HOUSING BUDGET FORUM

16 February 2012 Davao City

• NHA

• SHFC NGAs

• Quezon City

• Legazpi City

• Mandaue City

• Davao City

LGUs

NHA’s Corporate Operating Budget (in million pesos)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Borrowings

Internally generated

NG support

Beginning balances

National government (NG) support to NHA (in million pesos)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Unprogrammed

GAA

Allocation of GAA support to NHA

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

ASEZA Housing Project

Slum upgrading

Local Housing

Medium-rise housing

Resettlement

Internally generated funds (in million pesos)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Trust funds

Corporate receipts

Breakdown of trust funds (in million pesos)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2006 2007 2008 2009

SLEX

North Triangle

PAF 3

DOTC-ATO

Socialized housing units participation NGC

Local housing program Medium-rise housing

0 5000 10000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009 Project dev't

Housing support

Land assembly

Proj-related cap outlay

Capital outlay

Debt service

COE 0 5000 10000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

COE

Project dev't

Budget share of programs in Project Development (in million pesos)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2,034.87 2,768.18 3,252.57 3,050 6,011

National Programs 1,783.64 2,565.46 2,492.34 2,906 5,262

Resettlement 1,783.64 2,565.46 2,423.21 2,598 4,378

CARE 65.18 303 187

Reconstruction 697

Slum upgrading (PP) 3.95 5 1

Regular Programs 251.23 202.72 760.23 144 749

Resettlement 48.26 20.20 23.76 105 47

Slum upgrading 9.66 2.77 0.76 5 8

Sites and services 28.10 47.52 202.18 16 9

Core housing 15.41 24.51 10.98 3 9

Medium-rise housing 149.80 107.93 522.95 15 676

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Other hsg assistance

Regular programs

National programs

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

NCR

NCL

SLB

Visayas

Mindanao

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2009 completions

2010 housing need NCR

NCL

SLB

Visayas

Mindanao

COE (million pesos)

Completions COE per completed unit (pesos)

2005 879 43,299 20,293

2006 889 40,808 21,784

2007 1,211 42,551 28,458

2008 1,110 48,280 22,991

2009 1,127 30,294 37,202

COB (million pesos)

Completions Cost per completed unit (pesos)

2005 5,782 43,299 133,525

2006 5,608 40,808 137,420

2007 8,412 42,551 197,685

2008 10,037 48,280 207,891

2009 12,468 30,294 411,567

Collections (in million pesos)

2005 2006 2007 2008

Collection efficiency

33% 26% 33% 33%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Rental/lease

Installment contracts

NHA and SHFC Quezon City LGU

1,047M utilized in 2010 for North Triangle Resettlement 300M raised from Trust Funds in 2009 also for North Triangle 16M and 15M raised from Trust Fund for NGC Slum Upgrading in 2008 and 2009 respectively 189M for CMP projects from 2008 to 2010

108M in 2009 for UPAO projects in Direct Sale and CMP 18.5M appropriated in 2010 for NGC Eastside Community Development 1M allocated yearly since 2007 for survey and titling assistance

NHA and SHFC Legazpi City LGU

22M for CMP projects in 2008 No segregated report for NHA project funds for Legazpi from 2008 to 2010

7.2M from 2008 to 2010 for Urban Poor Affairs Program and Services and Support to Urban Poor Program and Activities

NHA and SHFC Mandaue City LGU

25M for CMP projects from 2008 to 2009 No funding reported from NHA for 2008 -2010

10M was allotted in 2009 for housing for government employees 10M was allotted in 2010 for housing of the urban poor

NHA and SHFC Davao City LGU

35M for CMP projects from 2008 to 2010 No funding reported from NHA for 2008-2010

75M per year for LCMP 2009 and 2010 29M, 79M, 79M for ULRP from 2008 to 2010

NHA and SHFC Quezon City LGU

8,278 from 2008-2010 (including 150 where both agencies assisted). 63% were served through North Triangle Resettlement, 5% through NGC West Slum Upgrading, 31% through various CMP projects.

No figures were provided for the same period. However, for 2006-2008, 2,558 families were reported served through CMP with LGU assistance. 5,203 were served through Direct Sale over an unspecified number of years.

NHA and SHFC Legazpi City LGU

1,439 for 2008, 67% through Taysan Resettlement, 33% through CMP projects. None were reported for 2009-2010.

594 for 2008-2010, including 480 served through CMP with LGU assistance. 114 were served through direct sale.

NHA and SHFC Mandaue City LGU

343 for 2008-2009, all CMP projects. None were reported for 2010.

2,500 have been provided over an unspecified number of years.

NHA and SHFC Davao City LGU

543 for 2009-2010, all CMP projects. None were reported for 2010.

4,079 for 2008-2010, through ULRP.

Quezon City • Local Housing Board (LHB) • Housing and Urban Renewal Authority (HURA) • LGU as CMP Originator through UPAO • Housing component provided by GK or Habitat in Direct Sale or CMP projects of the LGU • LIAC/PIAC in NHA projects

Legazpi City • Urban Development and Housing Board (UDHB) • Joint-venture projects (LGU for land, NGAs/NGOs for site development and housing construction) • LGU as CMP Originator • CSOs identify blighted areas that may be declared socialized housing sites

Mandaue City • Mandaue City Board on Socialized Housing (MCBOSH) • LIAC in NHA project

Davao City • Local Housing Board (LHB) • Localized CMP (LCMP) • Registered community associations recommend beneficiaries for the ULRP • Private Sector Partnership (private individuals or groups donate land for housing development by the LGU)

Quezon City • According to QC Budget Office, P30M is allocated yearly since 2006 for social housing, but no documentation was provided. • Socialized Housing Tax Ordinance

Legazpi City The Comprehensive Urban Poor Development Ordinance enables • The allocation P7M yearly for the city’s urban poor programs and projects, although actual appropriation has been less. • The creation of a Social Housing Trust Fund, which has not been created.

Mandaue City The 20% Balanced Housing Act • Lists various options for developers to contribute to local housing. • Enables the creation of a Socialized Housing Trust Fund.

Davao City • Comprehensive Urban Shelter and Services Development Code of Davao City, also known as the Davao City Shelter Code • Strict imposition of balanced housing provision of RA 7279 • Additional P100M fund for ULRP allocated from the city’s P3B LBP loan

The big blocks of funds provided for Resettlement in the NHA budget and the low levels of financing provided to other programs

Highlight the need for to keep on studying how Resettlement is

being done, and to keep on advocating how Resettlement could be better planned and implemented to succeed with safe location and sufficient social and economic infrastructure,

Show an opportunity for CSOs to engage with District Representatives in causing the release of more Local Housing Program funds by equipping them with information and concrete proposals to address local housing need.

In the last 7 years, the amount allocated to NHA in the GAA accounted for an average of only about half of the total National Government support provided to NHA during the year. The other half comes from Unprogrammed Funds such as funds that become available for calamity response, mass housing projects for special groups (e.g. AFP-PNP), or resettlement due to infrastructure projects of the national government.

CSOs have to be aware and alert to projects that are prepared

during the year and receive big amounts from sources other than the appropriation for NHA in the GAA.

The total amount in the Trust Funds has generally increased from 2005 to 2009 suggesting either that a) some earmarked funds have remained in Trust rather than utilized during the period for their purpose and/or b) funds have been put in trust for additional items. This indicates to CSOs that

The intended purposes (restricted uses) of the Trust Funds

may be studied for possible alignment with CSO proposals.

Beginning Balances are significant in all the years where figures are available (2005 to 2009), ranging from 1/3 to more than ½ of funds raised in the previous year. This suggests a problem with timely utilization of funds. The situation is reportedly caused by NG releases being made in the latter part of the year, which makes it difficult for NHA to utilize a big portion of the funds during the year. This may be an opportunity for CSOs

To probe the cause(s) for delayed releases to NHA, and to

determine if CSOs can contribute to alleviating this problem through participation in project preparation in the budget execution phase.

As the value of total disbursements have gone up, so have the share of project development to total disbursements increased. With the significantly higher total disbursement in 2009 (7,319M from 4,297M in 2008), the share of Project Development climbed to 82.1% from 71%, while COE dropped to 15.4% from 25.8% in 2008.

This apparent trend for more efficient corporate operations bears

watching in the future.

Further study of Project Development budgets versus the COB and COE would also be useful in more closely analysing costing parameters for NHA’s various forms of assistance, and in showing how operating expenses are borne or passed on to project costs.

