR/BENEFICIARIES • Urban poor federation, associations and their allied NGOs • PRIVATE LANDOWNERS • Owners of the land occupied by the urban poor or of the land to be used as resettlement site

21. Kaantabay’s Tripartite Partnerships • Government Agencies

22. Kaantabay’s Tripartite Partnerships • Non-Government/People’s Organizations • Landowners

23. Implementation Program Policies • Role definition and specialization • local government does what it can do best • NGOs tapped for other tasks such as community organizing • Dealing only with urban poor organizations, not individuals • compels interested applicants to take the initiative in organizing themselves, thus, facilitating community organizing • once organized, urban poor communities become ready to participate in tripartite resolution of tenurial issues

24. Implementation Organization and Service Delivery • Naga City Urban Development and Housing Board • 20-man tripartite policymaking body • Naga City Urban Poor Federation • NGO, composed of all urban poor associations, that works with the Board • Urban Poor Affairs Office • operating arm of the program

25. Resources • City Annual Budget • Institutionalized in the Kaantabay Ordinance which mandates the local government to allocate 10% of its budget to the program, net of personnel services • Beneficiary Equity • Mortgage on homelots so that the city can recover cost of development • No dole-out and project equity policies • Enhances the principle that the urban poor are homeowners, not squatters • Partner Equity • Contributions by the private sector and partner NGOs to the program • Such as community organizing efforts by the COPE Foundation

26. Impact Urban Poor • Social and economic dislocation of poor families is avoided • Thus, contributing to a more secure future for the urban poor • By helping them build capital (through homelots), empowers the urban poor to become more productive agents of the local economy • As of 2004, a total of 47 projects benefiting 8,529 households • More avenues for participation in local governance • Through an increase in urban poor associations from 9 to 70 • Belonging to a city-wide federation

27. Impact Off-Site Projects SAN RAFAEL RESETTLEMENT PROJECT Negotiated Purchase AREA: 10.0072 Has. HH POP: 377 PACOL RESETTLEMENT PROJECT Negotiated Purchase AREA: 15.4467 Has. HH POP: 707 PANICUASON BRGY SITE AREA: 2.000 Has. HH POP: 87 SAN FELIPE RESETTLEMENT PROJECT Land Swapping AREA: 0.9986 Has. HH POP: 98 CALAUAG RES. PROJ. Negotiated Purchase AREA: 4.9505 Has. HH POP: 591 Map of Naga City SAN ISIDRO BRGY SITE AREA: 2.000 Has. HH POP: 52 CARARAYAN P-1 RESETTLEMENT. PROJECT Donation before Robredo era AREA: 5.8419 Has. HH POP: 219 ISLA PEÑAFRANCIA RES. ROJECT Negotiated Purchase AREA: 1.1248 Has. HH POP: 84 CARARAYAN P-II RESETTLEMENT. PROJECT Donation before Robredo era AREA: 2.000 Has. HH POP: 65 ABELLA (JOLLY) RESETTLEMENT PROJECT Negotiated Purchase AREA: 4.000 Has. HH POP: 464 (551) DEL ROSARIO RES. PROJECT Negotiated Purchase AREA: 1.6655 Has. HH POP: 137 SABANG RESETTLEMENT SITE (METROVILLE) Donation AREA: 1.6985 Has. HH POP: 184

28. Impact On-Site Projects PEÑAFRANCIA (MITRA) PROJ. Negotiated Purchase AREA: 5.5037 Has. HH POP: 428 POOK MANGGA (STA. CRUZ) . PROJ. Negotiated Purchase AREA: 0.0555Ha. HH: 6 ABELLA (ACACIA) PROJ. Negotiated Purchase AREA: 0.3012 Ha. HH: 51 GREENLAND PROJECT (CONCEPCION PEQUEÑA) AREA: 0.8718 Ha. HH: 52 GOOD NEIGHBORS PROJ. (IGUALDAD). Negotiated Purchase AREA: 0.1181 Ha. HH: 10 IGUALDAD ZONE IV PROJ.(CMP) AREA: 0.4812 Ha. HH: 63 SABANG PORO PROJ..(LAND SHARING) AREA: 1.3000 Has. HH: 233 LERMA PROJ.(CMP) AREA: 0.2950 Ha. HH: 78 LERMA Z-II PROJ. Negotiated Purchase AREA: 0.1362 Ha. HH: 23 TABUCO PROJ. Negotiated Purchase AREA: 0.5934 Ha. HH: 134 CALSADA-MABULO PROJ. Negotiated Purchase AREA: 0.3872 Has. HH: 56

