Inclusive Futures Mapping Documentation DRAFT
-
Upload
ibop-asia -
Category
Technology
-
view
113 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Inclusive Futures Mapping Documentation DRAFT
The Project Team Dr. Antonio La Vina Project Adviser Dr. Jean Caleda Project Adviser Dr. Segundo E. Romero, Project Director Dr. Marie Danielle V. Guillen, Project Manager Ms. Aurma Manlangit Co-Facilitator Ms. Jessica-Dator Bercilla, Senior Research Associate Mr. Lorenzo Cordova Jr., Research Associate Ms. Althea Muriel L. Pineda, Project Associate Support Staff: Ms. Creselda Doble, Technical Writer/ Documentor Ms. Cody Cavestany Main Documentor Mr. Herbert Navasca Photo/Video Documentor Mr. Andre Immanuel Quintos Photo/Video Documentor and Social Media Administrator Ms. Joan Therese Domingo, Project Associate Ms. Aletheia Kerygma Valenciano, Project Associate Mr. Richard Antonio, Student Assistant Ms. Charmaine Tobes, Student Assistant Mr. Dhenmark Valera, Student Assistant Ms. Alaina Villegas, Student Assistant
Informal City Dialogues: The 2040 Urban Challenge in Metro Manila
Inclusive Futures Mapping Documentation Report March 5-‐6, 2013
Conference Room 5, ISO Building Ateneo de Manila University Loyola Heights, Quezon City Innovation at the Base of the Pyramid in Asia Program Ateneo School of Government
Copyright © 2013
1
I N FORMAL C I TY D I A LOGUES The 2040 Urban Challenge in Metro Manila Futures Mapping Workshop
Conference Room 5, ISO Building Ateneo de Manila University Loyola Heights, Quezon City
March 5-‐6, 2013
2
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................ 4 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 5 Inclusive Futures Mapping Workshop Day 1 ...................................................................... 8 Opening Program ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Opening Remarks .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Inspirational Message ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Introduction of the Participants ............................................................................................................... 10 Introduction of Project Steering Committee Members & Staff .................................................... 11
Overview of the Informal City Dialogue Project ............................................................................. 111 Overview of the Inclusive City Dialogue Inclusive Futures Mapping Workshop in Metro
Manila ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Metro Manila: Then and Now, Perspectives from the Communities ........................................ 13 Talk Show Part One: In the Eyes of the Elderly .................................................................................. 13 Talk Show Part Two: In the Eyes of the Youth .................................................................................... 17 Open Forum ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
Synthesis ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Workshop 1: Factors Changing The Way People Live In Metro Manila .................................. 20 Physical ................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Physical-‐Environmental ............................................................................................................................... 21 Environmental .................................................................................................................................................. 21 Social ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Economic ............................................................................................................................................................. 22 Institutional ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
Workshop 2: Highly Important and Uncertain Factors .................................................................. 23 Workshop 3: Combination of Drivers .................................................................................................... 26 Summary and Integration ........................................................................................................................... 28 Inclusive Futures Mapping Day 2 ..................................................................................... 29 Recap .................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Reflections from the Participants ............................................................................................................ 31 Workshop 4: Building Metro Manila Scenarios ................................................................................. 32 Workshop Outputs: Building the Scenarios ......................................................................................... 34 Scenario 4: “Run Samson Run” ......................................................................................................................... 34 Scenario 3: “Maghintay ka Lamang” ............................................................................................................... 35 Scenario 2: “Hawak Kamay” .............................................................................................................................. 37 Scenario 1: “Kanlungan” ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Workshop 5: Completing Metro Manila Scenarios ........................................................................... 39 Workshop Outputs: ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Scenario 4: “Run Samson Run” ......................................................................................................................... 39 Scenario 3: “Maghintay ka Lamang” ............................................................................................................... 40 Scenario 2: “Hawak Kamay” .............................................................................................................................. 40 Scenario 1: “Kanlungan” ...................................................................................................................................... 41
3
Group Critiquing Outputs ............................................................................................................................ 41 Scenario 4: “Run Samson Run” ......................................................................................................................... 41 Scenario 3: “Maghintay ka Lamang” ............................................................................................................... 41 Scenario 2: “Hawak Kamay” .............................................................................................................................. 41 Scenario 1: “Kanlungan” ...................................................................................................................................... 42
Lessons Learned .............................................................................................................................................. 44 Workshop 6: Scenario Timeline ........................................................................................... ……………...44 Workshop 6 Results: ...................................................................................................................................... 44
Scenario 4: “Run Samson Run” ......................................................................................................................... 44 Scenario 3: “Maghintay ka Lamang” ............................................................................................................... 45 Scenario 2: “Hawak Kamay” .............................................................................................................................. 45 Scenario 1: “Kanlungan” ...................................................................................................................................... 46
Reflections from Participants .................................................................................................................... 48 Response from Partners ............................................................................................................................... 48 Closing Remarks .............................................................................................................................................. 49 Distribution of Certificates .......................................................................................................................... 49
4
List of Acronyms
AdMU Ateneo de Manila University ASoG Ateneo School of Governmet AusAID Australian Government’s Overseas Aid Program BPO Business Process Outsourcing CAMANAVA Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas, Valenzuela CENRO City Environment and Natural Resources Office CSO Civil Society Organizations DILG Department of Interior and Local Government DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development DTI Department of Trade and Industry EDSA Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue GDP Gross Domestic Product HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board HUDCC Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council ICD Informal City Dialogues ICT Information and Communication Technology IFS Informal Settlements/ Sector LGU Local Government Unit LRT Light Rail Transit MM Metro Manila MMDA Metropolitan Manila Development Authority MRT Metro Rail Transit NGO Non-‐government Organizations NHA National Housing Authority OFW Overseas Filipino Workers PETA Philippine Educational Theater Association PWDs Persons with disabilities RH Reproductive Health SPED Special Education STDs Sexually Transmitted Diseases TV Television USAID United Stated Agency for International Development
5
Executive Summary
The two-‐day workshop entitled Informal City Dialogues: The 2040 Urban Challenge
in Metro Manila Inclusive Futures Mapping Workshop, held at Conference Room 5, ISO Building, Ateneo de Manila University Loyola Heights Quezon City last March 5-‐6, 2013, was attended by a total of 97 individuals, representing different sectors of the society coming from 37 various organizations. About 50% of the participants came from the community, 15% from the government (national at local) while the remaining 25% was from the private sector, media, NGOs at CSOs. With support from the Rockefeller Foundation and it’s sub grantee Forum for the Future (FFF), this event was organized by its implementing partner Ateneo School of Government under the Innovations at the Base of the Pyramid in Southeast Asia (iBoP Asia) Program.
The Rockefeller Foundation has launched the Centennial Urban Challenge for the 21st
Century Project formally referred to as “Informal City Dialogues: The 2040 Challenge” that aims to examine the formal and informal structures within cities, understand the relationship between the formal and informal, and envision a future for these cities. Six cities have been selected, including Metro Manila in the Philippines. Thus, one of the objectives of this workshop is to enable the participants to appreciate the process of envisioning the future through shared narratives. .
The program formally started with an opening remarks of Dr. Antonio La Viña, Dean of
the School of Government, and an inspirational message from Fr. Jett Villarin, President of Ateneo de Manila University. Both of them recognized the importance of planning towards a better Metro Manila. They both believed that looking as far ahead as 2040 can be a big challenge especially if the planners are not equipped with ideas about the future. Nevertheless, they were optimistic on what planning could do. They noted that if planning, dreaming, and execution are done together, then it could be done. They also recognized the importance of examining one’s role or part in the fulfillment of the plans along with their individual responsibility to one another and the country.
A Talk Show segment entitled, Metro Manila Then and Now featured a video
documentary on the Pearl of the Orient set back in the early 1900s. A talk show with representatives from elderly living in five (5) selected communities in Metro Manila shortly followed the video presentation. Another short video clip highligting the evolution of Metro Manila through the years was shown which was immediately followed by a talk show with the younger generation. Some of the highlights of this segment include findings about the huge percentage of migrants in Metro Manila coming from various places in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. Meanwhile, the elderly revealed that the number of high-‐rise buildings back then was not that big since majority of lands were agriculturally utilized, with few budding central business districts and industrial areas in some areas. Some said that they reside in danger zones because that was all they could afford. The profound understanding of what informal means was evident in the interviews with representatives of the young and the elderly. They all wished to convey the message that they all play a significant role in the society. Though many of them are usually volunteers, a big percentage belong to the social
6
service sector while some, including the elderly, still work for the formal industry sector (e.g. construction worker, home service type of job, sales clerk in malls, etc)
The participants mentioned their desire to own a house and for housing projects to be
in tune with their practical needs. There should be inclusive elements such as livelihood and planning should be seen in a holistic way and with proper system in place. They also strongly argue that government plans should prioritize the poor and marginalized and not mainly focused on gaining profit.
Furthermore, they complained about their problems within their sector. There are those
who sell and rent out rights of lands that are not theirs. In planning, they recognized the crucial role of the census or such surveys in government decision-‐making as this will help in knowing the capacity of the informal settlers to pay for housing. They acknowledged that their group should start providing the government proper information. They also saw the important role of arts such as Philippine Educational Theater Association (PETA) in highlighting their importance in the society and the other possible things that they could contribute.
It was also noted that there were government offices both from the national and local
that wishes to have “in-‐city development”1 as in the case of Mandaluyong who granted informal settlers additional funds to build homes as well as other basic services such as health centers, schools, and markets.
