National Land Use Act and Policy
Recommendations
Arturo G. Corpuz
2nd Paderanga-Varela Memorial Lecture
Foundation for Economic Freedom
October 25, 2017
Outline
• Introduction: National Land Use Act (NALUA)
status summary
• Comments on the proposed NALUA and policy
recommendations (HB5240 as bench reference)
– Supply
– Protection
– Planning structure
– National land use policy directions
• National Physical Framework Plan (NPFP):
proposed focus areas (strategies)
• HB 5240: National Land Use Act: An act instituting a national
land use and management policy, providing the implementing
mechanisms, and appropriating funds therefor.
• Objective: “A national land use policy that shall end the degradation of the
country’s land resource and optimize balanced development.”
• Passed in lower house (March 24, 2017)– Sponsors: Reps. Bag-ao, Quimbo, Tugna, Biazon, Baguilat, M Rodriguez,
Villarin, JC Belmonte
• 5 Senate bills filed– Hontiveros (copy of HB 5240); Villanueva and Zubiri (virtually the same);
Legarda; Honasan
– Overall: little substantive difference among the bills approved and filed in
terms of wording, content and approach to land use policy.
• Certified priority bill by President Duterte (July 4, 2017)
IntroductionBackground
Introduction
Agricultural Forest/Timber Mineral National Parks
Alienable and disposable 48% Non A&D 52%
Built up land 2.3%
Agricultural/Fishery 43% Forest/Pasture/Water 54.7%
Total land area = 30M hectares
1987 Constitution
Land Classifications
NAMRIA
Land Cover
Urban
• Residential
• Commercial
• Industrial
• Institutional
• Utilities/infra
• Tourism/recreation, etc
Rural
• Agriculture
• Fishery
• Industrial/mining
• Forest
• Utilities/infra
• Tourism/recreation, etc
Typical Zoning Land Uses
(MM=0.2%)
(Converted=0.07%)
1 Supply side bias
Underlying philosophy: land should be used based on
what it is physically suitable for regardless of demand.
Land characteristics/
suitability
Land use
Land value
http://www.expatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Ayala1938.jpg
Land value
Land use
Land characteristics/
suitability
But the world
often works
differently . . .
1 Supply side bias
Low income housing: Primary issue with low income housing
is low income, not housing.
Ignoring demand means you lose
sight of market drivers/constraints.
https://i1.wp.com/8list.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/8-Mind-Blowing-Realities-No-One-Told-You-About-Informal-Settlers-8b.jpg
Food security
Land suitability approach leads to self-sufficiency
(locking up irrigated and irrigable land, alluvial plains,
croplands, highlands) instead of focusing on raising
productivity and farmers’ incomes.
https://societyofhonor.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/negros13-sm-500.jpg
1 Supply side bias Ignoring demand means you lose
sight of market drivers/constraints.
• “Market is first; crop suitability
next.” . . . “We should have learned
our lessons by now. Most of our
agricultural programs . . . failed
because we got our sequence of
priorities wrong.” (Dr. Emil Javier, NAST, CAMP)
• Allow/encourage land
consolidation
‒ Avg farm size: 1980=2.84 ha;
2012=1.29 ha
‒ 99% of farms are operated by HH
or individuals, 1.23 ha avg farm size (PSA 2015)
• Boost non-farm income https://societyofhonor.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/negros13-sm-500.jpg
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LTtIJ0bogmA/Wb-p2FpuA2I/AAAAAAAAlFk/AB3SfLvLAVcLJLywI2-HI5eYNtsVEMM-wCLcBGAs/s1600/image009.jpghttps://cdn.agriland.ie/uploads/2016/03/tillage-plough-in-field.jpg
1 Supply side bias Ignoring demand means you lose
sight of market drivers/constraints.
• Tendency to condemn the land market if it is not understood, e.g.:
– Demand for urban land leads to land conversion therefore demand for urban land is bad.
– High demand for urban land is very bad.
– But high demand leads to high density which reduces demand for urban land . . . density can be good.
