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

Responding to urban development challenges

The case of Naga City, Philippines

OUTLINE

The settingDevelopment challengesOvercoming challengesThe Naga City Disaster Mitigation ProjectConclusion

Location MapNaga City, Philippines

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 SEALivable city - one of Asia’s “Most Improved City”, says Asiaweek newsmagazine

WHAT NAGA IS

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

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

SOME URBAN INDICATORSDemographic – half of the population below 20 years oldSpatial 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

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

CONSTRAINTSUntil 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.

CONSTRAINTSUntil 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.

CONSTRAINTS2. 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.

INTERVENTIONS

Confidence-building measures

Sustained creativity and innovations

Strong commitment to excellence

Building partnerships and institutions

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

2nd Intervention: CREATIVITY & INNOVATIONS

Mobilizing community resources can make up for the city’s limited financesExamples: Development of new growth areas by

leveraging city’s corporate powers Metro Naga program City-owned hospital anchors emergency

rescue services

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

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

OBJECTIVES

Normalization – giving sense of permanence and legitimacy to informal settlers by addressing tenurial issues

Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment

Mitigation Planning

Institutional Frameworks

KEY FEATURES (1)

Tripartism - a credible and effective mechanism where government, NGO’s and Community associations work together in finding developing mitigation strategies

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 buildingCommunity - cooperate by exploring more alternative issues to lessen the impact hazards

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 relocatedLCC finances Metroville Housing Project to free main landholding for development, anchored on a shopping mallScheme ensures minimal displacement and sparks urban renewal

Flood Mitigation StrategiesMaximizing GIS technology for risk management planningRisk Assessment and Hazard Mapping Implementation ofNaga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program Depopulation and Elevation

Flood Mitigation StrategiesMaximizing GIS technology for risk management planningRisk Assessment and Hazard Mapping Implementation ofNaga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program Depopulation and Elevation

Loss MinimizationWhile 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 MappingFlood Hazard MappingLand Use MappingWind Hazard Mapping

Disaster Mitigation StrategiesMaximizing GIS technology for risk management planningRisk Assessment and Hazard Mapping Depopulation and Elevation

Loss MinimizationWhile 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 MappingFlood Hazard MappingLand Use MappingWind Hazard Mapping

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

IMPACTCity 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

FUNDINGCurrent – 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

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Strong community participation very evident, consistent with city’s commitment to partnershipsCommunity 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

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Stronger economic component

Look for the Possibility of continuing grants from partnersEnhance Emergency Response Mechanism

REPLICABILITYAdjudged one of the Philippines’ 20 most outstanding local programsThe focus of studies, site-visits and conferences by local and foreign entitiesContributed 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

CONCLUSIONThe 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.