25A Mabuhay Street , Brgy. Central, Quezon City 1100, Philippines

Tels. (+632) 426-4119 – 426-7615 Telefax (+632) 426-4118

Email upa@pldtdsl.net

WE Reject the Executive Order on the MMIAC

if Headed by MMDA/Bayani Fernando

Urban poor people often term Bayani Fernando (BF) as “berdugo” of the urban poor. He has merited this title because he uses force and intimidation in dealing with the urban poor. He treats the poor as garbage, nuisances and eye sores, and evicts them summarily with total disregard for their rights in the most inhumane manner and contrary to the provisions of the law.

Recently, the Commission on Human Rights issued an “Advisory on the Conduct of Forced Evictions and House Demolitions”. In this document, Chairperson Leila M. de Lima mentions several instances where MMDA/BF demolished the homes and houses of the urban poor without due notice and without providing for relocation. What this document mentions are only a few of the hundreds of cases where MMDA demolished the dwellings of the poor and threw them into to the streets with their personal belongings. The poor (including children and elders), the victims of MMDA/BF’s brutality, are still suffering from his abusive acts which strip the poor of their dignity and humanity. BF listens to no one, not even the duly elected senators of the Republic of the Philippines .

So MMDA/BF’s history in dealing with the urban poor renders him unfit to lead or head the MMIAC as provided by the Executive Order.

We see no reason why MMDA itself should be a member of this MMIAC.

(1) We wish to give the President a chance to address the issues concerning the urban poor as envisioned by the Executive Order. As an alternative to BF and the MMDA the HUDCC-NHA should be named as the lead agency.

(2) The urban poor people should be allowed to have two representatives on the MMIAC. One representing families/communities affected by government infrastructure projects and the other one representing families living in danger areas. Also, poor people whose cases are being discussed at any meeting should be invited and allowed to speak.

(3) In general, the E.O. sidelines the LGUs. They should be included as members of the MMIAC Oversight Committee. They should be made more active and responsible stakeholders and implementers in the proposed Comprehensive Shelter Program. The tone of the E.O. should be to assist and enable the LGUs rather than to take over the role of the LGUs.

(4) It seems more logical and effective for the LGUs to conduct the registration of informal settlers, with the assistance and supervision of the MMIAC through the PCUP, instead of the PCUP doing it “in coordination with the LGUs”. The implementing guidelines and procedures should be issued by the MMIAC headed by NHA.

(5) The E.O. should provide for an arbitration and grievance mechanism by which informal settlers who are disqualified may appeal their case. The mechanism should be able to accept, process and resolve grievances related to qualifying beneficiaries and other issues related to the implementation of the Executive Order.

(6) As the EO states there is need of accurate data on the urban poor, on available land for relocation and in-city upgrading, and other matters.

As a matter separate from the E.O. there is also a need for a more fundamental urban development plan for all of Metro Manila that will provide the general guidelines for the development of the region so it will serve the common good.

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has suggested this in two past letters in 1997 and 2007. In the 2007 Statement on the Nation’s Housing Problem the bishops wrote:

“As we did in our 1997 Letter on Homelessness, we again urge the immediate creation of a government-church-civil society commission that will provide guidelines for the further development of our cities so that the urban poor will have a decent place to live in and development will combine with sound environmental concern. Planning of mass housing for the poor is a concern of public officials for the sake of the common good, and not only of property developers for their own profit.”

Metro Manila is the only major city in Asia without a centralized authority or plan.

The bishops begin their letter with a quote from the Pope’s Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission that should provide the proper point of view on urban poor housing matters:

“Any person or family that, without any direct fault on his or her own,

does not have suitable housing is the victim of an injustice.” (1988)

(7) There are at present 2,140 families who have been evicted, but have not been relocated. They lived in 14 areas (See attached sheet). They live now in makeshift huts in the streets along the banks of canals and in other unfit places. The first order of business should be to relocate them to the Home Guaranty Corporation land in Montalban which has 3,380 available lots in Jovil I, II, III annex and Rodriguez Hills. All the families want to go there. There is abundant available land in Montalban.

(8) E.O. should include a directive calling for a moratorium until the E.O. provisions are in place.

The NGO Community

Urban Poor Associates ( UPA )

Community Organizers Multiversity (COM)

Community Organization of the Philippines Enterprise (COPE)

St. Thomas More Law Center

John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues (JJCICSI)

Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panlegal (SALIGAN)

Partnership of Philippine Support Agency (PHILSSA)

Foundation for the Development of the Urban Poor (FDUP)

By:

(Sgd) Teodoro R. Añana

NGO Representative to the MMIAC

——————————————————————-

Urban Poor Associates ( UPA )

25A Mabuhay Street , Brgy. Central, Quezon City , PH

Tels (632) 426-4119/7615

Telefax (632) 426-4118

]]> http://urbanpooralliance.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/position-paper-on-the-latest-eo-on-mmiac/feed/ 0 urbanpooralliance http://urbanpooralliance.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/pinaigting-ang-pag-uusap-ukol-sa-pag-amend-ng-udha/ http://urbanpooralliance.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/pinaigting-ang-pag-uusap-ukol-sa-pag-amend-ng-udha/#comments Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:01:20 +0000 urbanpooralliance http://urbanpooralliance.wordpress.com/?p=55 ]]> Katatapos lamang ng isang ‘special seminar’ na dinaluhan ng mga kilalang mga personalidad sa pagkilos para sa ikakaunlad ng Maralitang Tagalunsod. Ito ay ang “Amending UDHA: Human Rights and Access to Justice for the Poor” na ginanap nitong Agusto 4, 2008 sa Audio Visual Room nang SDC , Ateneo de Manila. Ang mga pangunahing tagapagsalita na dumalo ay sina Senator Noynoy Aquino, CHR Chairperson Leila de Lima at Atty Jose Marquez, na chief of staff ni Chief Justice Puno. Mga kilalang personalidad sa NGO at gobyerno ay dumalo din, tulad nina Dinky Soliman, Dr. Mary Racelis, Bimbo Fernandez, former HUDCC Chair Dory Katigbak, PCUP Chairman Percy Chavez at marami pang iba.