1 Supply side bias
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Global_Citizen_Festival_Central_Park_New_York_City_from_NYonAir_%2815351915006%29.jpg/1599px-Global_Citizen_Festival_Central_Park_New_York_City_from_NYonAir_%2815351915006%29.jpg
City/
Metro
Resi-
dential
Com-
mercial
& ports
Indus-
trial,
other
urban
land
Institu-
tional
Ports,
roads,
others
Agri,
forest,
undeve
-loped
land
Total
(sqkm)
Hong Kong
76 20 77 25 6440=road
845 1,107
7% 2% 7% 2% 6% 76% 100%
Metro Manila
278 76 47 43 178 0 622
45% 12% 8% 7% 29% 0% 100%
Kowloon = 51,050 persons/sqkm
Urban area = 44,500 persons/sqkm
Hong Kong = 6,405 persons/sqkm
Hong Kong: 32,000 people/MTR km
Manila City = 40,400 persons/sqkm
Urban area = 20,400 persons/sqkm
MManila = 20,400 persons/sqkm
MManila: 387,000 people/LRT km
Kowloon
Manila
Land Use Distribution, 2010Sources: AKI, IDRC, CRDI, Asian City Innovations Systems Initiative, 2010; HK Statistics
(http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/statistic/landu.html)
1 Supply side bias
• Supply side (land suitability) approach is valid but it
should be balanced with an explicit recognition of
the demand side.
– Leads to better understanding of land use drivers, e.g.:
– How much agricultural land do we need (under different
food security scenarios)?
– How much settlement land do we need (under different
density scenarios)?
• Limitations to more efficient use of land (e.g.
holding period, area limit, buyback option, property
rights and titling, rent control) should also be
considered.
2 Protection focus
• The dominance of protection in HB5240:
– Protection land use prevails over any other activity. All
other uses are residual to protection.
– 8 of 13 policies/principles are about protection.
– DAR, DA and DENR control the supply of land (any use).
– DTI, DOT, DOTr, DPWH, DOF are not members of
National Land Use Policy Council (NLUPC). (Members: NEDA, DAR, DA, DENR, DILG, NCIP, HUDCC, HLURB,
NAMRIA, LCP, 12 sector reps)
No room to grow?
NPAAADNetwork of Protected Areas for
Agriculture and Agro-industrial Development18% slope plusSource of maps: NEDA-RDCS
2 Protection focus
• Nothing wrong with protecting and using land only for forests
and agriculture but it has to be balanced with the
requirements of growth. Otherwise:
– Growth (spatial) unlikely to follow desired directions.
– Corruption is encouraged. If legitimate growth cannot be
accommodated legally, incentives to do things illegally are
created.
– Protection itself is compromised. Restricting growth,
especially in large cities, can lead to more land
conversion.
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Log P
op
Log Rank
Base Case 2010 & Growth Scenarios 2040 (Philippine cities/municipalities, Pop = 142M)
2010 BaseCase
2040 NoGrowthMManila
2040 No AddlSettlements
2040 Trend
Base Case:
Y=-0.823x+6.695
R2=0.8543
TrendTrend 2040
2010 Base
Case
2040 No
Growth MM
2040 No Addl
Settlements
2040 Trend
2 Protection focus
Base 2010
M Manila
M Cavite
M Cebu
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Log P
op
Log Rank
Base Case 2010 & Growth Scenarios 2040 (Philippine cities/municipalities, Pop = 142M)
2010 BaseCase
2040 NoGrowthMManila
2040 No AddlSettlements
2040 Trend
Base Case:
Y=-0.823x+6.695
R2=0.8543
TrendTrend 2040
2010 Base
Case
2040 No
Growth MM
2040 No Addl
Settlements
2040 Trend
2 Protection focus
2040 Trend Scenario
• Built up land expands
by 44% (84% if MM not
allowed to grow)
• 5% of total agri land
converted (9% if MM
not allowed to grow);
Number of settlements
increases 13%;
• Regl-Prov centers
increase pop 2-3X
• Mega Manila grows 2X
(2.3X if no new
settlements) (Corpuz 2015)
Restricting growth can lead to
more land conversion.
Base 2010
2 Protection focus
• Protected areas, danger zones, settlement expansion areas
have to be identified at ground level.
• Top priority: safety– E.g. Clear danger zones; relocate as necessary to accessible sites with
appropriate service infrastructure; higher density developments.
• Infrastructure as integral part of protection and disaster risk
reduction. – Plans should direct and not merely prevent.
– Channel growth to avoid key production areas.
– Build redundancy into regional routes and lifeline systems.
