Kaantabay Sa Kauswagan

NAGA
KAANTABAY SA
KAUSWAGAN
(Partners in
Development)
P ROGRAM
Empowering the Urban
Poor
2001
2001INTERNATIONAL
INTERNATIONALAWARDEE
AWARDEE
Finalist
Finalist-World
-Worldhabitat
habitatAwards
Awards
1998
1998INTERNATIONAL
INTERNATIONALAWARDEE
AWARDEE
Habitat
HabitatIIIITop
Top40
40Best
BestPractices
Practices
in
inImproving
Improvingthe theHuman
HumanEnvironment
Environment
1994
1994NATIONAL
NATIONALAWARDEE
AWARDEE
Gantimpalang
GantimpalangPanlingkod
PanlingkodPook
Pook
(Galing-Pook Award)
Background
• Naga City, Philippines
 regional center of education

 regional center of trade and commerce
 attracted rural migrants searching for better
opportunities
Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

City Government of Naga, Philippines
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

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

Development
Perspective
CORE PHILOSOPHY:
“GROWTH WITH EQUITY”
Shows an enlightened
perception of the poor. It seeks to:
Promote economic Politically and

development economically empower
(growth) the vulnerable sectors
of the community

Development
Growth with Equity
Perspective
• 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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Implementation
Program Policies
• tripartite approach to urban poor problem resolution
a) GOVERNMENT
• City and national
government agencies
b) URBAN POOR
SECTOR/BENEFICIARIES
• Urban poor federation,
associations and their
allied NGOs
c) PRIVATE LANDOWNERS
• Owners of the land occupied by
the urban poor or of the land to be
used as resettlement site
Kaantabay’s Tripartite Partnerships
• Government Agencies
Naga City Government Local Government main program implementor
Authorized city government to
Department of Environment
National Line Agency supervise disposition of public
and Natural Resources
land in the city
Production of housing units,
National Housing Authority Lead Shelter Agency assistance in developing
relocation sites
Government-owned Financial support for the
National Home Mortgage
Corporation/Financial Community Mortgage
Finance Corporation
Institution Program (CMP)
Government-owned Interim financing for CMP,
Home Guaranty Corporation Corporation/Financial property seller for BLISS I
Institution housing project
Government-owned
Home Mutual Development
Corporation/Financial Financial support
Fund (HMDF-PAGIBIG)
Institution
Coordination with key shelter
Housing and Urban
agencies in the
Development Coordinating
implementation of its housing
Council
program

Kaantabay’s Tripartite Partnerships
• Non-Government/People’s Organizations
Main program partner-

Naga Urban Poor Associations People’s Organization
beneficiaries
Community organizing, social
Community Organizers of the Philippines Non-government
preparation and program
Foundation Organization
advocacy
Community organizing, social
Non-government
Naga City People’s Council preparation and program
Organization
advocacy
• Landowners
Archdiocese 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 Family
And others
Li Seng Giap Family

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
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

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

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

Off-Site Projects Impact
SAN RAFAEL RESETTLEMENT PROJECT
Negotiated Purchase
AREA: 10.0072 Has.
PACOL RESETTLEMENT PROJECT PANICUASON BRGY SITE
HH POP: 377
Negotiated Purchase AREA: 2.000 Has.
AREA: 15.4467 Has. HH POP: 87
SAN FELIPE RESETTLEMENT PROJECT
HH POP: 707
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.
ISLA PEÑAFRANCIA RES. ROJECT
HH POP: 219
Negotiated Purchase
AREA: 1.1248 Has.
CARARAYAN P-II RESETTLEMENT. PROJECT
HH POP: 84
Donation before Robredo era
ABELLA (JOLLY) RESETTLEMENT PROJECT AREA: 2.000 Has.
Negotiated Purchase HH POP: 65
AREA: 4.000 Has. DEL ROSARIO RES. PROJECT
HH POP: 464 (551) Negotiated Purchase
SABANG RESETTLEMENT SITE (METROVILLE) AREA: 1.6655 Has.
Donation HH POP: 137
AREA: 1.6985 Has.
HH POP: 184
On-Site Projects Impact
POOK MANGGA (STA. CRUZ) . PROJ.
PEÑAFRANCIA (MITRA) PROJ.
Negotiated Purchase
AREA: 5.5037 Has.
Negotiated Purchase
HH POP: 428
AREA: 0.0555Ha.
HH: 6
ABELLA (ACACIA) PROJ. N