Some of the pressing points raised were the need to be truly socially inclusive in
planning and to ensure that the process is participatory. The following questions were raised; what is the proper planning process and project implementation? What is the right mechanism for participation? They saw that there were many different levels of participation and technologies available for use. They believe that it is crucial to determine the correct combination and be able to respond to the following inquiries: technology of listening or participation? How does one monitor the level of participation? They also reiterated that informal settlers should not be seen as an eyesore but rather partners in development. They should always be included in decision-‐making and solution seeking process and be given a chance to achieve their desires to improve their situation in life. Gender and development issues as well as corresponding perspectives were also raised as an important factor in development.
The first workshop identified the reasons for change in Metro Manila. There were more
than 80 drivers of change identified, selected and categorized into different themes: physical, environmental, social, economic and institutional. The participants were able to identify top 11 reasons for change and these were ranked according to those which future are believe to be certain or uncertain. There was a long discussion on the proper combination of drivers of change but in the end the two selected drivers were: urban planning and development as the first driver while the second driver was population growth.
1 A type of housing development that does not require informal settlers to transfer to another
place. Instead the local government ensures progress in a particular area within the city where the informal settlers could legally stay.
7
The following day, the participants shared their reflections on how they appreciated the value of having a genuine participatory process in surfacing the issues and problems. They also saw their contribution and the barriers they face towards achieving their vision of Metro Manila in 2040. There was also a little apprehension to some who have been to similar workshops or dialogues with nothing concrete happening about their situation. Aside from being given an opportunity to participate in dialogues, they believe that sensitivity to one another's opinion, regardless of the sector they belong, is indeed a critical and significant factor in people's participation.
A matrix of the two identified drivers: population growth and effectiveness in urban
planning and development, both given a high and low setting, created four unique scenarios:
1. Slow growth of population and effective urban planning and development 2. Rapid growth of population and effective urban planning and development 3. Slow growth of population and ineffective urban planning and development 4. Rapid growth of population and ineffective urban planning and development The participants thought of various circumstances across different horizons and
determined what the everyday stories of their particular scenario were. After they agreed with the face, icons and characterization of their scenarios, they were instructed to make a futures wheel on the implications of that particular scenario in Metro Manila, and later figured out the relationship of each circumstance, the participants determined which could happen in 2020, 2030 or 2040.
Mr. Benjamin dela Peña of the Rockefeller Foundation shared his insights in planning.
He believes that the mistake of plans is not because they are wrong plans or they went through a wrong process but because the plans are not revisited. A good plan should always reflect the needs of the poor. Mr. Jacob Park of Forum for the Future shared that people were able to experience a new kind of conversation in this workshop and perhaps, were also able to learn the act of proper listening. He believes that these are absolutely critical in solving problems and what has been accomplished in this workshop can be considered a great success. However, there was an agreement that it is not all about planning but also about implementation. He also encouraged everyone to come together for another workshop in April and talk about what kind of innovations they could all create to build a future that they want
Mr. Benedict Balderrama closed the program by saying that the essence of having an
inclusive city is having space for everyone where participation by all sectors is appreciated. The workshop was a glimpse or practice of the kind of participation that an inclusive city dreams about. Everyone has hope for a systematic, sustainable, progressive and more participative future. He said that gradually, all should practice correlating, listening, helping, and participating with and among one another to achieve an inclusive city. This workshop called for all to participate and engage and with this, he sees Metro Manila’s future.
8
Inclusive Futures Mapping Workshop Day 1
5 MARCH 2013
Opening Program
The program formally started with the singing of the National Anthem followed by an
Invocation entitled Pananagutan (Accountability) led by the master of ceremony, Mr. Jay-‐R Cordova.
Opening Remarks
DR. ANTONIO G.M. LA V IÑA Dean, Ateneo School of Government
Dr. La Viña greeted everyone a wonderful morning and welcomed them to the
workshop. He expressed his satisfaction in seeing the participants’ willingness to join and participate in the two-‐day informal city dialogue envisioning Metro Manila in 2040. He complimented the invocation entitled Pananagutan (Accountability), as this may be the main emphasis of the dialogue for the day. He reminded everyone about the significance of inclusivity in which no one should be excluded in envisioning the future of Metro Manila in 2040.
He thanked representatives
from all sectors present in the workshop: the government, private sector, academe, non-‐government organizations and informal communities in Metro Manila. He also acknowledged the presence of the members of the Project Steering Committee particularly Mr. Benjie de la Peña, a Filipino based in New York and working for the Rockefeller Foundation, and Mr. Jacob Park representing Forum for the Future.
He informed everyone that the dialogue and visioning exercise is not only being done in
Metro Manila but also in five other cities around the world namely Chennai in India, Bangkok in Thailand, Nairobi in Kenya, Accra in Ghana and Lima in Peru. He stated that Metro Manila’s case is special as Metro Manila is faced with many challenges and pressures with a lot of uncertainties. However, in order to envision what Metro Manila should look like in 2040, everyone had to understand the present-‐day drivers of development and find ways to interpret the future.
Dean of Ateneo School of Government Dr. Antonio G.M. La Viña in his Opening Remarks
9
He recognized the difficulty in facing the problems and pressures that Metro Manila is facing, but with assurance that as long as everyone understands the present well, all can move forward to the future. Inclusivity is crucial in the process of finding solutions. As an example, he mentioned how the Philippines continue to become wealthy with only a few people who benefit (the elite). This tremendous wealth is not being distributed to the people. This reflects how Filipinos plan for their cities. He was excited to see everyone present in the dialogue for it means involving everyone in the planning process. Being part of the United Nations process called the Millenium Ecosystems Assessment ten years ago, he is a firm believer of futures mapping exercise in trying to pin down the drivers for change and envisioning to plan better. He hopes that everyone will learn in the process and that all would be open to listen to what each other has to say especially since they all come from various sectors with diverse thrusts and lessons brought by individual experiences.
Lastly, he thanked everyone and hoped for all to stay with them in the next two days
and hopefully come up with something good and useful.
Inspirational Message
FR. JOSE RAMON T. V ILLARIN, S J President, Ateneo de Manila University
Fr. Villarin greeted everyone a great morning and
wondered how many of them in the room would still be alive in 2040. He shared that Madam Auring2 was the first that came to his mind when he was asked to speak about futures mapping. But the type of futures mapping referred to in this workshop requires determining what each of them sees, how they see and the lens used in looking at the future. The mapping exercise also demands them to look as far ahead as 2040 but gave assurance that it is possible. He noted that all they had to do was to look within themselves and find their dreams, values, and desires.
He shared his personal story about his stay in
Navotas 3 in 2002. He recalled how compact and informal Navotas as a place was and quickly realized that it would be difficult for him to live there. The
2 A known fortune teller in the Philippines. 3 Navotas is a 1st class city in Metro Manila, Philippines. The city occupies a narrow strip of land
along the eastern shores of Manila Bay. Navotas is considered to be a very important fishing community with 70% of its population deriving their livelihood directly or indirectly from fishing and its related industries like fish trading, fish net mending, and fish producing having marginal percentage of inter-‐Island fish producers. Navotas is part of the informal subregion of Metro Manila called CAMANAVA. This sub region, aside from Navotas, includes the cities of Caloocan, Malabon and Valenzuela. Navotas is perceived to be prone to flood especially during the rainy season and during high tide, but the national and local government are trying to alleviate the problem. Pollution and overpopulation are other problems that the government is trying to solve. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navotas
Fr. Villarin, President of the Ateneo de Manila University, delivering his inspirational message before the
workshop participants.
10
place where he lived had no toilet and bathroom and had illegal electrical connections. He remembered how the people would have a code for the electricity providers who often come in the area to check on and apprehend illegal electrical connections. He recounted the simple ways of the people living there particularly his generous host, being a food vendor whose day starts at 4:00 in the morning to go the market and buy the things she need. At 5:00 am she starts preparing then at 8:00 am starts selling. The following day, she will use the money she got from her sales the previous day to start the day all over again. Then at night, they would all watch telenovelas before they go to bed. One time he asked his host if they could watch an Ateneo-‐La Salle basketball game but the family had no clue what it was he wanted. It dawned on Fr. Villarin that Navotas was a different world that had nothing to do with luxury such as the collegiate basketball game he wanted to see. He noted the keyword in this story was inclusion, which literally meant not being left out and being involved.
In planning, dreaming and in seeing the future, all should be included. But in reality,
many are missed in prosperity and in the economy. As an example, he mentioned a news article he recently read that 40 of the most affluent families on the Forbes wealth list accounted for 76% of the country's gross domestic product growth (GDP).4 The wealth of the nation is held by only a select few. The Philippines is not really a poor country. In fact, the country’s GDP is 9 trillion pesos or 200 billion dollars, a lot of resources that excludes many.
In envisioning the future, one must look at his or her dreams and be aware of their own
looking glass. He invited everyone to also look into the lens that others are looking into. Coming from different sectors, each have their own biases, but he calls for everyone to be open. In the end, Fr. Villarin saw this futures mapping as a discernment exercise in which one has to scan and weigh what the Lord wants using their feeling. He believes that the Lord dislikes exclusivity as evident by his Lenten stories about His linkage with sinners. He invited everyone to be cognizant and be aware of who they are, Sons of God. He asks all to be truly the Sons of God and embrace the good and renounce the prejudiced.
Mr. Cordova thanked Fr. Villarin for the very insightful and inspiring message. He
encouraged everyone to use this as guide for the 2-‐day workshop in planning, dreaming, and executing their desires for themselves, families, community, and country.