• Build up market value of protection areas, e.g. eco-tourism
and urban amenities.
• No need to stick to these traditional classifications.
– Appropriate only at national (maybe regional) level.
– Not mutually exclusive.
• Use more specific and mixed use classifications, especially
at the local level, that can be aggregated.
3 Planning structure/bureaucracy:
Production Protection Settlements Infrastructure
Land use classifications
?
Need to
update
3 Planning structure/bureaucracy:
• Physical separate from sectoral (supply separate from demand)
• Too many plans (20-30/term) with too few planners (2,433 licensed in 2017)
• Repetitions/overlaps among plans
Physical Sectoral Investment
MTPIP
RDIP
PDIP
M/CDIP
NPFP
RPFP
PPFP
C/MCLUP
MTPDP
RDP
PDP
C/MDP
National
Budget and
implementation
Hierarchy of Plans
Regional
Provincial
City/Mun
Zoning Ord
• Glaring absence of metro level plans (Metro: 42% pop)
Metro?
Need to
update
3 Planning structure/bureaucracy:
Physical-Sectoral Investment
MTPIP
RDIP
PDIP
M/CDIP
National
Budget and
implementation
Regional
Provincial
City/Mun
Zoning Ord
• Simplify: combine/integrate physical and sectoral (e.g. PDPFP)
‒ Agencies responsible for determining supply should also be responsible for
accommodating demand, i.e. NLUPC = NEDA Board
• Integrate local into metro plans
• Increase efficiency: training, maps and data, transparency
C/MDPFP
PDPFP
RDPFP
NDPFP
Hierarchy of Plans
Need to
update
CLUP (Comprehensive Land Use Plan)
• Ground zero of land use planning and regulation; basis of
zoning ordinance.
• With 1,600+ LGUs, there is room for improvement.
– Updated HLURB guidebooks with DRR integration
– But only 22% of 1,634 LGUs have approved CLUP (2017)
– Current political economy is a major constraint. (E.g. Zoning
used for rent seeking through negotiation: land classification,
parking requirements, building heights/densities, reclamation)
• Increasing need for transparency and to be inter-LGU
oriented.
3 Planning structure/bureaucracy
4 Lack of national development directions
NALUA is not a plan; but its policies and principles should frame
and guide the NPFP and other plans.
• Some policies/principles are outdated; should be more
forward-looking.
• No recognition of increasingly important role of urban sector.
• No reference to competitiveness, innovation and technology.
(Use PDP/Ambisyon 2040 drivers of future growth as takeoff
points.)
• Policies and principles should be revised . . .
NALUA HB5240 Principles
1. Maintain and preserve environmental integrity.
2. Sustainable and just management and utilization
of natural resources.
3. Protection of prime agricultural lands for food
security with emphasis on self-sufficiency . . .
4. Protection and conservation of country’s natural
heritage, permanent forest lands, natural forests,
critical watersheds, key biodiversity areas . . .
5. Sustainable development and management of
water resources.
6. Preservation and conservation of parks and
protected areas to keep the scenery, natural and
historical objects, and biodiversity therein in their
natural state . . .
7. Disaster risk reduction and climate risk-based
planning.
8. Respect for and protection of traditional resource
right of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domain . . .
9. Equitable access to land through state
intervention that guarantees its affordability to the
basic disadvantaged sectors . . .
10. Energy security or energy self sufficiency.
11. Settlements, transportation and infrastructure
development in support of inclusive growth and
rural/urban and regional development.
12. Improved access to affordable housing by
increasing the supply thereof . . .
13. Meaningful participation of the basic sectors.
• Simplify and combine some
principles, e.g. #2 and #5.
• Primacy of protection but reconcile
with demand.
• Food security through domestic
production and importation.
• Metro and inter-local planning.
• Long term trend and role of urban
sector; PDP/Ambisyon priorities and
growth drivers as takeoff points.
• Strategic geopolitical considerations,
e.g. national security.
• Critical role of connectivity, ICT, IOT,
infrastructure.
• Build physical environment: human
capital, innovation, competitiveness.
Indonesia: National Spatial Planning Act (amended 2007)• Top priority issue: response to rapid progressing urbanization
• Contains transport plan, green space plan and information related to informal sectors; goal to secure 30%
of the city land as open space (city parks, green roads, cemeteries, etc.)