Nilalayon nito na mapag-usapan ang mga sinasagawang pagkilos ng mga ahensya ng gobyerno (mambabatas, nanunungkulan at nasa hustisya) upang matulungan ang mga Maralitang Tagalunsod sa aspeto ng demolisyon at relokasyon. Mga usapin na nilalayong sanang isaayos ng batas UDHA ngunit kapos sa kaganapan. Ang seminar ay isinagawa sa pangunguna ng COPE Foundation, CO Multiversity at Urban Poor Associates.

Maliban sa mga kilalang mga personalidad, nandoon din ang mga MTL, yaong mga nakaranas ng di makatarungang demolisyon at yaong may napipintong demolisyon. Maraming mga mahahalagang bagay ang napag-usapan at may mga mahahalagang mungkahi. Susubukan natin itong tatalakayin sa susunod na balita.

Upang makatulong sa talakayang ito ipamamahagi ko ang isang dokumento na naglalaman ng mga ‘proposed changes’ sa UDHA mula sa UPA.

REPUBLIC ACT 7279

Proposed Amendments

After 15 years the Urban Development and Housing Act (RA 7279) has failed to provide for “a comprehensive and continuing urban development and housing program, establish the mechanism for its implementation, and for other purposes.” (From R.A. 7279 Title)

Thousands of families are literally evicted and left in the streets without relocation. Of the 2,781 families evicted this year in Metro Manila, excluding railroad evictions, only 9% received relocation. Relocation sites are usually far distant from places of work, and are poorly prepared. The Proclamation program of the President, while it set aside land for close to 200,000 families has failed to develop the sites and give titles to the families. There are also very few new proclamations. On the 10^th anniversary of the laws enactment a panel of government, Church and civil society experts made an evaluation of the law’s implementation over the 10 years. They titled their report “A Good Law, But Terrible Implementation.” That is still an apt description. In an effort to improve implementation the following amendments are suggested.

1. PROVISION WHICH CATEGORICALLY PROVIDES FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE OF REQUIREMENTS SET IN SECTION 28, R.A. 7279 AND RELOCATION IN ALL CASES OF EVICTION.

The most debated, if not abused provision is Section 28, R. A. 7279 wherein it provides instances when eviction and demolition may be allowed:

a. when persons or entities occupy danger zones such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, river banks, shorelines, waterways and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds;

b. when government projects with available funding are about to be implemented; and

c. when there is a court order for eviction or demolition.

This does not mean that evictions can be carried out immediately on the grounds that the urban poor are nuisances per se. The words should be qualified with the mandatory requirements provided in the same section, paragraph 2:

“In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving under privileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory:

a. Notice upon affected persons and entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction;

b. Adequate consultations on the matter of resettlement;

c. Presence of local government officials or their representative during the eviction;

d. Proper identification of the persons taking part in the demolition;

e. Conduct of demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays unless the affected consent otherwise;

f. No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for permanent structures and concrete materials; and

g. Adequate relocation with basic services and access to employment sufficient to meet the basic needs of the families. If relocation is not possible within forty-five (45) days upon the serving of the final judgment by the court, the local government unit concerned is instructed to compensate the affected families an amount equivalent to the current minimum wage multiplied by sixty (60) days.”

Thus, evictions done prior to compliance with these requirements are illegal, especially if there is no existing relocation site for the affected urban poor families.

Section 29 thereof mandates the relocation of persons living in the so-called danger areas for two (2) years from the effectivity of the law. It provides that within the two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, the local government units, in coordination with the National Housing Authority, shall implement the relocation and resettlement of persons living in danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and in other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds. The local government units, in coordination with the National Housing Authority, shall provide relocation sites with basic services and facilities and access to employment and livelihood opportunities sufficient to meet the basic needs of the affected families”.

We believe the mandate to relocate the families in the three groups continues beyond two years since the national government and local government units have almost all failed to do the tasks assigned them in Art. IV, that is, inventories of lands and improvements thereon within their respective localities. They were also directed to identify sites for social housing and to further acquire land for social housing.

The Constitution states: “Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.” (Art. XIII, Section 10). There is no mention of cut-off dates.

The Philippines has signed international treaties and covenants that require all evicted families should be relocated. For example: “The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR), General Comment No. 7 (UNCESCR Document E/1998/22), Item No. 17 provides, “Evictions should not result in rendering individuals homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other human rights. Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves, the State party must take all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available”.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Add a provision categorically providing that any demolition or eviction cannot be carried out if there is no already-existing concrete and adequate relocation site for the affected families.

1. STATES CATEGORICALLY THERE ARE NO SO CALLED “CUT-OFF DATES”; ALL EVICTED FAMILIES MUST BE INCLUDED IN RELOCATION PROGRAMS.

It is discriminatory to set cut-off dates for the application of R.A. 7279 to exclude those who came in after 1992 considering the growing increase of the urban poor population in urban areas. Moreover, lack of determination and registration of beneficiaries cannot be faulted to the urban poor. Secondly, it is discriminatory to say families who came after a census was made, provided it was not a very recent one, are not entitled to relocation.

As was said above, the law mandates for the registration of beneficiaries within one year from the effectivity of UDHA. Moreover, LGU’s are directed to identify and thereafter make inventories of available sites for socialized housing (Art. 29).

However, this had not been done and complied with. Failing to make the registration of beneficiaries or provide land for socialized housing should never be faulted to the urban poor.

Thus, survey or census to determine qualified beneficiaries should anew be conducted. Whenever census or survey is made, actual relocation should be effected within the year. Otherwise, a new survey or census is to be conducted to determine all qualified beneficiaries within the affected area.

So as not to defeat the purpose of the law, what should be followed is the minimum qualifications set out by UDHA under Section 16 for the beneficiary which are:

a. Must be a Filipino citizen;

b. Must be an underprivileged and homeless citizen;

c. Must not own any real property whether in the urban or rural areas; and

d. Must not be a professional squatter or a member of squatting syndicate.

Thus, as long as they complied with these qualifications, as a matter of right, they should be entitled to the benefits set out by law particularly to relocation. Otherwise, to set cut-off of dates, would be a violation against the equal protection clause.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Add a provision categorically eliminating the cut-off period to be eligible as beneficiary under R.A. 7279.

1. SCOPE OF CONSULTATION. The Consultation process gives beneficiaries the right to dialog with government over the terms of relocation and to choose their relocation site if alternatives are available.

