Presentation of the University of British Columbia (UBC) Social Housing Group on June 7, 2007 at the Bicol Science and Technology Centrum, Naga City, in conjunction with their Naga Planning Studio Course.
Booking open Available Pune Call Girls Shivane 6297143586 Call Hot Indian Gi...
Sustaining The Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program
1. Sustaining the Kaantabay sa
Kauswagan Program in
Naga City
Strengths, Challenges and
Recommendations
Allison Jones & Lang Lang
UBC School of Community and Regional Planning
Naga Planning Studio Course
June 7, 2007
2. Presentation Agenda
• Kaantabay sa
Kauswagan
• Challenges to
Sustainability
• Research Findings
• Case Studies
• Recommendations
3. What is Kaantabay sa Kauswagan ?
• Social housing progam
• Initiated by Urban Poor
Associations
• Established in 1997
• Pro poor tenure
security policy
4. The Strengths of Kaantabay
• Avoids displacement
• Pursues on site and
resettlement land
acquisitions
• Negotiates with
landowners
• Prioritizes most
vulnerable
6. Multisectoral Program
• Partnerships
•NGOs
•National Housing
Agencies
•World Bank
•NCUPF
•Bgy Associations
7. The Challenges for Sustainability
1. Cost Recovery Figure 1: Rate of Partial, Full, and None Payment
comparison between on site and off site
45% 41% 41%
40%
35%
28%
30% 26%
rate
25% 20%
17%
20% 16%
12%
15%
Rat e of Ful l , Par t i al , and None 10%
Pai d Househol ds 5%
0%
PARTIAL NONE FULL N.A.
N. A.
22% O si t e
n O f si t e
f
PARTI AL
37%
FULL
17%
NONE
24%
PARTI AL NONE FULL N. A.
8. The Challenges for Sustainability
2. Reselling and
Gentrification in
Beneficiary Areas
9. The Challenges for Sustainability
3. Expansion of the social housing program
• Growing population
• Increasing land price
• Limited government
resources
10. The Challenges for Sustainability
4. Institutional Barriers
• Administration of
collection system
• Housing Policy and
Implementation
Disconnect
• Limited Funding
Streams
• Bayadnihan under-
resourced
11. Findings from Interviews
Many positive changes have taken place
1.
in the lives of beneficiaries.
2. Livelihood difficulty is the key reason for
delaying repayment and reselling.
12. Findings from Interviews
3. Multi-layered
“social preparation” is
needed.
• Job training
• Financial management
• Ownership management
13. Findings from Interviews
4.Controversial views of possible changes in
program management
• Localization of
repayment collection
• USUFRUCT
• Cooperative ownership
• Using repayment as
community
development fund
14. Case Study 1: Community Contribution
Ilo, Peru
Resources for new resettlements
• Similar context: rapid population growth,
trust in government, social housing priority
• Multisectoral partnerships: Community
management committees, NGO’s and local gov’t
• Homelot preparation is jointly finance and
managed
• Varied funding strategies
• Beneficiaries pay cost of urban servicing
• Community investment at the front end
16. Ilo, Peru
Applicability to Naga
• Strong barangay
associations
• Culture of Bayanihan
• Precedent examples
17. Case Study 2: Woodward’s Redevelopment
Vancouver, Canada
New Resources for
Social Housing Expansion
• Revitalization catalyst
• Private public partnership
200 social housing units
500 market rate units
• Financially self sustaining
• Provides employment
opportunities for residents
18. Vancouver, Canada
C
Applicability to Naga
• 20% set aside requirement
• Local ordinance support
• Land Use Plan
19. Case Study 3: Community Land Trust
Voi, Kenya
Preventing reselling
Strengths
• Community ownership prevents reselling land
• Individual right to use, sell improvement and
pass on to children
• Collective accessibility of capital
20. Voi, Kenya
Applicability to Naga
• Similar social conditions
• Strong community
organization
• Pro-poor policy
• Experience of Community
Mortgage
21. Case Study 4:
Micro-financing, Payatas, Metro Manila
Saving schemes to improve repayment rate
Strengths
• Saving schemes
• Opportunity for the poor to access small-scale loan
• NGO-initiated financing program, share
responsibility with government
• Self-financing, relieve financial burden of the
government
22. Payatas, Metro Manila
Applicability to Naga
• Filipino context
• Strong community
organizations
• Tradition of
participation
• Experience of Metro
PESO micro-financing
program
23. Recommendations
• Improve implementation of “social
preparation” programs
Certification
Leadership Development
Ongoing Support
Targets
Information Transfer
Comprehensive
24. Recommendations
• Increase efficiency in Kaantabay program
administration
Bridge the Gap Revise Incentives
Modify
Devolve Collection
Enforce
Document
Diversify Options
Consult
25. Recommendations
• Open conduits to new funding sources
Private Sector
Public Private Partnerships
Barangay Contributions
Microfinance
National Funding
26. Recommendations
• Adopt a comprehensive, integrated
approach
Livelihood
Transportation
Nutrition and Urban Agriculture
Gender Equity
Education
Youth Development