Introduction of the Participants
Mr. Cordova called out the sector and organizations present in today’s workshop. He
requested the following to rise as they hear their sector or organization called to acknowledge their presence:
• Welfare ville, Addition Hills, Mandaluyong City • Barangay Donya Imelda, Quezon City • Estero de San Miguel, Manila • Manggahan, Pasig City • Barangay Sto. Niño, Marikina City
4 source: http://business.inquirer.net/110413/philippines-‐elite-‐swallow-‐countrys-‐new-‐wealth
11
<< Assistant Dean Dr. Caleda giving the participants an overview about the Informal City Dialogues Project
• National Government Agencies: DILG, DTI, DSWD, MMDA, HLURB, Urban Poor Associates
• LGUs • Private sector • CSOs and NGOs
Introduction of Project Steering Committee Members & Staff
In the same manner, he also requested the members of the project steering committee
and project team to rise and be identified. He started with the project steering committee composed of six members representing
various stakeholders who provide direction, advice, and guides in the project implementation.
• Ms. Tina Velasco, MMDA, representing the government • Ms. Antonio Yulo Loyzaga, Manila Observatory, representing science • Mr. Benedict Valderama, Chairman, Partnership of Philippine Support Service
Agencies, Inc. representing the urban poor • Mr. Carlos Rufino, Urban Land Institute representing the Private Sector • Dr. Emma Borio, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, representing the
Academe • Dr. Mary Jean Caleda, ASoG, Ex-‐officio member
He also acknowledge the project team led by Dr. Antonio La Viña and Dr. Mary Jean Caleda with the following as members:
Project Director: Dr. Segundo Romero Project Manager: Dr. Danielle Guillen Co-‐facilitator: Ms. Aurma Manlangit Senior Research Associate: Ms. Jessica Dator Bercilla Project Associate: Ms. Althea Pineda Research Associate: Mr. Jay-‐R Cordova Researchers and Interns: Ms. Criselda Doble, Charmaine Tobes, Dhenmark Valera,
Alaina Villegas
Overview of the Informal City Dialogue Project
DR. MARY JEAN CALEDA Assistant Dean, Ateneo School of Government
2013 marks the Rockefeller Foundation’s
centennial year with the theme: “Innovation for the Next 100 years”. The informal city dialogues (ICD) is part of its centennial year activities.
In partnership with other organizations in five
cities of developing countries, the Forum for the Future manages the informal city dialogues.
12
Dr. Romero giving an overview about the Inclusive Futures Mapping Workshop in Metro Manila
Informal City Dialogue is a global, multi-‐stakeholder project that has series of discussion about the future of a city and the role of the various sectors in shaping its development. The dialogue involves a diverse group of citizens from various sectors including public, private, civic, industry, CSOs and vulnerable groups namely persons with disabilities, women, youth and senior citizens. This group talks about scenarios of what life in their city could be like in 2040.
The informal dialogues have three major activities. The first activity is the inclusive
futures mapping, the one happening today, which started when the project team visited the five chosen areas in Metro Manila and conducted the pre-‐community inclusive mapping workshop. The second activity is the planning workshop, set to happen sometime in April, which will determine the innovations that can be proposed to help the city achieve a more inclusive and resilient future. The third major activity is the centennial challenge grant wherein the cities from the six developing countries would compete for the best innovation project that could be funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Portions of the total 1 million dollars grant would be given to cities with the most innovative proposal.
The inclusive city dialogue was further explained to the participants through a short
audiovisual presentation.
Overview of the Inclusive City Dialogue Inclusive Futures Mapping Workshop in Metro Manila
DR. SEGUNDO ROMERO Director, Innovations at the Base of the Pyramid
Dr. Romero expressed his delight to see a room full of eager
and willing participants. He said that everyone was there to invest on two important days of special discourse, which talks about the future of Metro Manila. This was an unusual event where various stakeholders including the government, private sector, and community members would sit down and talk about the future of the entire Metro Manila. He encouraged everyone present to make the most out of this rare occasion.
He wanted all the participants to keep in mind a crucial
point of view in the duration of the workshop or dialogue: “the present is a future of yesterday”. 2040 seems to be too far ahead from 2013 but in 1986, exactly twenty-‐seven years ago, 2013 was a year that none of them could have imagined. He posed a question, where do the participants see themselves in 2040?
Inclusive future is their dream. It is a type of future that fosters interface between
formal and informal citizens and the rich and poor. It is a future of strong and resilient cities. But in order to see through this future, they need to start with what they have now and what motivates them. Dealing with the current situation entitles them to dream about the future. This certain planning for the future calls for the participants to unravel what drives Metro Manila. In this complex world, there is a need to tie the past with the future.
13
Dr. Romero emphasized that all have a say in the future. How each of them acts would
shape or define the future. He also presented the different types of futures. A possible future is something that might happen. Plausible is something that could happen. It is not likely to happen but it could happen. Probable is something that is expected to happen while preferable is something that they want to happen. In scenario building, what one wants to happen is not the same as what could possibly happen thus the need to be prepared. This workshop demands grasping the envelope of uncertainty. It is pivotal to imagine those that one could not even imagine happening.
He presented an illustration of the type of future for targeting. He encouraged everyone
to visualize things that can probably happen. He provided this example: there was a scientific study about Metro Manila that if a 7.2 earthquake magnitude, approximately 50,000 people will die and there will be fire across. This example is unlikely to happen but it is possible and requires a great deal of preparation. This two-‐day workshop is rarely done but should be taken note of because many will benefit from this kind of activity. He explained that part of the process, was for project team to gathers data and information from the participants at the same time, share it with the community.
He moved into presenting the workshop flow. The workshop started with the opening
program followed by a talk show about Metro Manila of the past and the present where selected community members shared their experiences in Metro Manila. It was followed shortly by the identification of the most important and significant drivers of change in Metro Manila. The identified drivers were organized in two cluster: those that are certain to happen and those that are not. The workshop was designed to put more focus on the drivers of change that are indefinite for this needs more preparation that those which are sure to happen. Then the group looked into the combinations of the top two unlikely to happen drivers to produce four different scenarios. The following day, the group created stories based on the various scenarios presented and reviewed in the plenary hall. These scenarios were identified as those consistent, robust and distinct. In the next workshop in April, everyone will again convene to determine relevant points that will answer the questions: what will be done with these scenarios? Which scenario do they want to have in the future and how would they get there? The event in April will be dubbed as the innovations planning that would specify what could be done to achieve a Metro Manila they all dream about. Once done, the communities will submit a proposal to Rockefeller Foundation’s urban challenge grant, for possible funding of their proposed innovations.
These activities need the involvement of all stakeholders especially the community
whose voices are often unheard. Lastly, Dr. Romero stressed the significance of collective planning in the process. After this everyone paused for a coffee break and s photo session.
Metro Manila: Then and Now, Perspectives from the Communities
MS. JESS ICA DATOR BERCILLA AND DR. DANIELLE GUILLEN This segment started with a video documentary of the "Pearl of the Orient" as
introduced by the segment hosts, Ms. Bercilla (Jec) and Dr. Guillen (Danes).
Talk Show Part One: In the Eyes of the Elderly
14
Photo 1 Talk Show Part 1 (L-‐R: Ms. Jessica Bercilla Teofilo "Tofin" Morado, Lucila, Marina Turibio,
Antonio Javier, Dr. Danielle Guillen and Pedro Cadab) The first part of the talk show featured the stories of the elderly members of the
community, how they struggled to live in Metro Manila, their way of life, and how they coped with the changes in the Metro and within their respective communities. The selected participants shared their dreams, aspirations, and grievances as to why for so long a time, no one has ever defended their right to live in Metro Manila, and no one looked at their order of living. They also shared a longing to thrive and improve but at the same time asked whether they still have hope for a brighter future. Before they began, the selected senior participants were asked to introduce themselves by stating their name, age, place of origin and area of residence.
Teofilo Morado, 63 years old, lives in Manggahan Pasig City, was here in Manila
since 1973 Lucila Monforte, 75 years old, originally from Iloilo, lives in Donya Imelda
Quezon City, was here in Manila since 1963 Marina Turibio, 78 years old, lives in Manggahan Pasig City Antonio Javier, 64 years old, originally from Antique, lives in San Mateo, Rizal Pedro Cadab, 59 years old, original from Masbate, lives in San Mateo, Rizal
After the introductions, each was asked to share and describe what Metro Manila was
when they first arrived. Lucila recollected Donya Imelda, Quezon City used to be a meadow. When she arrived in
Metro Manila, she fondly recalled participating in folk dances similar to the ones shown in the opening video. She has been a community volunteer since 1984 but it was only during
15
Marina Toribio, 78 yrs. old, resident of Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig City
Lucila Monforte, 75 yrs old, resident of Brgy. Doña Imelda, QC
Teofilo Morado, 63 yrs.old, resident of Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig City
2007 or 2008 when she started receiving subsidy for the community work she does. She clearly recalled that the houses built back then were all nipa huts and there were all cottages. There were no buildings and the entire barangay of Donya Imelda was grassland. Their area was so rural that carabaos and children bathe in the area where their houses are now built. Since the place was full of tall cogon grass, it was also notorious as dumping ground for murder victims. She noted that when Kapitan Liksi became the barangay captain, the place gradually improved and consequently, informal settlers were asked to move out from the place. Meralco, a private electric power distributor, owned the place where they currently live.