Prior consultation with the affected families as required by R.A. 7279 plays an important role but is almost totally disregarded by the government agencies. Consultation with the affected families before demolitions and evictions are made out to forestall economic dislocation, chaos, confusion and violence and to ensure that their relocation sites are provided with basic services.

As defined in Section 3(d), consultation refers to “the constitutionally mandated process whereby the public on their own or through people’s organizations, is provided an opportunity to be heard and to participate in the decision-making process on matters involving the protection and promotion of its legitimate collective interests, which shall include appropriate documentation and feedback mechanisms”.

The affected families should be heard. So as not to put at naught this constitutional mandate, the people should be given the opportunity to decide on the location of the relocation sites, to make an offer or counter-offer, and to have the same be heeded when reasonable and allowable.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Provide categorical provision defining the scope of the required consultation giving right to the affected families to look at the proposed site, propose others and choose the preferred site, among others.

1. DEFINING THE PENALTIES FOR ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY THAT VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF R.A. 7279, ESPECIALLY CARRYING OUT EVICTIONS/DEMOLITIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL RELOCATION SITES.

R.A. 7279, although it sets out penalties for professional squatters and a general penalty for anyone who violates provisions of the Act, it lacks a specific provision defining specific penalties for the government officials or agency/ies violating the procedures and requirements before carrying out evictions or demolitions. Carrying out evictions and demolitions in the absence of actual relocation sites for the affected families should be criminalized and the penalty thereon should be defined. In a way, this gives teeth to this Act.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Provide specific provision making demolitions or evictions without actual relocation sites and non-compliance with the requirements set out under Section 28 (par.2) as a criminal act and providing penalties thereon at least equal to the penalties assigned to professional squatters.

5. MAKING IN-CITY OR NEAR-CITY RELOCATION MANDATORY.

One of the considerations in providing relocation sites is the livelihood component. Relocation sites should be near employment opportunities. Section 22 provides that, “To the extent feasible, socialized housing and resettlement projects shall be located near areas where employment opportunities are accessible. The government agencies dealing with the development of livelihood programs and grant of livelihood loans shall give priority to the beneficiaries of the Program”.

It is undeniable that relocatees have their source of livelihood in the area where they come from. There are far better chances of finding employment in cities than in distant areas. This is where the importance of near-city or in-city relocation comes in. Distant relocation causes the wage earners either to lose their jobs, since commuting is too expensive, or to live separate from their families. Further in distant relocation sites there are no part-time jobs for mothers and older children as there were in the city. Families relocated to distant sites suffer a decline in income since they now support two households—the wage earner(s) in the city and the mother and children in the relocation site. Also there is the lack of part time work for other family members. In many instances income drops by 25%. This results in poorer diets, health care and school expenses.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Provide specific provision making in-city or near-city relocation as mandatory and defining what constitutes in-city or near-city relocation.

1. LAND PROCLAMATIONS. The president has the right to proclaim land for social housing through Executive Orders. It is the easiest way of converting government land to social housing purpose. In the years 2001-2004 President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued over 90 proclamations benefiting close to 200,000 families. It was seen as a good program for many reasons: (1) it benefited all residents in the proclaimed area including the poorest; (2) it didn’t cost the poor any money; (3) the proclamations, whatever their limitations, did stop nearly all evictions on proclaimed land; (4) the program was to lead to upgrading and actual subdivision and titling, in which process affordability would be a key factor since the exact work to be done or in any area would be democratically decided up on between government and people on LIAC or PIAC (Local Interagency Committee or Project Interagency Committee); (5) it was a program that could be replicated fairly easily.

However there have been two sets of problems: (1) the upgrading and titling work has not been done in nearly all proclaimed areas; (2) some proclamations have been amended or changed radically, leading people to ask, “What is the value of the proclamations (Baseco, Parola)?” The issuance of proclamations has practically stopped.

We therefore propose:

1. That the proclamation program be continued. President Macapagal-Arroyo at her 2001 State of the Nation Address said she would proclaim land for 150,000 families a year.

2. That time limit of one year be given for the upgrading and titling processes to get underway and one billion pesos be set aside annually for upgrading and titling proclaimed lands.

3. It should be stated land proclamations cannot be changed or annulled except in a legal process which allows the beneficiaries to present their arguments against change or annulment.

The legal value of the proclamations should be spelled out in the law.

7. R.A. 7279 SHOULD ALSO BE MADE APPLICABLE IN DEMOLITIONS OR EVICTIONS INVOLVING PRIVATE PROPERTY.

In cases where urban poor families occupied idle land and later on a private person claims to own the property, still, even if it was found out that indeed the property is private, the procedural guarantees laid down under R.A.7279 should be followed. Demolitions and/or evictions should not be carried out without existing adequate relocation site provided for the affected families.

The Constitution does not qualify the mandate to the government to continuously provide the basic right to shelter to the urban poor whether they are occupying a private or government land.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Provide specific provision making the requisites set out in R.A. 7279 mandatorily applicable before demolition or eviction is carried out on private as well as public land.

Ang UP-ALL ay sumusuporta sa laban ng mga katutubo at magsasaka ng Sumilao hinggil sa kanilang lupang ninuno at sakahan.

Ang pag-aari ng mga katutubo at magsasaka ng Sumilao sa 144 na ektaryang lupain ay pinagtibay ng kanilang Certificate of Land Ownership Award, sa ilalim ng Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Sa kabila nito, sinagkaan ng panginoong maylupa na si Norberto Quisumbing ang pagkamit sa nasabing lupa ng mga benepisyaryong katutubo at magsasaka. Dahil sa ilang teknikalidad na patuloy na hinahamon ng mga katutubo at magsasaka, nagtagumpay ang mga Quisumbing na gawing agro-industrial zone ang naturang lupain.

Ngunit matapos ang limang taon, nanatiling nakatiwangwang ang lupain, isang batayan upang muling ilaan ang lupain para sa repormang agraryo. Kung ang lupaing ito ay naibigay dati pa sa mga benepisyaryong katutubo at magsasaka, malaki sana ang naitulong nito sa pagpapaunlad ng kanilang kabuhayan at pamumuhay, kabilang na ang pag-aaral ng kanilang mga anak at pag-ahon sa kahirapan.