On Resettlement: That the national government and NHA give more thought to

projects that are centrally located (‘in-city’) before turning to projects located in urban peripheries where social and economic infrastructure are not well-developed and give reason for beneficiaries to return to informal housing arrangements in the city.

That Medium Rise Housing be provided additional resources, being one of the viable options for in-city housing development.

That the livelihood concern of NHA in resettlement projects not be limited to promoting home-based micro-businesses but should study the directions of local economic development.

That LGUs hosting relocation sites be given the chance to accept and be assisted with the means to sustain new communities socially and economically.

Despite the big number of Presidential Proclamations declaring parcels of public land open for disposition to qualified beneficiaries (115 Proclamations since 2001 for 27,286 hectares and estimated 270,000 beneficiaries), GAA funds were provided for Slum Upgrading for Lands Proclaimed as Housing Sites only in 2010 and 2011, comprising less than 3% of NHA budgetary support in the GAA each time.

The funds were mostly intended for tenurial upgrading only (survey and titling), not for structural or site utilities upgrading.

That Slum Upgrading programs and funds be increased, and not

be limited to tenurial upgrading but should include improvements to sanitation, safe water and other conditions for quality of life.

The order of regions from most to least production by the NHA is the same as the order of regions with most to least housing need. However, the proportion of production in NCL and SLB are each about 12 percentage points above their proportion of housing need, while the proportion of production in Visayas and Mindanao are 5 to 10 percentage points below their proportion of housing need.

The focus on Resettlement programs by the NHA also raises the question of what proportion of local housing need the figures actually address, especially in NCL and SLB, which might have big production only because they serve as receiving localities of resettlers from NCR.

Although smaller in numbers, CMP production appears to have better geographic reach than NHA’s programs.

That the NGAs and LGUs be able to show the link of housing delivery with more strategic plans for shelter at the national and local levels.

That demand-driven programs be given more emphasis by NGAs to be more responsive to effective demand.

NHA has been continuously paying significant amounts for Debt Service.

That the national government program the principal payments for the loans incurred by NHA, so that corporate funds allotted for interest payments can be channelled to more productive uses.

The year with the highest collections, 2007, was also the year when rental/lease collections made a bigger contribution to collections than instalment contracts.

Collection efficiency was never higher than 33% in 2005 to 2008. For NHA to consider whether rentals/leases are not of more value

in terms of generating revenues for the agency, and in this context consider the value of public rental housing.

For national government to consider collection from turned-over units in the context of other revenue generation programs for housing, given the typical situation and capacity of the agency’s clientele for repayment. This context also gives reason to consider the viability of public rental housing.

For NGAs and LGUs to study the options for housing delivery through municipal enterprise.

Programs for land acquisition are the dominant forms of housing delivery among LGUs.

For local policy-makers and implementers to ensure that

CMP and local land banking or ‘urban land reform’ programs reach the targeted beneficiaries and remain in the affordable housing sector. Post-project turnover research such as tracer studies of the beneficiaries of land acquisition programs may help in the review and improvement of implementation policies and processes.

The lack of quality information on housing need and provision at the local level indicates a lack of capacity among LGUs to provide standard data.

More aggressive action by HUDCC to build capacity among LGU

offices to plan and implement housing provision more strategically, and to review national policy in the NUDHF and PDP as well as local policy in their respective CLUPs and CDPs.

That LGUs be compelled to implement data collection activities mandated in the UDHA such as ISF inventory and identification of land suitable for socialized housing.

That priority for NG support be given to LGUs that have exerted effort to build internal capacity and make rational plans.

Most LGUs and NGAs have some form of multi-stakeholder structures and mechanisms such as the Local Housing Board and the Inter-agency Committees.

That timely and standard information disclosure be the

norm among LGUs and NGAs so that CSOs can meaningfully participate in multi-stakeholder bodies and processes.

Among the institutions owned or run by government for housing services, it is the NHA, SHFC and the LGUs that are mandated to provide access to housing finance to the informal sector. However, the needs of the informal sector are far bigger than the current capacities of the NGAs and the LGUs.

That other government housing agencies like the Home Guaranty Corp. be compelled to fulfil their mandate of providing services to the lower-income segment of the market. HGC, in particular, can be used to access financing sources other than government.

That the budgets of NHA and SHFC be increased in accordance with a strategic plan for reducing housing need, especially among the informal sector who make up a big portion of the housing market in terms of units needed.