• Metropolitan spatial plans are required for large cities such as Jakarta and Surabaya.
• Strategic Development Framework national land strategy: achieve security, economic viability, land use
sustainability in archipelago to enhance national cohesiveness and stability.
Malaysia: National Physical Plan (NPP-2, August 2010)• Goal: establish an efficient, equitable and sustainable national spatial framework to guide overall
development towards achieving developed and high-income nation status by 2020.
• Development strategy Peninsular Malaysia): Concentrated Decentralisation by 2020
• 75% urbanized; 70% of urban population in four conurbations: KL, Georgetown, Kuantan, Johor Bahru.
• Key strategy: concentrate nation's scarce resources in a few priority urban areas with the greatest
potential for job creation along key economic corridors (while protecting rural areas and natural
environment); urban areas ; growth through high-impact flagship infra projects.
Thailand: 50 year National Spatial Development Plan• Vision (2057): world leader in agriculture, agro-industry, food technology, health services, tourism; good
quality of life in a pleasant environment; sustainable growth.
• Development frameworks: economic potential zone development; regional growth distribution; linkage to
other ASEAN countries
• Key issues: population/workforce distribution; economic devt; urban-rural roles and functions;
efficient land use; development of transportation, technology, communication, energy
Vietnam: Adjustment Master Plan Urban System Development to 2025 with 2050 Vision• Now to 2015, key economic regions and large urban areas are high priority; 870 urban areas
• 2015 to 2025, develop urban area to disperse development; 1,000 urban areas; 45% urban
• Urban population forecast: 52M (2025) accounting for 50% of total.
• 2025: 450k ha demand for urban land, (1.4% of nationwide land), average 85m²/capita
NPFP focus areas
1 Scale and agglomeration: make cities and production areas
work much more efficiently, and mitigate negative impacts
of increasing population. As a city’s population doubles:
• Wages, GDP, patents
produced, service output
and so on tend to increase
by 115% per capita.
• You only need an 85%
increase in the amount of
infrastructure (roads, power,
water, drainage, etc.).
• But diseconomies—e.g.
congestion, pollution,
disease and crime—also
tend to increase by 115%. (West 2017)
‒ Local/metro level: transport and com, affordable
housing, disaster risk reduction
NPFP focus areas
2 Nationwide connectivity: physical and digital
San Fernando
Baguio
Urdaneta
Dagupan
Naga
Ligao-Oas
Legaspi
Tabaco
Tacloban
Ormoc
Marawi
Cotabato
Gen Santos
Koronadal
M Angeles
M Malolos
M Manila
M Antipolo
M Dasmarinas
M Calamba
M Iloilo
M Bacolod
M Cebu
Zamboanga
City
M Davao
M CdO
Maximize
connectivity
within one-
two hours
NPFP focus areas
3 Sustainability and
disaster risk
reduction:
– Protection
– Redundancy
– Market shaping
Riverbasins and Coastal
Plains in the Philippines. (Source: E. Paringit et al., 2016; with
the assistance of NEDA-RDCS)
http://img1.thelist.com/img/gallery/what-happens-to-your-body-when-you-quit-smoking/intro.jpghttps://www.soulseeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/quit-smoking.jpg
Shaping the
Market
Native trees and
vegetation
Detention ponds for
flood management
and water protection
Natural erosion and
sedimentation control practices
Natural infrastructure
https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3432/3817873624_a59af68d17_o.jpg
Medium density housing
http://www.dmcihomesresidences.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/original-20161018141240.jpg
Ambisyon 2040 Survey
• 92% prefer to live and
work in city
• 73% prefer big
residential lot with
small house
• 65% want to own at
least one car
The value of efficient and
well-managed public spaces
and facilities
PDI 09/072008
https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2940/14701887611_753d2a4cc0_b.jpghttp://www.thestar.com.my/~/media/online/2016/05/04/20/05/indo_bike_gerijah_1.ashx/ http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1I-b5YjFyhc/Um9y4TxgnII/AAAAAAAABps/ToJp62CsuSI/s1600/861289115_1364271221.jpg
Source: Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, 2008
Shaping the
Market
. . . to accept
sustainability
and disaster
risk reduction
as social
norms.
Green Roof
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/images/d/
df%20dj/disaster_drill001/disaster_drill001_16x9.jpg
Source: Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, 2008
Green Roof
Thank you