Kaya nga hiniling ng mga katutubo at magsasaka ang pagpapawalang-bisa sa conversion order at muling ipailalim ang lupain sa CARP. Ngunit hindi pa man nagkakaroon ng resolusyon ang kanilang kaso, ibinenta ng mga Quisumbing ang lupain sa San Miguel Corporation, na kasalukuyang minamadali ang paggawa ng isang malaking babuyan. Kung magpapatuloy ang mga gawaing ito, hindi imposibleng masimot ang kasaganahan ng lupain at lalong mapagkaitan ng karapatan at oportunidad ang mga katutubo at magsasaka ng Sumilao.

Bilang isang sektor na bunga ng kahirapan sa kanayunan at paghahanap ng ikabubuhay sa lungsod at bilang isang sektor na patuloy na pinagkakaitan ng kasiguruhan sa lupa, bahay, hanap-buhay at batayang serbisyo, ang mga puwersa ng UP-ALL ay nakikiisa sa kanilang panawagan kay Ginang Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo at sa Kagawaran ng Repormang Sakahan na ipawalang-bisa ang conversion order para sa 144 ektaryang lupa at ibalik ang lupaing ito sa mga katutubo at magsasaka ng Sumilao sa lalong madaling panahon.

Tanda ng pakikiisang ito, kami ay sumasama sa mapayapang paglalakbay ng mga katutubo at magsasaka ng Sumilao patungo sa kasiguruhan sa lupa, paninirahan, kabuhayan at makataong pamumuhay.

-30-

For more details particularly on UP-ALL’s mobilisation, please contact:

Nina Somera/ 0921-8122066

BANTAY BAHAY, BANTAY BUHAY

A CAMPAIGN TO RAISE THE CONSCIOUSNESS ON THE HOUSING RIGHTS OF THE POOR AND TO CREATE ANTI-AN EVICTION FUND

The Philippine Misereor Partnership, Technical Working Group on Housing and Urban Livability in coordination with the Urban Poor Alliance invites you to participate in the Bantay Bahay, Bantay Buhay Campaign. The following will be the activities:

• Campaign Launching - October 6, 2007

In celebration of the World Habitat Day, a nationwide radio hook up will be conducted. Community assemblies from 30 cities will participate in the radio program.

The occasion will also launch the fund raising campaign for an Anti-Eviction Fund. The Fund aims to support eviction-related activities such as the filing of cases by poor communities against forced and inhumane demolitions and evictions and mobilizations against the violations of the UDHA.

• CBCP Pastoral Statement Reading - October 7, 2007

The PMP TWG has requested the CBCP for the reading of the Pastoral Statement on the Nation’s Housing Problem in all of the Sunday masses.

• Round Table Discussion with Lawyers - November 2007

A round table discussion with lawyers on UDHA and housing rights will be organized by the PMP TWG. This event aims to get the support of more lawyers to assist in the legal cases against forced evictions.

• Culmination of the Fund Raising - December 9, 2007

Media Campaign Launching

In celebration of the Urban Poor Solidarity Week, a media campaign will be launched. A video presentation in CDs will be distributed to organizations. The video will focus on the following issues: problem of homelessness, empowering the poor and the poor’s contribution to society. The video will be presented in various schools by the urban poor.

This event will also highlight the culmination of the fund raising campaign.

• Symposia - 2008 (to be planned)

Several symposia on housing will be organized.

• Urban Poor Festival - March 28, 2008

In celebration of UDHA, a big mobilization by the urban poor will be organized.

Quezon City Task for Force for Riverside Housing and Resettlement

(Draft Concept Note 2)

A. Rationale

The Right to Decent Shelter is among the inalienable rights identified by both national and international referential documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Philippine Constitution. Housing is crucial in the exercise of other human rights and access to various opportunities for it is this place where individuals and families build their visions; enhance relationships; nurture their mind and bodies; and hone their resources, among others. Housing is thus integral in ensuring the social capital needed in nation-building.

Unfortunately the right to decent shelter has not been fully exercised for many Filipinos, especially the urban poor and informal settlers. In the Philippines alone, nearly half of the population live on US$ 2 dollars a day, further driving urban and overseas migration. Numbers of the urban poor is likewise on the rise: It is estimated that 48 percent of Metro Manila consists of informal settlers, many of whom live along rivers, tributaries and water ways.

The government intends to clear the rivers, tributaries and waterways of Metro Manila, including Quezon City, of informal settlements and structures, as part of their flood control strategies.

The Quezon City government, with its vision that all shall win, is creating a task force to ensure that there shall be no “losers’ in these clearing operations: that demolitions and evictions shall be done in a just, humane and peaceful manner; that the displaced families shall be given appropriate, decent and affordable resettlement; and that the riverside urban poor communities shall be developed in participatory, inclusive and transformative process.

B. Title

The task force shall be called the Quezon City Task Force on Riverside Housing and Development.

C. Declaration of Policy (Guiding Principle)

The local government of Quezon City recognises that ownership of decent shelter is essential in the exercise of human rights, governance and citizenship, as stipulated in the following referential documents, among many others:

1. United Nations documents on Housing Rights

- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (Art. 1, 2, 25)

- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) (Art. 2,3,11)

- Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements (1996)

- Declaration on the Right to Development (1986) (Art. 8.1)

- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) (Art. 14)

- Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975) (Art. 9)

- International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Damilies (1990) (Art. 43)

- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) (Art. 5e)

1. The Philippine Constitution, particularly provisions on

   1. • Bill of Rights

      • Social Justice (Art 13)

1. Republic Act 7279 otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992

It is noteworthy to quote the wisdom of President Ramon Magsaysay in saying that “those who have less in life should have more in law”.

The Philippine constitution states that: “Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner. No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated” (Art 13, Sec 10).

The Quezon City government has also committed itself in eradicating urban blight as a prerequisite for the city’s development and growth. As the 2007 State of the City Address of Hon. Feliciano Belmonte states, “The festering areas of neglect and decay…are unhealthy and precarious for the families who choose to live in them. Clearly, resettlement options must be established for the sake of these poor families and for the sake of the rest of the City”

D. Participation of Civil Society

The Task Force shall maximise the participation of civil society organizations.

