Framework for a Sustainable National Land Use Policy in ... · PDF file1 From A Powerpoint Presentation by Prof. Ernie Serote, UP SURP

1

Legislating a Sustainable National

Land Use Act in the Philippines:

THE ‘most lasting change’

needed for our country’s future

by Elmer Mercado, EnP

2nd Paderanga-Varela Lecture Series-FEF

Ascott Serviced Residences, Makati City

25 October 2017

Land CANNOT be

reproduced; PEOPLE CAN

2

3

Basic Realities (1)

Limited and finite land resources;

majority under deplorable and

unsustainable use

30 million hectares;

14.9 million titled (alienable and

disposable)

15.1 million – pubic lands; 142 million

(2045) = 1,000sq m/person

Who owns these lands? Who has

acccess? Less than 10% of families

own 90% of the country’s total

wealth.

RP population (2015) urban-rural

distribution, 2015: 102 million =60/40;

2025: 120 million pop=70/30 (84.0 million)

2045: 142 million

4

Rationale for a National Land Use Act

“The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the COMMON GOOD.

To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments..” – Article XIII, Sec. 1, Philippine Constitution of 1987

1 From A Powerpoint Presentation by Prof. Ernie Serote, UP SURP

“The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the COMMON GOOD.

“…Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the COMMON GOOD so demands.” – Article XII, Sec. 6, Philippine Constitution of 1987

Rationale for a National Land Use Act

Market vs COMMON GOOD =

best use of land resources?