Meanwhile, Marina shared how she vividly remembers their place in Pasig City as a
vegetable field located near the river. The primary livelihood back then was farming although, few factories such as United Tobacco already existed. The men back then were mostly divers excavating sand from under the river and then sell them for a living. Beside
the river, was a vegetable field. Soon after, people from different areas started migrating to their place, Manggahan, and occupied the place. When the government started the Manggahan floodway project, more buildings and factories emerged forcing some residents to move out from the area. The National Housing Authority, awarded some of the government lands to a few settlers, but those who had nowhere to go decided to group together to get a share of the land they settled in. Thirty-‐six (36) square meters were awarded to each of them and Marina’s family was one of the fortunate beneficiaries. She also shared how her parents struggled just to get them to finish school. Aling Marina currently teaches elementary levels 1 and 2.
Tofin shared the origin of the term paglusob and pagsalakay (siege and invade) by the
citizens in their community known as Ninoy Aquino Pilot Community (NAPICO). He also told the story of how their place in Pasig City was called Manggahan. In 1986, there was a group of men drinking alcohol who ran out of “tapas”. When they saw the vegetable field, they harvested some of the vegetables and use them as tapas. They took advantage of the fact that no one looked after the vegetable field and the political chaos happening back them and divided the land among themselves. They used straws to establish boundaries. After a few weeks, the government found out what these men had done and tried to reclaim the land but the people who established claims stood firm. They argued that they needed the land to grow vegetables, hence the name Tanimang Bayan (People’s Field). It was in this context that the street names were named after vegetables. But the people had hidden agenda and eventually built their homes in the people’s field supposedly used only for
16
Antonio Javier, 64 yrs. old, resident of San Mateo, Rizal
Pedro Cadab, 59 yrs. old, San Mateo, Rizal
planting. The government realizes then that the people would never leave the place so in partnership with the National Housing Authority, they developed housing projects for the people. He also recalled that in 1973, there were only a few houses along Amang Rodriguez Avenue but plenty of Mango trees, thus the place was called Manggahan or
Mango Orchard. He also remembered that during the rainy season, the road would be flooded with water coming from the river and the nearby field. Eventually, when the city proper developed and along with it sources of income and livelihood grew, many migrated to Manggahan. Since then, people started flocking in Manggahan until houses replaced the Mango trees.
The family of Antonio or Tonyo lives beside the river
because this was all he could afford. He is aware that they live in a danger zone area but they cannot do anything
about it because their income is not enough to transfer to a safer place. However, he never loses hope and he believes that given a chance they could still improve their current situation. He said he is just waiting for the right project for poor people like him who live in danger zones. When Dr. Romero came to their place, his hopes went up. He said he felt like he have found a partner who understands what their situation and what they are going through. He said he was just waiting for the government to help them.
Mang Pedro recollected how his aunt brought him
to Manila in 1970 as her helper. Then in 1974, his uncle from Masbate came to Manila and made him work as construction worker. In 1985, he got into Ortigas and Company, which was about a kilometer away walk from EDSA. Because of this, he joined the People Power Revolution as a bystander hoping to see positive changes in the Philippines. It was in Metro Manila where he started a family. He also shared his own family’s experience of transferring from different LGUs and renting and buying off land from a fellow informal settler.
It was notable how the community members regard themselves as squatters or
informal settlers. When asked how the two terms differ from each other, they all agreed that the term informal settler was just a glamorized version of a squatter. They defined squatters as those who have no capacity to buy (a piece of) land or rent a house that they build their own homes in a vacant lot not rightfully owned by them where they can dwell for free. They defined squatters as people found in a place with no order or a disorganized place, living in an illegally built shanty, living in a land that is not theirs and without permission. Informal comes from the fact that their way of living is frequently disturbed by being asked to move out.
The participants coming from the informal sector also have varied opinions as to how to
deal with their situation. Some say it depends on the person and on the kind of local government they are in. Some are fortunate to have a local government who understands their situation and prioritizes them by having programs and projects that benefits them.
17
Lucy de Guzman, resident of Brgy. Doña Imelda, Quezon City
There are those who believe that people should not force themselves in Metro Manila where space is a problem. Some even said that they should not rely on help given by the government and they should do their share in uplifting their status. To some of the participants, living in a land that has been vacant for a long time is acceptable while for those living in danger zones, they wanted to get out of their perilous lifestyle.
Most shared the opinion that despite working hard to improve their situation, they
could only do so much and most of the time their resources still end up inadequate. Most of them strive to make ends meet and are willing to adjust or work with the demands of the world but are limited by their capacity to pay.
They all yearned to be given a right to own or settle in abandoned and/or empty lots in
Metro Manila. A few of their wishes include a generously wealthy person buying off a piece land to be distributed to them or build a housing project for them. Those who grew up in the place where they currently reside would not want to be transferred to another place so they suggested a tenement to be built for them. Some just wanted a secure place to live regardless where they will be taken but some also do not want to be moved from where they are now. They do not want a high-‐end or middle class residential area, but just an orderly place to settle in. All of them were also willing to pay rent or lease as long as they will be placed in a secure, safe a location and a guarantee that they will never be displaced.
Talk Show Part Two: In the Eyes of the Youth
The second part of the show started with an audiovisual presentation showing the
transformation of Metro Manila from1940s to the present. This time the younger generation raised their concerns and grievances regarding their present situation. This second part featured the selected younger generation of the community as represented by:
Lucy de Guzman, resides in Donya Imelda; Myelene Pagakpak, 18 years old, originally from Samar, resides in Estero de San
Miguel; Nancy Berion, 41 years old, born in Pasig but now resides in Mandaluyong;
Dennis Policarpio, 40 years old, born and still resides in Welfare ville; and Quin Cruz, 2nd term barangay councilor from Manggahan Pasig City
To start the discussion, the hosts asked the participants to
describe their situation in their current place of residence. Lucy began by a rundown of her family’s nomadic lifestyle. She
grew up in a simple family, always renting and moving from one informal settlement to another. She was proud that despite their living condition, her father raised her and her six siblings well. Her main issue was housing and she is wishing that the government would include people like them in their priority programs and
projects. She contends that the government should have great consideration on them when deciding what to do with large parcels of land that they own. She expressed her strong objection to the current trend that instead of allocating to the needy, the government sells
18
Mylene Pagakpak, 18 yrs. old, resident of Brgy. Estero de San Miguel
Nancy Berion, 41 yrs.old, resident of Welfareville, Brgy. Addition Hills, Mandaluyong City
Quin Cruz, 2nd term barangay councilor from Manggahan Pasig City
Quin Cruz, 2nd term barangay councilor from Manggahan Pasig City
the land to rich people and earns profit from it. She thinks that this is not fair for them who could not even afford rent in a decent place.
Dennis was born and raised in the place he currently resides in.
He remembered that Welfare Ville used to be called Boystown and it being free from houses. Houses started to emerge when it became a relocation site for fire victims until informal settlers slowly flocked in. Welfare ville is a property of the local government. The local government of Mandaluyong wanted to develop welfare ville to make it a livable place for its current residents. The residents of welfare ville owned the rights to the land however, it has not been awarded to them yet because it still has to go through a bidding process.
Myelene, broke down to tears as she recalled
why her family moved in to Metro Manila from Samar. She narrated that after she lost her father, her mother decided to move to Metro Manila to start anew. She told the interviewer that she’s a member of Philippine Educational Theater Association (PETA), a group of creative and critical young artist-‐teacher-‐cultural workers that fosters both personal fulfillment
and social transformation. 5 According to her their group aims to exhibit, particularly to the affluent members of the society their living conditions in settlement areas and conveyed their desire to own a house.
Nancy belongs to the few groups of informal settlers with an
accommodating local government. Their LGU plans to develop their current location to accommodate their needs and committed to provide money to build them a new home.
Councilor Quin said that the main problem of their barangay is
the lack of space. Their local government has housing projects for them such as medium rise buildings to deal with the space issue
but in his opinion, this still was not enough. The government has yet to address their other needs. They still have problems with safety, sanitation, and health. He wanted the government’s planning perspective to change from immediate to long-‐term to consider their other social needs.
As an advocate for gender and development, he also suggested the need for a
revolutionary training that would change the mindset of the people from the local 5 Source: http://petatheater.com/about-‐peta/
19
government to include the marginalized and vulnerable sectors in gender and development planning.
Dennis stressed the importance of taking Census6 seriously so the government would
have baseline as to how much the people are willing and able to pay to own a house. He believes that from there, the government would be able to develop proper housing projects that the poor can afford.
Just like their senior counterparts, the much younger members of the informal settlers community were also willing to pay for their homes so long as they are guaranteed never to be displaced and that their location be improved according to their needs. Their wishes include the fulfillment of a medium rise building that would relocate those living in danger zones. This fulfillment includes a non-‐politicized process of selecting the beneficiaries giving precedence to those who have been residing in the area for some time. Ultimately, they pushed for social inclusion in government decision making and planning.
Open Forum Question of a LGU employee, CENRO of Pasig City to
Councilor Quin Cruz: In what sense is the housing project of the local government for the informal settlers in Pasig not enough? Pasig City has a Local Inter-‐Agency Committee composed of NHA, HUDC, PCUB and the Commission on Human Rights which sought to address the problems faced by the informal communities near the river and other areas in Pasig. They follow a process that listens to the needs of the communities.
Response from Councilor Quin Cruz: Participation forms a big part in the planning
process. He mentioned how for 25 years he witnessed the barangay assembly changed from purely participatory to being pseudo participatory merely done in compliance to the DILG mandate without a proper monitoring mechanism in place. Barangay assembly used to follow a parliamentary procedure providing a venue for free discussion where people can freely propose. He felt that there is a need to apply the true essence of participatory with proper mechanisms to monitor people’s participation in place.