29. Impact On-Going Projects CAPILIHAN ON-SITE PROJECT Negotiated Purchase A: 1.7894has. HH: 110 PEÑAFRANCIA (SAN ANDRES) ON-SITE PROJECT Expropriation A : 60,977 Sq. M. HH : BAGUMBAYAN SUR (MANUBAY) ON-SITE PROJECT Expropriation A : 0.7379 ha. HH : BALATAS (TAPAS) ON-SITE PROJECT -Recovery through court litigation A : 5.9818 has. HH : AZUCENA-CALAUAG ON SITE Negotiated Purchase HH: 35 QUEBORAC RESETTLEMENT. PROJ. (OFF SITE) AREA: 7.000 Has. HH: 835 CONCEPCION GRANDERESETTLEMENT (YSAAC PROJ) -Expropriation A : 0.3059 ha. HH= TABUCO -NG HUA Land Swapping HH: 17 CANDA NEIGHBORHOOD ON-SITE PROJECT HH : 128 SABANG (FULGENTES) ON-SITE PROJECT Expropriation A : 0.8510 ha. HH = TRIANGULO RESETTLEMENT (OFF- SITE) HH: 169 DOÑA CLARA VILLAGE PROJECT. (ON SITE) AREA: 5.2274 has. HH: TABUCO-QUINALE PROJ. (ON SITE) AREA: 01989 Ha. HH: 47

30. Impact Landowners • Dispute Resolution • Mutually acceptable solutions to long-standing tenurial problems are arrived at • Direct Economic Benefit • By getting payment for their land • Through a rise in property values brought about by improved access, urban upgrading, and infrastructure and facilities constructed by the city

31. Impact Naga, as a whole • Urban Upgrading • Renewal of 27 blighted urban poor communities • Improved access, health and sanitation conditions • Economic Benefits • Housing constructions and improvements done by the urban poor • And their multiplier effect • A more livable, equitable and sustainable city • Deepened civic pride • National and international recognition of Kaantabay as a model urban poor program

32. Innovative Processes • A changed, more enlightened perception of the poor • The sector’s plight is viewed not as a social problem but as a symptom of a bigger structural imbalance in society • The urban poor have basic human rights—including the right to shelter and a decent life in an urban setting • A dedicated urban poor agency • Setting up of the Naga UPAO shows that the city government is committed to matching pro-poor rhetoric with concrete resources and results

33. Innovative Processes • Tripartism • A fair, credible and effective mechanism—where government, private landowners and urban poor associations work together in finding mutually acceptable solutions to even long-standing tenurial issues—works wonders and enables functional partnerships to gel and take shape • Functional partnerships • By hewing closely to the principles of role definition, role complementation and specialization, the program is able to maximize the power of pooled community resources

34. Innovative Processes • Continued development of creative approaches to land tenurial issues and socialized housing • Through the various modes and approaches to land acquisition, community development and project financing, the city overcame financial constraints that usually hamper implementation • 3 new projects are now being finalized under these community development and project financing approaches: the CBD II Row Housing Project, Integrated Livelihood cum Housing Project, and Medium Rise Housing Project • Work-for-pay scheme (Bayadnihan) introduced to address the problem of poor homelot amortization payments brought about the financial crisisover the past few years

35. Lessons Learned • The task of tackling social problems and governance, itself, must be shared with civil society • All sectors must be as responsible for governance as the local officials, themselves • Local governments cannot be all things to all people • It has its own specialization and must strike a synergy and partnerships with other government agencies, NGOs and beneficiaries

36. Lessons Learned • Local governments are better positioned to address the problems in their midst • It is, therefore, best to transfer additional resources to local governments, as well as extension of specialized services by national agencies • Government need not give everything to the poor • The poor are ready to help themselves if only they are involved in decision-making processes

37. - end of presentation -