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

NNAGAAGA KAANTABAY SA KAANTABAY SA KAUSWAGANKAUSWAGAN (Partners in (Partners in Development)Development)

PPROGRAMROGRAM

2001 INTERNATIONAL AWARDEE 2001 INTERNATIONAL AWARDEE Finalist -World habitat AwardsFinalist -World habitat Awards

1998 INTERNATIONAL AWARDEE1998 INTERNATIONAL AWARDEEHabitat II Top 40 Best Practices

in Improving the Human Environment1994 NATIONAL AWARDEE1994 NATIONAL AWARDEEGantimpalang Panlingkod PookGantimpalang Panlingkod Pook

(Galing-Pook Award)

2001 INTERNATIONAL AWARDEE 2001 INTERNATIONAL AWARDEE Finalist -World habitat AwardsFinalist -World habitat Awards

1998 INTERNATIONAL AWARDEE1998 INTERNATIONAL AWARDEEHabitat II Top 40 Best Practices

in Improving the Human Environment1994 NATIONAL AWARDEE1994 NATIONAL AWARDEEGantimpalang Panlingkod PookGantimpalang Panlingkod Pook

(Galing-Pook Award)

Empowering the Urban Empowering the Urban PoorPoor

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan ProgramCity Government of Naga, Philippines

BackgroundBackground• Naga City, PhilippinesNaga City, Philippines

regional center of education regional center of trade and commerce attracted rural migrants searching for better

opportunities


BackgroundBackground

The Urban Poor Problem (1988)he 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


BackgroundBackground

The Urban Poor Problem (1988)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


Development Development PerspectivePerspective

Shows an enlightenedperception of the poor. It seeks to:

CORE PHILOSOPHY:“GROWTH WITH EQUITY”GROWTH WITH EQUITY”

Promote economic development

(growth)

Politically and economically empower the vulnerable sectors

of the community


Development Development PerspectivePerspective

Growth with EquityGrowth 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


The ProgramThe Program

Kaantabay sa KauswaganKaantabay sa Kauswagan

A social amelioration program designed to empower the urban poor by responding to their 2 mainproblems:

Absence of land tenure security Lack of basic infrastructure and facilities in their

communities



BeginningsBeginnings

• 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


The ProgramThe ProgramGoalsGoals

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



Short-term ObjectivesShort-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



Long-term ObjectivesLong-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


The ProgramThe ProgramBasic PremiseBasic 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


ActivitiesActivities

Main CategoriesMain 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



Main CategoriesMain Categories

• Capability Building – focuses on social preparation of partner-beneficiaries

• Auxiliary Services and Institutional Support – land surveys, and relocation, legal and livelihood assistance



Land Acquisition StrategiesLand 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.


ActivitiesActivitiesLand Acquisition StrategiesLand 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.



Site DevelopmentSite 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



Site DevelopmentSite 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


ImplementationImplementation

Program PoliciesProgram 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.




• tripartite approach to urban poor problem resolution

c) PRIVATE LANDOWNERS• Owners of the land occupied by

the urban poor or of the land to be used as resettlement site

a) GOVERNMENT• City and national

government agencies

b) URBAN POOR SECTOR/BENEFICIARIES• Urban poor federation,

associations and their allied NGOs


Kaantabay’s Tripartite PartnershipsKaantabay’s Tripartite Partnerships

• Government AgenciesGovernment Agencies

Naga City Government Local Government main program implementor

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

National Line AgencyAuthorized city government to supervise disposition of public land in the city

National Housing Authority Lead Shelter AgencyProduction of housing units, assistance in developing relocation sites

National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation

Government-owned Corporation/Financial

Institution

Financial support for the Community Mortgage Program (CMP)

Home Guaranty CorporationGovernment-owned

Corporation/Financial Institution

Interim financing for CMP, property seller for BLISS I housing project

Home Mutual Development Fund (HMDF-PAGIBIG)

Government-owned Corporation/Financial

InstitutionFinancial support

Housing and Urban Development Coordinating

Council

Coordination with key shelter agencies in the implementation of its housing program


Kaantabay’s Tripartite PartnershipsKaantabay’s Tripartite Partnerships

• Non-Government/People’s OrganizationsNon-Government/People’s Organizations

Naga Urban Poor Associations People’s OrganizationMain program partner-beneficiaries

Community Organizers of the Philippines Foundation

Non-government Organization

Community organizing, social preparation and program advocacy

Naga City People’s CouncilNon-government

Organization

Community organizing, social preparation and program advocacy

• LandownersLandownersArchdiocese of Caceres Metroland Corporation

Abella Family Naga Centrum Corporation

Factora Family Prado Family

Quizon Family Lahom Family

Borebor Family Mariano Family

Sison Family Heirs of Fabiana Arejola

Belmonte FamilyAnd others

Li Seng Giap Family




• 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



Organization and Service DeliveryOrganization 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


