OBSERVATIONS ON THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS AND DIRECTIONS
In a dialogue with representatives of the Urban Poor Alliance (UP-ALL) in December 23, His Excellency President Benigno S. Aquino III, “agreed to issue a moratorium [on evictions] for three to four months.”[1] Within this period, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) through Sec. Jesse Robredo, would convene technical working groups (TWGs), composed of national government agencies, civil society organizations and technical resource persons, to study the proposals of POs and NGOs for the following specific areas and concerns:
- Revocation of EO 854 covering Lupang Arenda and Manggahan Floodway
- Feasibility of the proposed housing design of Arct. Felino Palafox for estero communities envisioned to be piloted in the City of Manila
- Fast-tracking of post-proclamation activities (e.g., finalization of IRR) in BASECO and Parola in Manila, Brgy. Apas in Cebu City, and the Makar Townsite in Gen. Santos City
- Upgrading of riverside communities, i.e., after establishing the actual and scientifically-defined easements
- In-city resettlement for families to be affected by infrastructure projects which include the widening of R-10 (Manila and Navotas), privatization of land use of Navotas Fishport, and rehabilitation of the North Harbor (Manila) and MWSS pipeline (San Juan).
- Addressing the exposure of existing resettlement sites (particularly in Montalban, Cabuyao and Biñan) to various disasters, both natural (earthquake, floods) and man-made (lack of job opportunities, crime and violence)
- Review of EO 815, which puts the land tenure and livelihood of thousands of families in fisherfolks communities surrounding Laguna Lake (Rizal, Laguna and Taguig)
Glimpses of hope, shadows of fear
UP-ALL POs and NGOs actively participated in the TWG meetings as well as in the secretariat that assists the DILG’s Informal Settlers Assistance Program Action (ISAPA) Team. Despite the short period of time given to discuss solutions to the issues presented to the President, there seem to have been positive results for the following areas:
- Revocation of EO 854, particularly in Lupang Arenda where almost 60,000 families will be freed from any threat of eviction. This will also expedite the completion of infrastructure projects that will protect these families from floods.
- Allocation of 1-hectare land for informal settlers within the Navotas Fishport. This was a result of Sec. Robredo’s meeting with the secretary of the Department of Agriculture (DA).
- Finalization of IRR of PP145 (BASECO) and PP96 (Parola) to fast track implementation of development plans that will benefit almost 20,000 families in the City of Manila.
- Openness of the PRRC and LGU in the development of five esteros in Manila based on the housing design proposed by Palafox Associates. Around 6,000 families are projected to benefit if these pilot projects commence.
There is still reason to fear, however, for the families living in the following areas, as many contentious issues remain unresolved:
- Riverways and esteros. During the meeting of the TWG on riverways, the issue of the legal easement caused the discussion to drag with no resolution, and the MMDA official firmly objected to any on-site engineering intervention that is adaptive to flooding.
- Communities around the Laguna Lake. Point of reference for the establishment of the 12.5 meter elevation has not been defined. Meanwhile, the governor of Laguna has released a full page ad expressing his support for the Laguna Lake Rehabilitation Project, which will necessitate displacement of hundreds of thousands of families dependent on small-scale fishing.
- Manggahan Floodway. Proposed housing designs of POs, developed with the help of UP School of Architecture, were never discussed during the TWG meeting. Similar to the case of riverside communities, the issue of easement caused the discussion to grind to a halt.
- Areas to be affected by the R10 widening project and MWSS pipeline rehabilitation. The DPWH insists that the construction plan can no longer be adjusted, and yet in one meeting, some department officials admitted that the affected families will not be readily affected relocation site. The MWSS pipeline project, on the other hand, was never discussed during the meeting of the TWG on Infrastructure.
- Residents in existing resettlement sites will continue to live in constant fear as any disaster can happen. In one meeting, relocatees enumerated the different dangers and disasters present and imminent in their areas, but despite hearing these, an MMDA official defended the “expertise” of the NHA in selecting areas to be developed as resettlement sites. She even encouraged self-help community development projects, and invited NGOs to improve the situation in resettlement sites instead of insisting on in-city resettlement. Some UP-ALL members were concerned that deviating from the main issue will lead to pursuing off-city resettlement as government’s main program.