Captain Filomena Singko shared the bottom up planning approach in Estero de San
Miguel. She agreed that true people’s participation is essential in planning especially since based on experience, most form of participation is for compliance only where the barangay captain will select among the members of the community who will sit in the planning process. The names would be submitted to DILG and those selected would receive the mandated honoraria. Dialogues are not dialogue in the truest sense of the word instead become an orientation of the proposed changes or plans. Conversations are turned into orientation as to where the community will be taken and what will happen to them without even consulting them. All development should have social inclusion. Informal settlers should also not be seen as an eye sore but rather partners in development. In a truly participatory setting, informal settlers are part of the solution seeking process. A true dialogue should listen to both parties and look at solutions that are amenable to both.
6 From Wikipedia: A census is the procedure of systematically acquiring and recording
information about the members of a given population. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census
20
Consultation with informal settlers should always be a priority by the government and they should be given a chance to uplift their status in life. They expressed their right to live in the city along with everybody else and not be treated as a problem of the society.
It was assured that efforts of the government to improve the situation of the community
were all appreciated. The selected respondents shared their actual experiences in their respective communities. This part had no intention to criticize or identify the shortcomings of the government. The main issue raised was the sensitivity of the things that are being constructed for the poor hence their clamor for a more participatory planning process.
Synthesis
DR. SEGUNDO ROMERO Dr. Romero recognized the value of the process they have just witnessed. He could not
stress enough the value of listening and the essence of participation. The message of having an available technology of participation was clear in fact, the project team used this available technology in the five study areas. The data the project team collected were key in planning. Since the government and the community have different focus, with the latter focusing on inputs rather than outcomes, the data collected would bring both focuses together and fused into a concrete plan. The government needs to apply the technology of listening in planning to consider the needs and thoughts of the community members.
It is ideal and correct to consult with the community before making any decision or
before pouring out resources to a program or project. A form of consultation that asks the people about their problems, what solutions or alternatives they see and which among those alternatives is most favorable to them. Who should be responsible and how else could they collaborate to come up with a perfect solution.
Dr. Romero also agreed in how the community members defined their state of being
informal. Informal meant having a disorderly disposition but also stressed that everyone has every right to live in Metro Manila. The question was who could fix their current disposition? The community members expressed their willingness to share with the responsibility but they need partners because as is they have no capacity to bring order by themselves. He commended the keenness of the people to pay and share with the responsibility. But this enthusiasm does not get to the government hence the reason for misunderstanding.
Workshop 1: Factors That are Changing The Way People Live In Metro Manila
This workshop required the participants to
find within themselves the drivers for change in Metro Manila. The participants were asked, what they thought were the causes or reasons for Metro Manila to change? The causes may be positive or negative. They were given papers to write as many answers as they could in fifteen minutes. In order to mingle with others, they were directed to work in groups of
21
three. Some examples were seen at the board including Urbanization, Hunger, Energy and Security, Reproductive Health, Water Shortage, Climate Change, Connectivity etc. They were not limited to them and were in fact asked to qualify their answers e.g. if they answered population, they had to tell whether it was increasing or decreasing?
Once done, the participants were asked to classify their answers with similar ideas.
Below were their answers classified accordingly:
Physical
Increasing infrastructure development Inadequate drainage canals catch basins MMDA/ DPWH flood control masterplan Place of entertainment and fun/ leisure Housing backlog Extreme traffic due to rapid increase of road vehicles Having many buildings or institutions Place to study/ best schools located (concentrated in Metro Mania) Insufficient infrastructure development Poor public transportation services (inefficient, poorly maintained) Shortage in MRT/ LRT Vehicle volume Transportation efficiency Shortage in international airports Presence of universities and colleges (education)
Physical-‐Environmental
Lack of green and walkable spaces Given their own land and houses at low rates
Environmental
Change in climate and flooding in Metro Manila Environmental destruction/ Deteriorating urban ecosystem of Metro Manila Growing/ Chronic/ Worsening disasters (manmade and natural) Sensitivity to environmental concerns Aggravating air pollution Severe air pollution Environmental degradation
Social
Rapid Urbanization – growing population (migration/ organic growth) Migration from town to city Delivery of good service to sick people Broken families due to OFW exports Huge contribution of media – both print and TV ads High crime rates
22
Absence of discipline of citizens Persuading relatives from provinces to live in Metro Manila Shortage in education Education being used in politics Changes in the field of education – higher quality Close family ties and support system Heightened individualism Lack of unity between rich and poor Harmony in national government Respect to everyone’s rights Inadequate medicines (sickness) Poverty due to low salary Consolation to reduce poverty Behavior of the youth Insufficiency on food and children’s vitamins (nutrition) Government informal settler relocation program Aggravating source of poverty Value of communal unity lost Higher concentration of wealth Availability of basic services: hospitals Good life (perception of people from rural towards Metro Manila) More benefits for senior citizens Increasing number of women heads of companies More foreigners had land while informal settlers still had no place to live in Increasing and recurring demolitions Increased technological advancement Social media and online platforms for citizen advocacy and participation Giving voice to the youth
Economic Aggravating consumerism Lack or loss of source of income in provinces Presence of multinational companies (employment) More night workers (BPOs) = 24 hour economy Entry of young entrepreneurs Change in prices of goods Upgrading lifestyle OFW influence Presence of services and facilities Wage increase Economic policies In the part of fisherfolks in Laguna lake, they could not move at par with the development in Metro Manila due to poor implementation of RA 8550 Economic development Increasing economic opportunity Increasing modernization Growing rate of unemployment Livelihood programs for PWDs (more opportunities)
23
Advance technology (ICT, medicine, transportation) Proliferation of internet and cellphone Jobs (easy to earn money in Metro Manila)
Institutional
Severe corruption Mindset and priority of leaders in the community Access to information and participation regarding opportunities Change in leadership and platform of government Reduced corruption Recent approval of legislative measures like the RH Bill, K-‐12, Sin tax Lack of political will Cooperation of government and community Laws favorable to informal settlers System change Elect those who can help the poor Lack of enforcement in barangay and city ordinances Poor implementation of laws/ policies Politicians using the urban poor Government program are not responding to the needs of the poor Many accessible organizations Seat of government (centralization) Laws being used by politicians for their own benefit Good purpose
Workshop 2: Highly Important and Uncertain Factors
After identifying and classifying the drivers for change in Metro Manila, the participants
were given twenty minutes to place sticker dots on drivers that they felt brought the most moving and most pervasive change in Metro Manila.
24
Ms. Manlangit facilitating Workshop 1: Factors That are Changing The Way People Live In Metro Manila.
There were some participants who wanted to classify their answers as those bringing
positive or negative changes. However, Mr. Benjie dela Peña tried to differentiate change from a problem, soon as he noticed that the participants were confusing change with problem. He said that change could be good or bad whereas a problem is never a good thing. The participants were substituting change with problem when in fact those are two different things. A problem is different from the reason for change e.g. corruption is a major problem but not a reason for change. Nothing changes because there is corruption. Despite this, the participants still wanted to qualify the changes into positive and negative change. So Ms. Bercilla agreed for the participants to use blue sticker dots for positive changes while any colored dots for reasons that caused negative change.
25
Participants being critical in placing sticker dots in metacards where the drivers of change they think are big factors in changing Metro Manila are written.
After twenty minutes, the drivers for change that had fifteen stickers or more were
considered the highly important factors of change in Metro Manila. The top eleven reasons of changes in Metro Manila were:
1. Quality of governance
a. Political dynasty cost of poverty b. Politics main source of poverty
2. Effectiveness of urban planning a. Lack of urban planning
3. Quality of transport system a. Shortage in MRT/ LRT
4. Rate of job creation a. Business and job opportunities in Manila
5. People’s access to technology (internet, SMS, etc) a. Increased technological advancement
6. Population growth due to migration a. Migration from the province to city
7. Population growth due to reproduction a. Rapid urbanization increase in population (migration/ organic growth)
8. Crime rate a. High crime rates
9. Supply of public housing a. Housing backlog
10. Rate of environmental degradation
26
a. Environment degradation 11. Adaptation to (natural) hazards
a. Change in climate and flood in Metro Manila
Comment #1: In quality of governance, there should be a joint effort between the government and the community. The government will not be able to do its job without the cooperation of the citizens. The quality of governance also meant having public participation and this spells the difference between government and governance. Governance involved the people and stakeholders.
Comment #2: It was suggested that perhaps population growth due to reproduction
could be deleted since this would deal greatly with the RH Bill and this one would require a different category all by itself. Some issues and perceived drivers were also identified:
• There are many different levels or degree of
increase in population. • Some poor families have more than seven children • There is high rate of teenage pregnancy among the
poor • Media also plays a big role in these issues on
population increase • Quality of education is also one of the main reasons
for population change in Metro Manila.