Market and COMMON GOOD

= sustainable land use

7

Sprawl NOT conversion

8

9

Upper Marikina land cover change 2003,2012

Code Municipality Land Cover 2002 2012 Difference %

1

Antipolo City

Arable land, crops mainly cereals and sugar 3,551.90 284.72 (3,267.18 -92

1 Built-up areas 1,193.21 6,999.27 5,806.06) 487

1 Coconut plantations 505.75 367.25 (138.50) -27

1 Cultivated area mixed with brushland/grassland 24,518.39 21,893.92 (2,624.47) -11

1 Grassland, grass covering >70 percent 2,972.47 4,977.45 2,004.98 67

1 Open canopy, mature trees covering < 50 percent 2,527.22 746.32 (1,780.9)1 -70

2

Baras

Arable land, crops mainly cereals and sugar 2,151.11 257.35 (1,893.7)6 -88

2 Built-up areas 227.78 227.78 100

2 Cultivated area mixed with brushland/grassland 1,999.27 1,957.45 (41.82 ) -2

2 Grassland, grass covering >70 percent 91.20 91.49 (0.30) 0

3

Rodriguez

Built-up areas 207.12 2,292.14 (2,085.02) 1007

3 Closed canopy, mature trees covering > 50 percent 3,369.40 2,616.35 (753.05) -22

3 Cultivated area mixed with brushland/grassland 9,988.45 19,224.79 9,236.35 92

3 Grassland, grass covering >70 percent 234.91 372.81 137.89 59

3 Open canopy, mature trees covering < 50 percent 11,255.96 2,260.77 (8,995.20) -80

4

San Mateo

Built-up areas 142.85 2,642.43 2,499.59 1750

4 Cultivated area mixed with brushland/grassland 3,198.75 2,896.89 (301.86) -9

4 Open canopy, mature trees covering < 50 percent 183.95 187.72 3.77 2

4 Arable land, crops mainly cereals and sugar 2,201.50 (2,201.50) -100

5

Tanay

Arable land, crops mainly cereals and sugar 1,119.27 373.82 (745.46) -67

5 Built-up areas 117.14 1,240.11 1,122.98 959

5 Coconut plantations 55.16 3.85 ( 51.31) -93

5 Cultivated area mixed with brushland/grassland 18,215.47 16,638.21 (1,577.26) -9

5 Grassland, grass covering >70 percent 4,491.87 7,131.86 2,639.99 59

5 Open canopy, mature trees covering < 50 percent 1,751.77 527.91 (1,223.86) -70

5 Closed canopy, mature trees covering > 50 percent 168.56 (168.56) -100

Total 96,212.64 96,212.64 (0.00) 0

LA

ND

CO

VE

R C

HA

NG

E,

by L

GU

s Deforestation

Massive

Deforestation

Deforestation

Massive

Deforestation

Settlement Expansion

Settlement Expansion

Settlement Expansion

Settlement Expansion

Settlement Expansion

Land conversion

Land conversion

Land conversion

Land conversion

Land conversion Land

conversion

10

11

Palawan land cover change 2003,2010

12

Oriental Mindoro Land cover change 2003,2010

13

14

Basic Realities (2)

Most vulnerable areas: (resource

depletion, disaster risk, climate change,

over-exploitation, conversion)

forestlands/uplands and coastal/foreshore

areas (public land)

prime agricultural/productive lands (A&D)

resource depletion in the next 10 years (i.e.

physical coverage and multiplied human

demands)

Urban fringe and Peri-urban areas

(in fragile and vulnerable areas)

Dagupan City Urban Fringe

Protection of watersheds,

prime agricultural lands, key

danger zones, critical

habitats/biodiversity areas,

cultural and heritage zones,

marine and coastal resources

= WHY NOT?

17

PhP 800 billion = 2009-2014 cost of

disasters (Yolanda, Ondoy, Pablo,

Sendong, Pepeng), WB 2015.

2x-3x for recovery over a long period of

time

PhP 2.1 billion/day = loss to Metro

Manila traffic, JICA 2015.

PhP 2.5 billion (2006) = conversion of

mangroves to fishponds. WB,2008

18

Economic cost of absence and incoherent planning

PhP 24 billion/year (2015-2028) =

cost of recovering loss biodiversity

(forest, coastal/marine, etc) and

maintaining current status,

UNDP/GEF/DENR 2015.

19

Economic cost of absence and incoherent planning

Effective, accountable,

responsive and empowered

land governance =

sustainable land management

20

21

Policy and Institutional Limitations

Existing and key land use and resource

management policies are outdated and

outmoded; disjointed and disconnected;

and overlapping and conflicting; focused

on disposition, utilisation and allocation

(e.g. CARP, IPRA, UDHA, CA141,

PD705, Water Code, Mining/Small-

scale mining, etc.)

22

Multiple and overlapping policy framework

Public Land Act (CA 141) of 1936 – main (public) land use management policy

Other (21) land use management-related policies

PD705 - Revised Forestry Code (1976)

RA 7076 - People’s Small Scale Mining Act of 1991

RA 7160 - Local Government Code of 1991

RA 7586 - NIPAS Act of 1992

RA 7942 - Mining Act of 1995

RA 8371 - IPRA Law of 1997

RA 8435 - AFMA of 1997

RA 8550 - Revised Fisheries Code of 1997

RA 7279 - Urban Development and Housing Act

PD 1067 - Water Code of the Philippines

PD 1084 - Creation of Public Estates Authority(PEA)

23

Multiple and overlapping policy framework

Other related land-use policies (Con’t) CA 452 - Pasture Land Act

RA 6650/RA 9700 - Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program/Extension

EO 263 - Adoption of CBFM as country’s sustainable forest policy

RA 7161 - Banning of cutting of mangroves/forest charges

RA 9729 - Climate Change Act of 2009

RA 9275 - Clean Water Act of 2009

RA 10066 - National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009

RA 10121 - Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010

24

Absence of an integrating and common

national and local physical planning

framework; disconnected and disjointed

land use management and

implementing bodies

25

The 3 Domains within the LGU Territory

PRIVATE

DOMAIN (A & D)