Civil society organisations are seen as a partner in governance and development as they enrich processes on decision-making, programme design, and direct support, among others. CSOs are instrumental in ensuring the public interest, balancing goals towards commercial competitiveness with the infusion of a rights-based and development orientation.

Pursuant to Article 13, Section 15 of the Philippine Constitution, Article 3, and Sections 34 to 36 of RA 71 60 or the Local Government Code, the Task Force includes in its membership civil society organisations, especially those directly working on urban poor communities and other cross cutting concerns such as women and gender, children, the elderly, education, health, labor and employment, among others.

C. Role, Responsibilities and Composition of the Task Force

1. Role of the Task Force

The Task Force for Riverside Housing and Resettlement shall plan, coordinate and monitor the efforts and activities to address the housing and resttlement issues of the urban poor living along the rivers, tributies and other waterways of Quezon City.

1. Responsibilities of the Task Force

The Task Force for Riverside Housing and Resettlement shall:

1. 1. Conduct consultations and dialogues with the community and other stakeholders to facilitate effective flow of information and communication among all affected and concerned parties;

   2. Ensure that the demolitions and evictions carried out in the city’s riverside communities comply with the provisions of the Urban Development and Housing Act;

   3. Identify site/s, establish systems, and monitor operation of staging areas for the families affected by the demolition and eviction being conducted in the rivers, tributaries and waterways of Quezon City, following the guidelines in Annex A;

   4. Facilitate the permanent resettlement of the qualified families affected by demolitions and evictions in the rivers, tributaries and waterways of Quezon City, following the minimum standards and recommended process in Annex B and C;

   5. Facilitate on-site development of the riverside urban poor communities beyond the 3-meter water easement; and

   6. Ensure that the rights and needs of women, childrem, elderly and the differently-abled are addressed at all times in all the plans and activities.

1. Composition of the Task Force

The Task Force for Riverside Housing and Resettlement shall be composed of:

1. 1. The Mayor of Quezon City, as Chairman

   2. The Vice-mayor of Quezon City, as Vice-Chairman

   3. The Chairperson of the Sangguniang Panglunsod Committee on Housing

   4. The Head of the City Planning and Development Office (CPDO)

   5. The Head of the Urban Poor Affairs Office (UPAO)

   6. The Head of the Housing and Urban Renewal Authority (HURA)

   7. Representative from the Presidential Commission on the Urban Poor (PCUP)

   8. Representative from the National Housing Authority (NHA)

   9. Representative from the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)

   10. Representative from the Urban Poor sector

   11. Representative from the Non-Government Organizations (NGO) working with the Urban Poor sector

   12. Representative from Other Stakeholders and Partners (Church, Academe, Civic Organizations, Private Sector)

D. Roles and Responsibilities of the Various Stakeholders

1. The Local Government of Quezon City

The Local Government of Quezon City, with its offices and departments, shall:

1. • Facilitate community consultations and dialogues on the issues and concerns related with the clearing operations in rivers and waterways of Quezon City;

   • Monitor demolition and evictions in Quezon City to ensure compliance with UDHA provisions;

   • Identify appropriate sites for the staging areas;

   • Make policies and guidelines on the establishment and management of the staging areas;

   • Supervise operation of the staging areas;

   • Coordinate the permanent resettlement of the families affected by the demolitions and evictions, so that the process will be orderly, prompt, and with minimal inconvenience for the affected families

   • Coordinate the on-site development of the riverside urban poor communities beyond the 3-meter water easement

1. The National Government Agencies

Three national government agencies shall be involved in the plans and activities of the Task Force: The Metropolitan Manila Development Agency (MMDA), the National Housing Authority (NHA) and the Presidential Commission on the Urban Poor (PCUP)

1. 1. The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)

The Metropoliotan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) shall:

1. 1. • Participate in the community consultations and dialogues of the Task Force;

      • Coordinate its clearing operations in the rivers and waterways of Quezn City with the Task Force;

      • Conduct their demolition and eviction activities in accordance with the provisions of UDHA; and

      • Assist in other plans and activities of the Task Force, as they are willing and able.

1. 1. The National Housing Authority (NHA)

The National Housing Authority (NHA) shall:

1. 1. • Identify resttlement sites available for the displaced families;

      • Ensure that the resettlement sites are ready and conforms with the minimum standard for resettlement;

      • Check the qualifications of the displaced families;

      • Facilitate the orderly and prompt relocation of the displaced families; and

      • Assist in the other plans and activities of Task Force, as they are willing and able.

1. 1. The Presidential Commission on the Urban Poor (PCUP)

The Presidential Commission on the Urban Poor (PCUP) shall:

1. 1. • Assist in the community consultations and dialogues of the Task Force;

      • Monitor demolition and evictions in Quezon City and ensure their compliance with UDHA provisions; and

      • Assist in the other plans and activities of Task Force, as they are willing and able.

1. The NGOs and Other Civil Society Groups

The NGOs and other Civil Society Groups shall:

1. 1. • Assist in the community consultations and dialogues of the Task Force;

      • Monitor demolition and evictions in Quezon City and ensure their compliance with UDHA provisions;

      • Assist in the identification of sites, esteblishment of systems and monitoring of operations of the staging areas for the displaced families;

      • Assist in the permanent resettlement of the families affected by the demolitions and evictions, so that the process will be orderly, prompt, and with minimal inconvenience for the affected families

      • Assist in the on-site development of the riverside urban poor communities beyond the 3-meter water easement; and

      • Assist in the other plans and activities of Task Force, as they are willing and able

1. The Urban Poor Community Groups

The Urban Poor Community Groups shall:

1. 1. • Participate in the community consultations and dialogues of the Task Force;

      • Monitor demolition and evictions in Quezon City and ensure their compliance with UDHA provisions;

      • Assist in the identification of sites, esteblishment of systems and monitoring of operations of the staging areas for the displaced families;

      • Assist in the permanent resettlement of the families affected by the demolitions and evictions, so that the process will be orderly, prompt, and with minimal inconvenience for the affected families

      • Assist in the on-site development of the riverside urban poor communities beyond the 3-meter water easement; and

      • Assist in the other plans and activities of Task Force, as they are willing and able

Annex A : Establishment and Management of Staging Area

Definition

A staging area serves as a temporary shelter for families affected by demolitions prior to their relocation and resettlement to a permanent residence.