Workshop 3: Potent Combination of Drivers
In planning, it is crucial to find out the indefinite. This workshop aimed at identifying
those that are uncertain in the future. The participants were asked to place sticker dots on the first column if they thought that the reason for change in Metro Manila would certainly, without doubt bring change in Metro Manila and place sticker on the third column if that reason for change seems precarious. Below is a tally of the sticker dots:
FUTURE IS CERTAIN
TOP DRIVERS OF CHANGE FUTURE IS UNCERTAIN
14 QUALITY OF GOVERNANCE 1 4 EFFECTIVENESS OF URBAN PLANNING 11 1 QUALITY OF TRANSPORT SYSTEM 3 10 RATE OF JOB CREATION 2 8 PEOPLE’S ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY 1 7 POPULATION GROWTH DUE TO MIGRATION 0 11 POPULATION GROWTH DUE TO REPRODUCTION 9 4 CRIME RATE 3 6 SUPPLY OF PUBLIC HOUSING 1 5 RATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION 0 10 ADAPTATION TO NATURAL HAZARDS 5
Ms. Manlangit asked the participants to explain how the ratings on the board came to
be.
27
Population growth seemed to have a definite future because of the RH bill while a few thought it was uncertain because of the resistance from the Catholic Church in terms of its implementation. But the key to making the future of this reason for change was the presence of a policy.
Quality of governance was also quite certain in the future because of the growing
awareness on civic engagement. Social Accountability is now being practiced even on the part of the government making them more aware and supportive of anti-‐corruption efforts. Therefore, a number of public servants now use their heart in service rather than just their pockets. Other dimensions such as political dynasty also affect the quality of governance.
A connection could not be established between the quality of governance which was full
of certainty with the effectiveness in urban planning whose future seemed to be uncertain. The inconsistency was perceived to come from the government putting focus on planning for their city but not the entire Metro Manila thus the continuity and sustainability of urban planning depends on the one in power. Some said that urban planning was synonymous to disaster risk reduction and mitigation for LGUs. In was in this context that the adaptation to natural hazards turned out to have a definite future for the participants. The disconnect lies in the fact that hazards in Metro Manila are all man made and not due to a changing climate.
Someone observed that all the reasons for change in Metro Manila were connected. In
fact, everything could be found in the comprehensive land use plan and zoning ordinances of the LGUs. Therefore, if urban planning was deemed effective, it means everything must be in order. Once again, the process of participatory planning wherein stakeholders are part of the process was raised as an important point or the overall argument. Adaptation to hazards could be found in mainstreaming disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation measures of the local government.
Dr. Romero said that all the top reasons for change in Metro Manila have great and vast
effects. In his interpretation of the exercise, fourteen out of fifteen were certain about the future for quality of governance but whether that change was positive or negative, they would not know, it just simply meant that people were sure about its future. The result also stated that urban planning was always futile regardless of the kind of government.
What they wanted to get from the exercise was to know which among the top 11
reasons for change in Metro Manila have a dubious future. The two drivers with most uncertain but important future would be combined to get the best vision or scenario. They wanted to look at the unknown to be able to make different scenarios that they could use in planning. Dr. Romero warned everyone to be careful in choosing the right combination of drivers otherwise the scenarios would appear drab. The default was to choose the top two drivers with the highest uncertainty rating. Below were the proposed combinations:
• Effectiveness of urban planning and population growth due to reproduction was
the default combination winner according to the tally board. • Effectiveness of urban planning and adaptation of hazards was a possible
combination because of their connection. If urban planning was effective, then there would be no more floods or there would be good flood mitigation projects. But Mr. dela Peña did not quite agree with this combination. He felt that this one was not a possible combination because there would be a quadrant that won’t likely happen. i.e. urban planning is effective but the area an the people are not
28
prepared in hazards. Unless the measurement of effectiveness in urban planning has nothing to do with hazards, this scenario is not viable.
• Effectiveness of urban planning and development and population growth (due to reproduction). Since all seems to be related to each other, some of the reasons were merged under a single heading. Effectiveness of urban planning and development included adaptation to hazards, quality of transport system, supply for public housing, rate of job creation, and rate of environmental degradation. Participants were a bit hesitant to add development because development for them signifies the government dictating development plans to people and people not being included in the planning and solution seeking process. The word had a negative connotation for them that meant government plans alone. The people’s measure for effectiveness of urban planning was the element of participation. Removal of “due to reproduction” from population growth was proposed because population increase has many causes not just reproduction i.e. day time population, natural, migration etc.
There was a question as to why limit the driver to two when all seems to be potent driver of change in Metro Manila and everything seems to be connected. Ms. Bercilla opened the floor for everyone to vote, if they decide to work on all eleven reasons, they would be developing 121 scenarios the following day. Hearing about this the participants agreed to have only two.
Summary and Integration
DR. SEGUNDO ROMERO Dr. Romero was happy that the participants were able to create and identify a powerful
combination. The following day these two combinations would be placed into a matrix that the participants would create stories from.
He was proud that they have accomplished a lot in this day. A great milestone for Metro
Manila was the post World War II era, as it became the second most devastated city in the world. He commended that despite the post World War II era, many still saw the light and goodness of this event. He also said that it usually takes two most important factors to analyze and to put more focus and direction in planning.
29
Mr. Cordova giving a recap on the day 1 workshop.
Inclusive Futures Mapping Day 2
6 MARCH 2013
Recap
MR. JAY-‐R CORDOVA Research Associate
Mr. Cordova started the second day by reading an event release on event
documentation. This event may be recorded by photograph, audio and video devices. Your presence indicates your consent to the use of your name, likeness and voice in any such recordings by the Rockefeller Foundation and its licensees in any media in perpetuity. After Ms. Bercilla led an energizing prayer, Mr. Cordova gave a comprehensive recap of
what transpired the day before. Yesterday’s program formally started with registration at 8:30 am then at 9:00 am, the
program began by opening remarks from Dr. Antonio La Viña and an inspirational message from the Ateneo de Manila University President, Fr. Jett Villarin. Both of them recognized the important need for planning towards a better Metro Manila. They both admitted that looking as far ahead as 2040 is a big challenge especially if the planners are not equipped with ideas about the future but they also both said that planning could be done. If planning, dreaming, and execution for themselves, community and the country are done together, it could be done.
They also said it is good to examine one’s role or part in the fulfillment of the plans along with their individual responsibility for one another and the country.
This was followed by an introduction of the members of the Project Steering Committee
and the project team. The organizers of this workshop were delighted to note that 50% of the participation came from the community, 15% from both the national and local government and the remaining 25% was from the private sector, media, NGOs and CSOs.
A briefing about the informal city dialogue project of Ateneo School of Government’s
Assistant Dean, Dr. Mary Jean Caleda, shortly followed the introductions. She showed a teaser video about the Forum For The Future’s informal city dialogues. After the photo
30
session and break, team up of Jec and Danes followed soon after. Their segment entitled Metro Manila: Then and Now featured a video documentary on the Pearl of the Orient set during the early 1900s. An interview with the elderly who were here in Metro Manila three or four generations ago shortly followed the video presentation. Then another short video showing how Metro Manila evolved from the 1940s, during Wolrd War II, until the present seen followed by a discussion featuring the younger generation. Some of the highlights of this segment include finding out that a huge percent of the population in Metro Manila are migrants from various places in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. There were not many high-‐rise buildings back then and most were agricultural land although there were a few budding central business districts and industrial areas in some areas. Some said that they reside in danger zones because that was all they could afford. The profound understanding of what being informal means was evident in the interviews. They all wished to convey the message that they all have a significant role in the society. Most are volunteers but a big percentage belong to the social service sector while some, including some of the elderly, work for the formal industry sector.
The participants presented their desires in their present situation. They wanted to have
their own house and established that they have the capacity to pay. They also strongly implied that in plans to provide housing projects for them, it should be in line with the people’s plan or actual needs. There should be elements of livelihood and be seen as holistic and with proper system in place. They also strongly argue that government plans should prioritize the poor and marginalized and not mainly focused on gaining profit.
They also recognized that they have problems within their sector. There are those who
sell and rent out rights of lands that are not rightfully theirs. In planning, they recognized the crucial role of the Census or such surveys in government decision making to know the capacity of the informal settlers to pay for housing. They also saw the important role of arts such as PETA in highlighting their importance in the society and the possible things that can be done for them in their respective areas.
It was also noted that there were government offices both from the national and local
who plan to develop their current place, as in the case of Mandaluyong who granted informal settlers additional funds to build homes and provide services for the poor.
Some of the pressing points raised were the need to have social inclusivity in planning
and for the process to be participatory. Questions on what is the proper planning process and project implementation? What is the right mechanism for participation? Were brought up because they saw that there were many different levels of participation and technologies available for use. It is crucial to see what is the correct combination technology of listening and participation? and how does one monitor the level of participation?
They also made it clear that informal settlers should not be seen as an eyesore but
rather partners in development. They should always be included in the decision-‐making and solution seeking process and must be given a chance to achieve their desires to improve their situation in life. Gender and Development issues and the corresponding perspectives were also raised as an important factor in development.
Workshop one, mentioned the reasons for change in Metro Manila. What were the
perspectives of the drivers for change? There were more than 80 drivers of change identified, selected, and categorized into different themes: physical, environmental, social,
31
economic and institutional. The participants were given a chance to choose which among these drivers have the most effects (positive or negative) in Metro Manila by using sticker dots. The participants were able to identify top 11 reasons and ranked them according to those which were certain or uncertain in the future. There was a discussion as to which among the top reasons were the perfect combinations of drivers for change required to build a resilient future. Only those which future is unpredictable or uncertain were considered. The top three reasons with uncertain future were lack of urban planning, population growth due to reproduction, and adaptation to natural hazards. But since all agreed that most of the hazards in Metro Manila were man made, they opted to delete “natural” in hazards. Urban planning is a vast concept that starts from planning up to actual planning and development. Lack of urban planning was defined vis-‐à-‐vis the other reasons for change. Thus, development was added to include adaptation to hazards, job creation, quality of transportation system, supply of public housing and rate of environmental degradation. Since population growth has many aspects, they decided to make it generic. The combination would be used to build scenarios of the future. In the end, lack of urban planning and development and population growth were seen as the two most vital drivers for change.
Before moving on to workshop four, Mr. Cordova asked the new comers to introduce
themselves. Then he showed another short video that illustrates how the 5 community areas in Metro Manila got to the workshop. They followed a dialogue system that used a timeline to show what the communities see in the future. The dialogues highlighted what resources do they have in their respective communities? They identified available facilities, basic services, and what affects their living. What is their state of living? What do they see in their communities that need to be changed? There were a lot of factors identified. They were also asked who they thought could help them and what were the barriers for change to happen in their communities. This process showed a glimpse of their means of living and the aspects in community planning that involves themselves, their families, barangays, LGUs, and the entire Metro Manila.
Reflections from the Participants
Melchor from Laguna: There was a pretty good discussion the surfaced the issues and
problem. The process pointed out was correct to include the poor and marginalized sector in planning. If the poor do not speak about their experiences in their respective communities, they would not be able to reflect on what needs to be done.
Rosal, from Rizal Laguna: The issues were expounded and visualized especially on how
they see 2040. They also saw their individual contribution and the barriers toward their vision of Metro Manila in 2040. Choosing only two drivers for change was a difficult but important process.
Filomena, form Estero De San Miguel Manila: This was a very good opportunity to hear
our side, the NGO and the government. They had good discussion yesterday as she saw openness from all sides. She would have wished to have their respective LGUs present to see and hear the point of view of the poor and for the LGUs to air their side as well. They perceived LGUs as barriers of change so it was important for them that the LGUs listen to what the poor had to say. She urged the organizers to invite the LGUs in the succeeding workshops.
32
Danilo, from UPAO-‐QC: The discussion yesterday was greatly appreciated. They
realized that the LGUs should not dictate their development plans and maximum people’s participation should be exercised. Generally the government says that their plans are appropriate for the communities but hearing the experiences of the community yesterday proved that they were not appropriate all. Participation is his advocacy because he belongs to the same sector and was blessed to work with the government. A participatory process of dialogue was done yesterday and he hoped that something good would come out from this.
Tina, from MMDA: Their agency may not always be visible for the poor but she assured
them that their hearts are there in planning for them as evident apparent by their representation in this workshop. She considered it very important to hear the inputs and insights of the poor and marginalized sector. They learned a lot from the communities yesterday and felt that their language should all be translated into planning for Metro Manila. They assured to get and keep the LGUs involved by relaying all the information they got from this workshop to them. She was impressed by the different kind of dialogue used yesterday, it was lively, not like what they have done in the past or any she has seen. She looks forward to a productive conclusion of some concrete measures that could be focused and used as input to USAID, HUDC, AusAid projects. They have gotten plenty of insights from the communities and mentioned that they have a number of projects waiting to be implemented.
Rey, from MMDA: He saw the importance of listening in order to understand the issues
well. Lucy, from Donya Imelda: She liked the discussion yesterday but felt a little
apprehensive about it. She knew about similar dialogues but nothing happened to the issues they aired. She felt that participation was the right process in terms of reflecting on what needs to be done for the community.
Norby: He was thankful that the youth were given an opportunity to participate in a
dialogue that was open for everybody to give his or her opinion about things that can help develop the society. He realized that the environment and people are the two most important factors in development. All kinds of development should respect the environment and people. The people would benefit from these developments and the youth, being the next generation should be involved in the process. Also everyone should have regard for environment because whatever kind of development, if there is no consideration for the environment would get nowhere.
Quin Cruz, from Pasig City: He saw the importance of sensitivity with each other
regardless of the sector they belong. The discussion yesterday made them felt that they were all equal in terms of the state in society and educational attainment. In an open dialogue, this sensitivity to others is key to getting good results and in seeing the ingredients for an effective plan.
Workshop 4: Building the Scenarios
Dr. Romero gave a workshop overview. This 2-‐day workshop looked at the shape of
Metro Manila in the future. After this, another workshop is lined up to come up with a plan
33
Dr. Romero explaining to the participants how the Futures Wheel works.
that could be funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. He gave the participants an assurance that all their efforts for this workshop would be put into good use. As mentioned yesterday, the Rockefeller Foundation would share $1 million to six cities including Metro Manila so everyone was encouraged to partner with the Ateneo School of Government and help each other to get a share of the grant. This workshop aims to outline what they intend to do.
Yesterday, the participants voiced out
their desire to improve their lives in Metro Manila. They have identified rate of population growth from migration and natural change and effectiveness of urban planning and development as the two most important factors in changing Metro Manila. So for this fourth part of the workshop, the participants were asked to look at population in Metro Manila, which has been increasing meaning people constantly, flock to Metro Manila. Data showed that in 1990 Metro Manila population shared only .9% of the total Philippine population but now the percentage share grew to more than 30%.
A matrix of the two identified drivers, seen below was presented. In this matrix, both
factors have high and low setting and when cross-‐tabulated, created four unique scenarios.
Driver 2: Effectiveness of
Urban Planning and Development
Driver 1: Population Growth Low High
High
Scenario 1: SLOW growth of population and EFFECTIVE urban planning and development
Scenario 2: RAPID growth of population and EFFECTIVE urban planning and development
Low
Scenario 3: SLOW growth of population and INEFFECTIVE urban planning and development
Scenario 4: RAPID growth of population and INEFFECTIVE urban planning and development
At this point, Dr. Romero instructed for the participants to group themselves according
to where they were seated and give names to the scenario assigned to them. To make it more creative, they were asked to name their groups using a title of a movie or a song . Afterwards, participants were asked to construct various circumstances across different horizons. What would be the everyday story of their particular scenario? Once they agreed with the face, icons and characterization of their scenarios, they were instructed to make a futures wheel where they could brainstorm, put their scenario at the center and ask themselves what are the implications if that was the scenario in Metro Manila. The first arrows from the center represented the first levels of impact. After seeing the connection or the relationship of each circumstance to one another, they were instructed to determine the timeline of events: 2021 – 2030 and 2030 – 2040.
For 25 minutes, the four groups were asked to brainstorm on the following questions
(1) what they thought is normally happening in the city under their respective scenario; (2)
34
What kind of society would there be?; (3) What would be the norm?. Afterwhich, for 7 minutes, they were asked to think about the extreme circumstances and other possible circumstance that they might have missed out.
Workshop Outputs: Building the Scenarios
Scenario 4: “Run Samson Run”
RAPID growth of population and INEFFECTIVE urban planning and development
Facilitator: Jay-‐R Cordova Presenter: Quin Cruz and Melchor Majano
NORMALLY HAPPENING
EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCE OTHER POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE POSITIVE NEGATIVE
Filthy informal settler families
More manpower and human resources -‐ opportunities to invest in human resource, volunteer or skilled
Anarchy -‐ no government control over the country
Climate change
-‐ People (not ready) high casualty/high risk
-‐ Environment -‐ Structures-‐ mass
destruction No more public open spaces
Intervention of international community
No development Ghost Town -‐ Out migration (brain
drain) Overloaded public utilities
Stronger grassroots/ community initiatives -‐ community empowerment
No food Value System -‐ Moral degradation
(people have no idea of what's right or what's wrong)
-‐ Defiant behavior Inadequate basic services (housing, health/ medicines)
Challenge in governance and policy (drive for government to do more)
Brutal police enforcement
Vulnerability to mental and psychological disorder
High unemployment
New capital -‐ a new city to start anew
Pagbaba ng land value
Food shortage Deflation -‐ Decrease in prices of
goods due to competition effect
-‐ Low salary Many are sick (eg. infectious diseases)
Businesses move to another place
Poor solid waste Increase of informal
35
NORMALLY HAPPENING
EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCE OTHER POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE POSITIVE NEGATIVE
management businesses Worse pollution -‐ water and air
Poor quality of education -‐ High drop-‐out rate
Serious high crime rate and drug
Increase of substandard buildings
Rising prostitution (STDs)
Inadequate education (school and teachers
Overcrowded character of neighborhoods
Traffic High vulnerability to disaster
Lack of capacity in planning
Ineffective drainage at sewerage system
Unpleasant, hot, tight, dirty
Brownout The youth are rude Surplus labor
Scenario 3: “Maghintay ka Lamang”
SLOW growth of population and INEFFECTIVE urban planning and development Facilitator: Ms. Criselda Doble Presenter: Jobe dela Torre NORMALLY HAPPENING
EXTREME SITUATIONS OTHER POSSIBLE SITUATIONS POSITIVE NEGATIVE
Less young people and more senior
Satisfied with way of life
Long-‐term planning not required because there will not be much problem (day-‐to-‐day way of life) no complaints, indifferent
Less Filipinos, more foreign migrants
36
NORMALLY HAPPENING
EXTREME SITUATIONS OTHER POSSIBLE SITUATIONS POSITIVE NEGATIVE
People makes plans and not the government
Metro Manila would be like what is was during the 1960s-‐1960s (laid-‐back)
Aging population -‐ outsource labor
Many are unemployed (PWDs)
Because there is no space problem, easy relocation when flooding comes
Businesses will be controlled by foreign investors (profit/ money will be brought out of the country)
Older (aged) labor force
Diminishing race, aging population, vulnerable to impact of climate change
More working, less studying
Emphasis on geriatric medicine
Many calamities because of poor urban planning