Negotiated Purchase
AREA: 0.3012 Ha.
HH: 51
GREENLAND PROJECT
(CONCEPCION PEQUEÑA)
AREA: 0.8718 Ha.
GOOD NEIGHBORS PROJ.
HH: 52
(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) LERMA PROJ.(CMP)
AREA: 1.3000 Has. AREA: 0.2950 Ha.
HH: 233 HH: 78
LERMA Z-II PROJ.
TABUCO PROJ.
Negotiated Purchase
CALSADA-MABULO PROJ. Negotiated Purchase
AREA: 0.1362 Ha.
Negotiated Purchase AREA: 0.5934 Ha.
HH: 23
AREA: 0.3872 Has.
HH: 134
HH: 56
On-Going Projects Impact
CAPILIHAN ON-SITE PROJECT PEÑAFRANCIA (SAN ANDRES)
Negotiated Purchase ON-SITE PROJECT
BAGUMBAYAN SUR (MANUBAY)
A: 1.7894has. Expropriation
ON-SITE PROJECT
HH: 110 A : 60,977 Sq. M.
Expropriation
A : 0.7379 ha.
HH : BALATAS (TAPAS) N
HH : ON-SITE PROJECT -Recovery through
court litigation
AZUCENA-CALAUAG ON SITE A : 5.9818 has.
Negotiated Purchase HH :
HH: 35
QUEBORAC RESETTLEMENT. PROJ. (OFF SITE)

AREA: 7.000 Has.
CONCEPCION GRANDE RESETTLEMENT
HH: 835
(YSAAC PROJ) -Expropriation
A : 0.3059 ha.
HH=
TABUCO -NG HUA

Land Swapping
HH: 17
CANDA NEIGHBORHOOD
SABANG (FULGENTES)
ON-SITE PROJECT
ON-SITE PROJECT
HH : 128
Expropriation
A : 0.8510 ha. TRIANGULO RESETTLEMENT
HH = (OFF- SITE)
DOÑA CLARA VILLAGE
HH: 169
PROJECT. (ON SITE)
AREA: 5.2274 has.
TABUCO-QUINALE PROJ. (ON SITE) HH:
AREA: 01989 Ha.
HH: 47
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

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

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

• 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

• 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 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 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
-

Kaantabay Sa Kauswagan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kaantabay Sa Kauswagan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kaantabay Sa Kauswagan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAGA

 regional center of education

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• Urban poor accounted for 25% of the population

 “Illegally” occupied private and government property

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• Relationship among the city government, urban

• Previous local administrations indifferent to urban

 The condition of 27 urban poor communities

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

Promote economic Politically and

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• Requires a pro-poor bias since the marginalized are

• Requires a readiness to work with similarly-inclined

• Requires maintaining a degree of fairness, credibility

A social amelioration program designed to empower

 Absence of land tenure security

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• 1987 – urban poor plight brought to the attention of

• May 15, 1989 – Urban Poor Affairs Office set up;

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

Seeks to institutionalize a mechanism that will

• Normalization – address land tenure issues involving

• Poverty Reduction – help urban poor build capital and

• Urban Upgrading – provide basic infrastructure and

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• Provide permanent solutions to all land tenure

• Uplift the living condition of urban poor residents in

• Eradicate arbitrary ejection and minimize incidences

• Explore alternative modes of land acquisition

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• Empower the urban poor sector in Naga City by

• Strengthen the urban poor sector and heighten their

• Integrate the urban poor in the mainstream of

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• The urban poor is a vital sector in Naga’s quest for

• They are potential partners in development—

• But as a marginalized sector, the urban poor needs

• Only when sufficiently empowered can the urban

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• On-site land acquisition and development – involves

• Off-site land acquisition and development – involves

 Through direct purchase, land swapping and other

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• Capability Building – focuses on social preparation

• Auxiliary Services and Institutional Support – land

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• Direct Purchase - purchase of land occupied by

• Land Swapping - urban poor-occupied property

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• Community Mortgage - a scheme that allows the wholesale

• Resettlement and Expropriation – the city government uses

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• The city government provides and upgrades the

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• Within the site’s immediate vicinity, the following are

 Public Elementary and High Schools

Naga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program

• “partner-beneficiary" perspective in dealing with

• strategy of focus in client identification and selection