Selection and Management of Staging Area/s

The staging area must be provided by the local government unit in close coordination with national agencies, city divisions, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders.

Albeit the staging area is a transient place, it must nonetheless follow humane and acceptable standards of livability and account for other important considerations.

1. 1. The staging area/s must be identified in consultation with affected communities.

1. 1. The must be within the barangay. Only when no government facility or vacant lots become available for this purpose can the LGU explore other places within the district.

1. 1. Transfers of both families and their belongings, including the salvaged housing materials must be provided by the LGU.

1. 1. There must be provision for temporary shelter that is weather-proofed and have good air ventillation.

1. 1. Each family must be allocated with a minimum of 15 sq meters to ensure their privacy and security. Dividers or tents must be provided to every family.

1. 1. Provision of basic services (water, electricity) must be ensured.

1. 1. There shall be provisions for toilet / latrines and bathing areas for men and women.

1. 1. There may be a common area for cooking and meals.

1. 1. A space and system of storage must also be established to ensure the security of alvaged housing materials which the families would reuse and repurpose.

1. 1. There should be a system for the orderly collection and management of garbage and waste.

1. 1. The LGU shall also ensure that health, sanitation and other wellness considerations are given attention to avoid diseases and other problems.

1. 1. The LGU shall also establish that systems for the maintenance of peace and order.

1. 1. In making the ground plan and establishing the systems and guidelines, special considerations must be given to the rights and needs of women, children, the elderly and differently-abled.

Duration

The displaced families shall stay in the staging area until provision for their resettlement to a permanent residence has been made.

Annex B: Process of Resettlement

The resettlement shall have three (3) important phases and the Task Force shall plan and coordinate activities in all phases. Other stakeholders such as CSOs and the private sector must be encouraged to participate and contribute in all plan and activities in all phases.

Pre-resettlement

1. • 1. The Task Force shall identify possible sites for resettlement.

        • Priority shall be in-city sites.

        • Next should be nearly resttlement sites of NHA.

1. • 1. The task Force shall identify qualified beneficiaries from the displaced families.

        • There shall a clear criteria.

        • There shall be a standard data form for all the concerned agencies.

        • There shall be a mechanism for arbitration for questions on the selection of beneficiaries.

        • No one should be discriminated against on the basis of sex/ gender, age, and disability.

1. • 1. There will be continuous consultation and participatory processes.

        • General assemblies should be organized at the barangay level with representatives from concerned agencies (LGU, NHA, barangay) and options, including ground plans for the resettlement sites must be presented

        • Trippings must be organised by the LGU and the NHA for the affected families on weekends

        • Alternative social housing programmes and designs such as community mortgage programme and medium rise building must be explored. Any proposed payment as well as taxation schemes must be exceptional by default (i.e. discounted), taking into account the meagre income of affected communities. Similarly affected communities must be exempted from strict requirements such as the acquisition of building permits, particularly in cases where minimal housing and financial support are given to them.

1. • 1. The Task Force shall ensure that the resettlement sites comply with the Minimum Standard for Resettlement, as stated in Annex C.

Actual Resettlement

1. The Task Force shall ensure that the transfer to the resettlement shall be done in a date and time that is agreeable to all parties.

1. The Task Force shall facilitate the orderly and safe transport of the families for resettlement.

1. The Task Force shall provide food packages and other relocation support (such as medical kits and health personnel).

1. The rights and needs of women, children, elderly and differently-abled should be taken into account in all plans and activities.

Post-Resettlement

1. The Task Force shall ensure the continuous development of the facilities and services in the resttlement sites.

1. The Task Force shall monitor the condition of the settlers as well as the operation of any approved housing and payment schemes.

Annex C: Minimum Standards for Resettlement

By the Urban Poor Alliance (UP-ALL) and Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies (PHILSSA) , developed from the study of John J. Caroll Institute for Church and Social Issues (JJCICSI)

Four major aspects must be considered in providing relocation sites for displaced communities: Site Selection, Social Preparation, Housing and Site Development, and Basic Services.

Site Selection

• Locations within municipalities and cities must first be considered as possible relocation sites. Only when all possibilities are explored that near city relocation be considered.

• Resettlement sites must be so geographically sound and away from health and environmental hazards.

• Resettlement must also be convenient for wage workers. In fact, the impact of transportation costs for wagers must be one of the criteria in selecting a relocation site

Social Preparation

• General assemblies should be organized at the barangay level with representatives from concerned agencies (LGU, NHA, barangay) present

• Enough time should be given between the scheduled demolition/relocation and the consultation with families

• Ideal: 6 months preparation & demolition during summer.

• Options for livelihood & employment in & near the resettlement site should also be discussed

• Affected families must be represented in committees form

• Receiving LGUs should be included in the planning & initial stages of the resettlement process

• Sending LGUs should give financial support to families moving out of their jurisdiction

• “Trippings” should be continued

Housing Site and Development

• Ideal: ready-to-occupy housing unit (4 walls, roof, door, functioning toilet with septic tank) is available upon transfer

• Families must be allowed to stay in their place of origin if they will build their own houses; making people live in tents should be avoided

• Roads to & within the resettlement site must be passable

• Drainage must be functioning

• Solid waste/garbage in the site must be regularly collected

Basic Services

Water and Electricity

• Clear timeframe must be given to families to meet the requirements to have the service connected; this must be indicated in a MOA with service providers (Meralco, Manila Water/MWSS)

• Electricity connection should come first as most water connections need electricity to function (i.e., water pumps)

• It is preferred that the NHA includes this in their budget & should be included in the computation of the families’ monthly amortization

• It is suggested that 70% of the cost of having the electricity connected be shouldered by the developer.