ResourcesResources• 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


ImpactImpactUrban PoorUrban 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

Map of Naga City

Off-Site ProjectsOff-Site Projects

CALAUAG RES. PROJ.Negotiated PurchaseAREA: 4.9505 Has.HH POP: 591

SAN FELIPE RESETTLEMENT PROJECTLand SwappingAREA: 0.9986 Has.HH POP: 98

SAN RAFAEL RESETTLEMENT PROJECTNegotiated PurchaseAREA: 10.0072 Has.HH POP: 377

PACOL RESETTLEMENT PROJECTNegotiated PurchaseAREA: 15.4467 Has.HH POP: 707

PANICUASON BRGY SITEAREA: 2.000 Has.HH POP: 87

ISLA PEÑAFRANCIA RES. ROJECTNegotiated PurchaseAREA: 1.1248 Has.HH POP: 84

ABELLA (JOLLY) RESETTLEMENT PROJECTNegotiated PurchaseAREA: 4.000 Has.HH POP: 464 (551)

SABANG RESETTLEMENT SITE (METROVILLE)DonationAREA: 1.6985 Has.HH POP: 184

SAN ISIDRO BRGY SITEAREA: 2.000 Has.HH POP: 52

CARARAYAN P-1 RESETTLEMENT. PROJECTDonation before Robredo eraAREA: 5.8419 Has.HH POP: 219

DEL ROSARIO RES. PROJECTNegotiated PurchaseAREA: 1.6655 Has.HH POP: 137

CARARAYAN P-II RESETTLEMENT. PROJECTDonation before Robredo eraAREA: 2.000 Has.HH POP: 65

Impact

N

PEÑAFRANCIA (MITRA) PROJ.Negotiated PurchaseAREA: 5.5037 Has.HH POP: 428

POOK MANGGA (STA. CRUZ) . PROJ.Negotiated PurchaseAREA: 0.0555Ha.HH: 6

ABELLA (ACACIA) PROJ.Negotiated PurchaseAREA: 0.3012 Ha.HH: 51

GOOD NEIGHBORS PROJ. (IGUALDAD).Negotiated PurchaseAREA: 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

TABUCO PROJ.Negotiated PurchaseAREA: 0.5934 Ha.HH: 134

LERMA Z-II PROJ.Negotiated PurchaseAREA: 0.1362 Ha.HH: 23

LERMA PROJ.(CMP)AREA: 0.2950 Ha.HH: 78

GREENLAND PROJECT(CONCEPCION PEQUEÑA)AREA: 0.8718 Ha.HH: 52

CALSADA-MABULO PROJ. Negotiated Purchase

AREA: 0.3872 Has.

HH: 56

ImpactOn-Site ProjectsOn-Site Projects

N

QUEBORAC RESETTLEMENT. PROJ. (OFF SITE)AREA: 7.000 Has.HH: 835

TABUCO-QUINALE PROJ. (ON SITE)AREA: 01989 Ha.HH: 47

TRIANGULO RESETTLEMENT(OFF- SITE)HH: 169

DOÑA CLARA VILLAGE PROJECT. (ON SITE)AREA: 5.2274 has.HH:

CONCEPCION GRANDE RESETTLEMENT(YSAAC PROJ) -ExpropriationA : 0.3059 ha.HH=

BAGUMBAYAN SUR (MANUBAY)ON-SITE PROJECTExpropriationA : 0.7379 ha.HH :

SABANG (FULGENTES)ON-SITE PROJECTExpropriationA : 0.8510 ha.HH =

PEÑAFRANCIA (SAN ANDRES)ON-SITE PROJECTExpropriation A : 60,977 Sq. M.HH : BALATAS (TAPAS)

ON-SITE PROJECT -Recovery through court litigationA : 5.9818 has.HH :

CAPILIHAN ON-SITE PROJECTNegotiated PurchaseA: 1.7894has.HH: 110

AZUCENA-CALAUAG ON SITENegotiated PurchaseHH: 35

CANDA NEIGHBORHOODON-SITE PROJECTHH : 128

TABUCO -NG HUALand SwappingHH: 17

ImpactOn-Going ProjectsOn-Going Projects


ImpactImpactLandownersLandowners

• 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


ImpactImpactNaga, Naga, as a wholeas 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


Innovative ProcessesInnovative 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


Innovative ProcessesInnovative 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


Innovative ProcessesInnovative 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 crisis over the past few years


Lessons LearnedLessons 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


Lessons LearnedLessons 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

- end of presentation - end of presentation --

Documents

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