14.1 million has

ANCESTRAL

DOMAIN

7.0 million has

PUBLIC DOMAIN 8.4 million has

• Untitled A&D

• Timberlands

• Mineral Lands

• National Parks

• Municipal Waters

Source: Prof. Ernesto Serote

CONFLICTS

Policy Land

Owner-

ship

User

Rights

Degra-

dation

26

Multiple and overlapping jurisdictions *

27

Networking with other Agencies who have mandated functions In the coastal zone

28

Fractured and disconnected land use

management and administrative bodies

National Land Use Committee=National Physical Framework Plan (NEDA)

Regional Land Use Committee = Regional Physical Framework Plan (NEDA)

HLURB = Highly Urbanised Cities and Provinces

Province (PPDC/SP) = component city/municipal CLUPs;

City/municipal (MPDC/SP) = barangays

DILG/DBM = C/MDevelopment Plans and Investment Plans (C/MDP and C/MDIP)

29

Planning for Whom? Planning for future uses and demands and not existing/current; maximising use of resources and sustaining;

Decision TODAY of what and how much of land resources are we going to use, conserve and protect for the FUTURE (i.e. at least next 25 years or 30 years)

Value-adding; cannot continue same (current) system of land use (mis) management and distorted planning

30

Basic Land Use Policy Framework

NaLUA MUST determine primacy of land resource use for common good vs all other demands, requirements, claims and use rights

protection of permanent forestlands/critical watersheds, including mangrove areas --- for water use, biodiversity, climate change, medicinal, cultural/social, energy,

protection of prime agricultural; and production lands (not located in ecologically fragile and environmentally-risky/vulnerable areas) – food security and self-sufficiency

protection of extremely hazardous and highly vulnerable lands for public safety (e.g. clear threats to life and property) and health.

31

Basic Land Use Policy Framework

NaLUA MUST determine the minimum protected land use resource for FUTURE NEEDs (preserved and maintained NOW and FUTURE)

total land area of permanent forestlands and critical watershed area (determined by DENR, DoE, NIA, LWUA, NWRB, DAand LGUs)

total prime agricultural land and production lands (determined by DA, DAR and DENR)

32

NaLUA MUST ensure the PRIMACY of land use plan (physical framework plan) vs all other sectoral and development plans of government; all sectoral and development plans MUST be directly contribute and consistent to the objectives and goals of the approved NPPF, RPFP, PPFP and CLUP;

annual appropriations and programming of NGA and LGUs should be directly linked and supportive of NPPF, RPFP, PPFP and CLUP

33

NaLUA MUST NOW focus MORE on MANAGEMENT with PLANNING (i.e. physical, use allocation, etc.);

National body provide strategic guidance and physical planning directions and objectives/targets; “steering”

Local implementing bodies more decision-making and accountability for specific land use resource decisions, management, conflict resolution and implementation options/initiatives; “rowing”;

Barangay land use plans as “foundation” of all physical and development plans

34

Institutional and Implementation

Framework (3)

Local determination and management by

LGUs/communities is KEY to on-site

sustainable land use management

identification of protected lands and uses based

on determined national primacy of land use

allow determination of other uses in non-

protected lands and resource uses (e.g. multiple

and/or mixed uses and resource use areas)

greater accountability on settling local use

conflicts and zoning implementation

35

Preconditions to Operationalise NaLUA

Completion of permanent and final forestlands delineation, inventory and assessment;

Completion and updating of cadastral surveys and maps

Establishment of an integrated, publicly accessible GIS-based national spatial database and land resource information system and network (includes all survey, technical and physical maps, plans, land titles, tenurial instruments, land management arrangements, valuation and assessments, and ownership status)

36

Preconditions to Operationalise NaLUA

Consolidation and integration of land

administration agencies (i.e. titling,

survey/mapping and registration) into a single

land administration and management

authority

Unification and issuance of single titling

document/instrument for all types of land

ownership/tenurial instrument using a

graphical and technical representation of area

covered

37

Mabuhay!