• Meralco posts with transformers should be installed & “ready for use” in the relocation sites

• Water should be potable

Education

• New school buildings/classrooms should have been built & ready to accommodate additional students from the relocated families at the time of relocation

• Aim for the ideal teacher-student ratio of 1: 40

Health

• One (1) health center for each relocation site with at least one (1) doctor, one (1) midwife, and trained health workers

Transportation

• Creation of a transportation route/ system, otherwise cities must provide free shuttle service

Livelihood

• Plans for livelihood should be supported by corresponding budgets

• Livelihood programs must go beyond training & must be able to supply credit

• A livelihood credit facility, ready to be accessed by qualified families; rules for accessing the facility must be made known prior to relocation

• Tap & contact MFIs committed to extending credit to the poor

• It has to be ensured that mechanisms for job creation on site must engender permanent and secure employment

• Allocate funds/ provide assistance to affected families for the inconvenience/ disturbance resulting to their displacement

]]> http://urbanpooralliance.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/qc-task-force-for-riverside-housing-and-resettlement/feed/ 0 urbanpooralliance http://urbanpooralliance.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/bayani-fernando-and-the-urban-poor/ http://urbanpooralliance.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/bayani-fernando-and-the-urban-poor/#comments Tue, 04 Sep 2007 04:11:58 +0000 urbanpooralliance http://urbanpooralliance.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/bayani-fernando-and-the-urban-poor/ ]]> In Public Lives by Randy David
Philippine Daily Inquirer, 1 September 2007
MANILA, Philippines — If there is one public official in our country today who does his work seemingly without regard for the political consequences, that person has to be Bayani Fernando, the current chair of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA). In a just society, he would be a model public servant. But in our kind of society, he can only be the blind, uncaring agent of the powerful.

BF, as he is popularly known, is ironically, for the same reason, the modern Metro Manilan’s folk hero. For the city’s most persistent problems –illegal encroachment on public space, traffic gridlocks, rampant criminality, flooding, urban blight, etc. — he finds solutions that are, at one and the same time, capricious and ingenious, impulsive and experimental, outlandish and generally effective. The upper and middle classes hail him as modernity’s champion, and think of him as the kind of president we need. But I doubt that he will ever win an election outside of Marikina City, where he was mayor for many years.

For BF is also possibly the Filipino poor’s most hated figure. This is understandable. To him belongs the unenviable job of dealing with all the illegal improvisations that make up the typical life of those who are forced to spend the greater part of their time trying to survive. BF is right in the frontline of the class conflict that rages daily in our divided society. And he is staunchly on the side of power.

While his political bosses may pay lip service to the needs of the poor even as their policies systematically oppress them, BF has no choice but to face the poor as if they were a perpetual nuisance, in accordance with his assigned role as the hatchet man of an unjust property system.

In this capacity, he must remain blind to the larger societal context of the problems he is assigned to fix. He cannot propose long-term solutions that touch on the structural inequalities from which flow all the problematic outcomes of mass poverty. He is effective precisely because he treats the symptoms, and remains unmindful of the profound social illness that produces them. In countless media appearances, BF speaks of the problems of the city in such folksy commonsensical terms that he leaves you wondering how someone like him can be so insensitive in his dealings with the poor. You expect this lack of empathy to come from a disengaged technocrat who cannot see beyond his theory. It is shocking to find it in a practical man like BF who has lived among the masses. Is it possible that he thinks he knows the poor so well that he actually believes there is no way of dealing with them except by acts of toughness?

A few years ago, he stopped illegal vendors from plying their trade on sidewalks by ordering his men to spray kerosene on the goods they were selling. In this manner, he reasoned, there is no way they can recover their investments. He confiscated their carts, and detained those who persisted in occupying the sidewalks.

The other day, I heard him on radio talking about the demolition of shanties along “esteros” [creeks] and under bridges that impede the flow of rain water and cause flash floods. Asked if there were relocation sites to which the affected families could be transferred, BF had a ready reply: “We cannot reward these lawbreakers by giving them homes.” He wants to send them back to the provinces where they came from. One might wonder where such attitude is coming from. But in fact it is a sentiment that is silently held by many Filipinos who do not have to live dangerously along river banks or pitch their shanties inside cemeteries.

It is difficult not to appreciate BF’s stubborn ideas about how to make the city livable. To him it is all a matter of teaching people how to live in a modern society. There is a lot of truth in this, but it is not the whole story. It omits the one crucial element that determines the character of most of our social problems as a nation: mass poverty.

You cannot have a well-ordered city if nearly one-half of your residents have no regular jobs, no decent homes, and no bright future to look forward to no matter how hard they try. Law-abiding citizens will not thrive in a society in which the very structure of opportunity has collapsed for the many. They will be forced to improvise in order to survive. They will put up their homes wherever they can so they can be close to schools, hospitals and places of work.

You cannot tell people constantly on the verge of starvation to stay away from garbage heaps. You cannot tell them that scavenging is an unworthy way to earn a living. You have to show them that a better way is within their reach. BF knows this. He was irked by the sight of grown men stopping in the middle of the streets to urinate behind the doors of their taxis or on the tires of their jeepneys. He tried shaming them for acting like stray animals, but to no avail. What finally put a stop to this uncivilized habit were the pink urinals he put up on Metro Manila’s sidewalks. If you build public toilets, people will relieve themselves decently. If you build them proper homes, they will voluntarily leave the esteros.

People in general are not unreasonable. They may stall, negotiate and try to assert the primacy of their interest — but such behavior is pretty much distributed across social classes. Poverty is certainly no excuse for recalcitrance. But even under a rule of law, the MMDA’s forcible demolition of poor people’s shanties, leaving them without a roof over their heads, constitutes an unspeakable atrocity.

Four major aspects must be considered in providing relocation sites for displaced communities: Site Selection, Social Preparation, Housing and Site Development, and Basic Services.

Site Selection

• Locations within municipalities and cities must first be considered as possible relocation sites. Only when all possibilities are explored that near city relocation be considered.

• Resettlement sites must be so geographically sound and away from health and environmental hazards.

• Resettlement must also be convenient for wage workers. In fact, the impact of transportation costs for wagers must be one of the criteria in selecting a relocation site

Social Preparation

• General assemblies should be organized at the barangay level with representatives from concerned agencies (LGU, NHA, barangay) present

• Enough time should be given between the scheduled demolition/relocation and the consultation with families

• Ideal: 6 months preparation & demolition during summer.

• Options for livelihood & employment in & near the resettlement site should also be discussed

• Affected families must be represented in committees form

• Receiving LGUs should be included in the planning & initial stages of the resettlement process

• Sending LGUs should give financial support to families moving out of their jurisdiction

• “Trippings” should be continued

Housing Site and Development

• Ideal: ready-to-occupy housing unit (4 walls, roof, door, functioning toilet with septic tank) is available upon transfer

• Families must be allowed to stay in their place of origin if they will build their own houses; making people live in tents should be avoided

• Roads to & within the resettlement site must be passable

• Drainage must be functioning

• Solid waste/garbage in the site must be regularly collected

Basic Services

Water and Electricity

• Clear timeframe must be given to families to meet the requirements to have the service connected; this must be indicated in a MOA with service providers (Meralco, Manila Water/MWSS)

• Electricity connection should come first as most water connections need electricity to function (i.e., water pumps)

• It is preferred that the NHA includes this in their budget & should be included in the computation of the families’ monthly amortization

• It is suggested that 70% of the cost of having the electricity connected be shouldered by the developer.

• Meralco posts with transformers should be installed & “ready for use” in the relocation sites

• Water should be potable

Education

• New school buildings/classrooms should have been built & ready to accommodate additional students from the relocated families at the time of relocation

• Aim for the ideal teacher-student ratio of 1: 40

Health

• One (1) health center for each relocation site with at least one (1) doctor, one (1) midwife, and trained health workers

Transportation

• Creation of a transportation route/ system, otherwise cities must provide free shuttle service

Livelihood

• Plans for livelihood should be supported by corresponding budgets

• Livelihood programs must go beyond training & must be able to supply credit

• A livelihood credit facility, ready to be accessed by qualified families; rules for accessing the facility must be made known prior to relocation

• Tap & contact MFIs committed to extending credit to the poor

• It has to be ensured that mechanisms for job creation on site must engender permanent and secure employment

• Allocate funds/ provide assistance to affected families for the inconvenience/ disturbance resulting to their displacement

District 1
Area 1
Vasra

Bagong Pag-asa

Sto. Cristo

Project 6

Ramon Magsaysay

Alicia

Area 2
Bahay Toro

Katipunan

San Antonio

Area 3
Veterans Village

Bungad

Phil-Am

West Triangle

Sta. Cruz

Nayong Kanluran

Paltok

Area 4
Paraiso

Mariblo

Damayan

Del Monte

Masambong

Talayan

Sto. Domingo

Area 5
Siena

St. Peter

San Jose

Manresa

Damar

Pag-ibig sa Nayon

Balingasa

Area 6
Sta. Teresita

San Isidro Labrador

Paang Bundok

salvacion

N.S. Amoranto

Maharlika

Lourdes

District 2

Area 7
Holy Spirit

Batasan Hills

Commonwealth

Bagong Silangan

Payatas

Area 8
Fairview

Pasong Putik Proper

Greater Lagro

North Fairview

Kaligayahan

Sta. Lucia

Area 9
San Agustin

Novaliches Proper

Nagkaisang Nayon

Capri

Sta. Monica

Area 10
San Bartolome

Bagbag

Sauyo

Gulod

Talipapa

Area 11
Baesa

Balon Bato

Unang Sigaw

Apolonio Samson

Sangandaan

Area 12
Tandang Sora

Pasong Tamo

Culiat

New Era

District 3

Area 13
Silangan

Socorro

E. Rodriguez

Area 14
West Kamias

East Kamias

Quirino 2A

Quirino 2B

Quirino 2C

Quirino 3A

Claro (Quirino 3B)

Duyan-Duyan

Amihan

Area 15
Matandang Balara

Pansol

Loyola Heights

Area 16
San Roque

Mangga

Masagana

Villa Maria Clara

Bayanihan

Area 17
Camp Aguinaldo

White Plains

Libis

Ugong Norte

Bagumbayan

Blue Ridge A

Blue Ridge B

St. Ignatius

Milagrosa

Area 18
Escopa I

Escopa II

Escopa II

Escopa IV

Marilag

Bagumbuhay

Tagumpay

Dioquino Zobel

District 4

Area 19
Sacred Heart

Laging Handa

Obrero

Paligsahan

Roxas

Kamuning

South Triangle

Area 20
Pinagkaisahan

Immaculate Conception

San Martin de Porres

Kaunlaran

Bagong Lipunan ng Crame

Horseshoe

Valencia

Area 21
Tatalon

Kalusugan

Kristong Hari

Damayang Lagi

Mariana

Area 22
Dona Imelda

Santol

Sto. Nino

San Isidro – Galas

Dona Aurora

Don Manuel

Dona Josefa

Area 23
UP Village

Old capitol Site

UP Campus

San Vicente

Teachers Village East

Teachers Village West

Area 24
Central

Pinyahan

Malaya

Sikatuna Village

Botocan

Krus Na Ligas

1. Community driven and participatory

2. Urban poor themselves as main agents of poverty reduction

3. Multi-sectoral arrangements (recognizing role of the LGUs: city & brggy level)

4. Integrated and appropriate (there is a fit between service provider and clients / needs based / tangible / incremental development)

5. Sustainable (ensure continuity)

6. Upscalability (potential for expansion)

7. Segmentaton of the urban poor (clear targeting)

8. Organized groups (HOAs) as social engines

9. Equity (esp. for the poor and vulnerable)

10. Outcome and performance oriented

Goals
Household Level : economic (employable / enterpreneural skills, basic services, improved income & assets, psycho-social well-being, security)

Community Level: manage own org’n, project & finances, engage governance processes, establish / sustain partnership, resource generation

City Level

Menu of Strategies in poverty reduction
1. Capacity building (includes community organizing & training)

2. Income raising thru enterprises

3. Savings generation

4. Expenditure reduction

5. Micro-finance

6. Formalization of assets (including security of tenure)

7. Legal protection

8. Direct service provision (community infrastructure: water delivery, electricity, drainage, solid waste, health & nutrition, day care)

9. Disaster Management

10. Alternative Social Security Schemes

11. Expanding peoples’ visions (advocacy)

12. Management of urbanization

13. Population Management

Clustering to define the target clientele (i.e. beneficiaries)
1. Sectoral (women, children, youth, elderly, People w/ disabilities, etc.)

2. Geographical

3. Administrative

4. Issue-based

5. Economic Activity

6. Social Networks

Role Definition
1. PO – main driving force

2. NGO - enabler

3. LGU – permanent stakeholder / with resources

4. Business –with resources

5. Formal Settlers (in relation to informal settlers)

6. Donors

]]> http://urbanpooralliance.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/urban-poverty-and-development-framework-for-metro-manila/feed/ 0 urbanpooralliance