Problems observed
In our assessment, however, the performance of the TWGs fell short of our expectations for the following reasons:
1. It seems that some national government agencies, notably the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), have closed their doors to alternative housing proposals of POs and NGOs. Unknowingly or deliberately, these agencies still cling to the conventional approach of throwing people out to off-city resettlement sites, despite the dismal condition of basic services and inadequate economic opportunities in these “new communities.” Based on the inventory of the MMDA submitted to the DILG, there are at least 62,000 families living in easements of rivers and creeks, and all these, according to one MMDA official, should be removed soon. If we believe the NHA official who said in one meeting that there are only 10,000 units available (but not necessarily developed) for displaced families, where will 52,000 families go?
In many meetings, the indecisive and ineffectually prudent remarks of government representatives also made the exchanges futile, which we attribute to the fact that many of them were low-ranking officials who have no decision-making powers and those who attend for one agency sometimes had inconsistent positions.
2. We do understand the importance of data to guide the discussions. On our part, the POs and NGOs vigorously gathered data and documents relevant to the issue (partial masterlist of families, maps, titles, technical reports), although we do admit having limitations in terms of coverage given the limited resources and human power. As much as the POs and NGOs wanted to present their proposals, each TWG was allotted very limited time.
On the other hand, the lack of data on the part of some government officials has also resulted in lengthy, unproductive discussions – either they kept requiring the DILG to come up with sophisticated frameworks and goals or defending their accomplishments to disprove testimonies of PO leaders showing the contrary.. Instead of looking at the specific proposals and identifying a possible working model, TWG meetings almost always ended up as discussions of and debates over broad ideas and recommendations.
3. Many government officials, especially at the local level, did not recognize the 3 to 4 months suspension on evictions. It came to our attention that many mayors have asked Sec. Robredo and even the president to lift the moratorium. (They did so only to find out that there was no EO declaring a moratorium in the first place.)
4. To our surprise, the DILG issued Memorandum Circular #2011-17 which enjoins local chief executives to “effectively curtail the proliferation and further increase in the number of informal settlers and mendicants” and “find ways to relocate existing informal settlers.” For one, it sends the wrong signals to chief executives and their people .
Ways forward
Despite the many failings and problems that beset the TWGs as well as the muted but obvious politically-motivated assaults on the DILG, UP-ALL lauds the DILG for taking up the cudgels for the urban poor and giving them a venue where they can discuss their positions with concerned government agencies. We in UP-ALL also realized the importance of being proactive, e.g., doing the paperwork, taking the initiative in scheduling dialogues with local government officials, and involving community members in data gathering without depending very much on the TWGs.
There is so much to be improved in this undertaking of the DILG and UP-ALL is committed to helping Sec. Robredo make this exercise successful. The impending eviction threats received by our member-communities, however, could undermine the accomplishments of the DILG and the TWGs. Once the MMDA, DPWH and some LGUs commence their plans to remove informal settlers, thousands will be unjustly rendered homeless, negating the very purpose of the creation of the TWGs and the covenant made by UP-ALL with the President.
We therefore propose the following actions from the President:
1. Extend the suspension of eviction and demolitions. There should be no demolition (voluntary or forced) until ALL parties involved have reached a clear win-win solution , at least for the concerns presented by UP-ALL. This moratorium should be officially articulated in and issued as an Executive Order.
2. Make clear the President’s pronouncements and promises. In his Covenant with the urban poor, the President promised a government that will prioritize and implement, if found workable, slum upgrading and in-city resettlement, which are more responsive to the basic needs of informal settlers. UP-ALL must be given a chance to show these workable solutions. This should be clear to and recognized by ALL local government units and national government agencies. Only through this that cooperation from other government agencies can be expected. The solutions being proposed by UP-ALL through the TWGs must not be preempted by evictions on the part of uncooperative LGUs.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento