4 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 averageNaga 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
5 WHAT NAGA ISStrong 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”
6 WHAT NAGA IS NOT Naga a typical Philippine city: Medium-sized, not big 44th in land area, 38th in population among over 115 Philippine citiesLandlocked, not a port cityhas no shipping industryPeripheral, not central500 kms away from Metro Manila, Metro Cebu
7 SOME URBAN INDICATORSDemographic – half of the population below 20 years oldSpatial development – radiating from an urban core (CBD), mostly to the westInformal settlements ring the CBDInfrastructure – 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
8 DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES IMMEDIATE: Rebuilding people’s trust in community based disaster mitigation projectsMEDIUM TERM: Turning Naga aroundCorporate concerns (within City Hall)Societal concerns (outside City Hall)LONG TERM: Sustaining gains
9 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.
10 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.
11 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.
12 INTERVENTIONS Confidence-building measures Sustained creativity and innovationsStrong commitment to excellenceBuilding partnerships and institutions
13 1st Intervention: CONFIDENCE-BUILDING City hall reformsCreated an office on Disaster MitigationDevelop Counter Disaster PlansActivated NGO’s as partnersCommunity reformsEnhanced Community Participation on disaster mitigation planningDeveloped disaster mitigation strategiesLeadership by example
14 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 powersMetro Naga programCity-owned hospital anchors emergency rescue services
15 3rd Intervention: “CULTURE OF EXCELLENCE” Inspiring governanceAims to restore the people’s faith in their government. Message: Not only “Government works” but “City Hall always does things better.”Renewed community prideAims to restore Naga’s distinction of being the region’s premier cityRevitalizing GIS technology as a tool for emergency management planning
16 THE NCDMPBegun in 1999 through the creation of the Naga City Disaster Mitigation ProjectAssisted by the ADPC through the AUDMPDemonstrates 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
17 OBJECTIVESNormalization – giving sense of permanence and legitimacy to informal settlers by addressing tenurial issuesHazard Mapping and Risk AssessmentMitigation PlanningInstitutional Frameworks
18 KEY FEATURES (1)Tripartism - a credible and effective mechanism where government, NGO’s and Community associations work together in finding developing mitigation strategies
19 KEY PLAYERS IN TRIPARTISM GovernmentCity – gives program strength and credibility through pro-poor bias, “partner-beneficiary” perspectiveNational - extends operational and financial support to the Program's land acquisition thrustADPC-AUDMP - signify their support and commitment through technical assistance and capacity buildingCommunity - cooperate by exploring more alternative issues to lessen the impact hazards
20 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
21 Flood Mitigation Strategies Maximizing GIS technology for risk management planningRisk Assessment and Hazard MappingImplementation ofNaga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan ProgramDepopulation and Elevation
22 Flood Mitigation Strategies Maximizing GIS technology for risk management planningRisk Assessment and Hazard MappingImplementation ofNaga Kaantabay sa Kauswagan ProgramDepopulation and Elevation
23 Loss Minimization Risk Assessment and Hazard Mapping While 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
24 Disaster Mitigation Strategies Maximizing GIS technology for risk management planningRisk Assessment and Hazard MappingDepopulation andElevation
25 Loss Minimization Risk Assessment and Hazard Mapping While 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
26 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 relocatedThe Scheme ensures minimal displacement and sparks urban renewal,deterring the effects of floods
27 IMPACT City 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 communityEnhances living conditions of residents through better health and sanitary facilitiesContributes to environmental protection by addressing urban poor concerns along rivers and waterways in the city
28 FUNDING Current – Future – Sourced mainly from the city government budgetCity spent PhP114.1 million over last 10 yearsAugmented by equity contribution by urban poor association members and one-time counterpart investments by the private sector involved on a project basisFuture –Local ordinance mandates 10% of annual city budgets, net of personal services, to support programODA eyed to support area upgrading for medium and long-term
29 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 partnerFrom only 9 in 1989, there are now more than 80 urban poor associations in NagaStrong community support for local tax collection – notwithstanding bearish economy, collection efficiency remains high
30 FUTURE DIRECTIONS Stronger economic component Look for the Possibility of continuing grants from partnersEnhance Emergency Response Mechanism
31 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 CityProject sought to pilot-test a community-based, self-help approach for resettlement of informal settlers
32 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.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.