More “home for the aged”
Less hazard victims, faster rescue operations
Slow business No transport system (ineffective)
Many still live in esteros
People are happy Wider roads, more urban spaces
More will benefit to the little assistance (housing)
Low crime rate Effectiveness of urban planning and development is not important to the people
People are patient and contented
More responsive to the needs of the people
More opportunity for children to study in public schools
Orderly environment
37
Scenario 2: “Hawak Kamay”
RAPID growth of population and EFFECTIVE urban planning and development
Facilitator: Dr. Danielle Guillen Presenters: Jaime Evangelita and Rosal Italia
NORMALLY HAPPENING
EXTREME SITUATIONS OTHER POSSIBLE SITUATIONS POSITIVE NEGATIVE
Well developed, well coordinated, orderly, abundant, clean and no traffic
Abundant of food supply
Collapse of building due to earthquake
Problematic agriculture
Bring back EDSA experience
More jobs Over populated "robotized"/ high tech
Orderly IFS Happy family Gadgets and technology forbids people to talk
Longer lifespan
Plenty of opportunities
No more beggars All diseases are curable
No more ISF Exacerbating climate change
Physical Reduction of crime rate (0%)
No more gasoline
Well developed Ethical politician Development of gadgets Orderly condition of ISF (formalized system)
No more corrupt “Juan” is no longer lazy
No more demolition
All the children are in school
Sustainable energy source (solar)
There will still be flood but the city is well prepared
No more street children
Well-‐developed flood control system and community resiliency system
No more out of school youth
High level of awareness (gender sensitivity)
No one is poor Social Laws are
implemented in an orderly manner
Generally peaceful Level up sector organization
Well-‐educated Recreational
38
NORMALLY HAPPENING
EXTREME SITUATIONS OTHER POSSIBLE SITUATIONS POSITIVE NEGATIVE
centers Accessibility of basic services
Disciplined citizens Economic Livelihood training centers (eg. baristas)
Scenario 1: “Kanlungan”
SLOW growth of population and EFFECTIVE urban planning and development
Facilitator: Aurma Manlangit Presenter: Tofin
NORMALLY HAPPENING
EXTREME SITUATIONS OTHER POSSIBLE SITUATIONS POSITIVE NEGATIVE
Prosperous communities (complete facilities, organized transportation system, healthy population)
Progressive, peaceful, quiet communities
Aging population Because of slow population rate, there will be more foreigners
No more ISF No more crimes Loss of able government leaders
Reduced manual labor because of advanced technology – will have health implications
Housing available No one will be hungry
Low manual labor force
More professionals (engineers, scientist, etc), improved wages
Clean environment All the sick will be attended to
No more OFW, more employment opportunities
Presence of health centers with labor services
Government can provide for all basic services, budget will be enough
No more ISF – everyone will be home owners
Efficient transportation
Access to health by all types of patient (PWDs)
More leisure time
Ready for disaster Faster development because of fewer population
Clean air (no Because aging
39
NORMALLY HAPPENING
EXTREME SITUATIONS OTHER POSSIBLE SITUATIONS POSITIVE NEGATIVE
pollution) population, care giving services would increase
Zero waste (mountains of garbage)
More parks, more space for "green" projects
Waste segregation Lesser budget for peace order services
Jobs are available No traffic congestion Less crime (eg. drugs, prostitution, gambling)
More family quality time
Faster and orderly delivery of basic services (eg. completehealth facilities)
Easier and more participative dialogue
Good quality education for everyone (eg. SPED) more use of technology like computers for special children
Organized communities (people have good values and unityetc.)
Workshop 5: Finishing Scenarios
This part of the workshop determined the relationship of each circumstance to one
another. For one hour, each group came up with their own futures wheel.
Workshop Outputs:
Scenario 4: “Run Samson Run”
RAPID growth of population and INEFFECTIVE urban planning and development
40
Scenario 3: “Maghintay ka Lamang”
SLOW growth of population and INEFFECTIVE urban planning and development
Scenario 2: “Hawak Kamay”
RAPID growth of population and EFFECTIVE urban planning and development
41
Scenario 1: “Kanlungan”
SLOW growth of population and EFFECTIVE urban planning and development
Group Critiquing Outputs
Each group was asked to move to their right and evaluate the other group’s work. Each
group was asked to add on to the other groups futures wheel as needed.
42
Scenario 4: “Run Samson Run”
RAPID growth of population and INEFFECTIVE urban planning and development The photo inserted below reflects the changes that the group "Hawak Kamay" proposed
to the futures wheel of this group.
Scenario 3: “Maghintay ka Lamang”
SLOW growth of population and INEFFECTIVE urban planning and development The group "Run Samson Run" did not see any notable change or anything that this
group might have missed in their futures wheel.
Scenario 2: “Hawak Kamay”
SLOW growth of population and EFFECTIVE urban planning and development The photo inserted below reflects the changes or additional data that the group
"Kanlungan" proposed to the futures wheel of this group.
43
Scenario 1: “Kanlungan”
SLOW growth of population and EFFECTIVE urban planning and development The photo below reflects the proposed changes of the group "Maghintay ka Lamang" to
the futures wheel of the group.
The comment that sparked debate was the addition of “materialistic and complacent
population” from the group's output. For the group who painted this scenario, this was an ideal population with less crime
and more quality family time. There is nothing materialistic in having less social problem. If a society has achieved this seemingly perfect situation, the society might have an altruistic
44
value. They will help other countries in need. What they thought of was an ultimate scenario with a benevolent society. The level of living will elevate, a new form of human development will happen where the citizens would reinvent themselves and they will have a new purpose in life.
The group who made this comment
explained that in this scenario where there is practically no more problem, it is possible that a portion of the population could be trapped in a system of apathy. This is what’s happening in Singapore. The people became too complacent because the government provides for everything the society needs. The people’s values diminished that even their morality are anchored on materialistic things even with quality family time. The family may be together the whole time but
the gadgets make it difficult for them to come together face to face. This is an alternate reality. Even when it comes to a point when the society has no problem, it is still possible to have problem coming from an affluent society. The value-‐oriented people are just a fraction of the society, there is a majority of the society who have a disjoint with the humanitarian value. This is a probability that could happen. Sometimes when the society has nothing to worry, there is no challenge. Citizens of this society would no longer have ambition. In Finland, education is free until college but students commit suicide because they do not see the sense of living. This is not likely to happen but possible because people no longer strive.
Lesson Learned
The participants shared that a genuine participatory process brings out important
individual issues. The most important lesson they learned was to understand and respect each other and broaden their minds to see where the other stakeholders are coming from. In this manner, together they will come up with a solution to the problems.
Workshop 6: Scenario Timeline
The participants were asked to use colored pens to identify, which among the
circumstances they have prepared for their respective scenarios will happen in 2020, 2030 and 2040 and below where the ouputs.
Workshop Outputs:
Scenario 4: “Run Samson Run”
RAPID growth of population and INEFFECTIVE urban planning and development
45
Scenario 3: “Maghintay ka Lamang”
SLOW growth of population and INEFFECTIVE urban planning and development
Scenario 2: “Hawak Kamay”
RAPID growth of population and EFFECTIVE urban planning and development
46
Scenario 1: “Kanlungan”
SLOW growth of population and EFFECTIVE urban planning and development
47
Mr. Cordova facilitating the “Run-‐Samson-‐Run” scenario group Ms. Doble (woman standing) doing her best in facilitating the scenario group “Maghintay Ka Lamang”
48
Mr. dela Peña from Rockefeller Foundation expressing his insights on the 2-‐day workshop.
Reflections from Participants
The participants shared some of their reflections and realizations of this 2-‐day
workshop. • The need to prepare for the future by having a goal and considering a long-‐term
planning. • They see hope for a better future because of this futures planning workshop. • Plans are solid and tough and no doubt good but it is important to encourage the
leaders to implement the plans.
Response from Partners
MR. BENJAMIN DE LA PEÑA The Rockefeller Foundation
Mr. dela Peña thanked everyone for the time that the participants spent. For two days
the participants mingled and correlated with each other. He hoped that the excitement and energy the participants brought to the workshop be duplicated down to their respective communities. He sees a great future for the communities because of their commitment.
He believes that the mistake of plans is not because they
are wrong plans or they went through a wrong process but because the plans are not revisited. A good plan should always reflect the needs of the poor.
He mentioned a quote from Dwight Eisenhower:
Plan is nothing but planning is everything. The plan is not what is important but planning per se.
In planning, everyone come together and asks what they need and what their problems are. He hopes that the workshop experience would show them the importance of participation and social inclusion.
MR. JACOB PARK Forum for the Future
Mr. Park said that the Forum for the Future where he belongs is working with local
partners like ASoG to make sure that they are creating a process that will work well with everybody.
49
Mr. Park from Forum for the Future expressing his delight on the active participation of everyone in the workshop.
The Forum for the Future organization started 15 years ago. It does a lot of work with organizations, imagining more positive futures and creating a strategy to get there. Over time, the Forum for the Future began to realize that big problems such as climate change are too complex for one organization to solve so they brought together people from different sectors to think about what the future will be like. They found this a really helpful way to open up and get people to collaborate together.
From what he saw from the workshop process, the
people were able to experience a new kind of conversations perhaps, were also able to learn the act of proper listening. He believes that proper dialogue and listening are absolutely critical in solving problems and what has been accomplished in this workshop can be considered a great success. However, it is not all about planning but also about implementation so in another workshop in April, he encouraged everyone to come together and talk about what kind of innovations they could all create to build a future that they want. He hopes that everybody will be able to come back next month and work on building a future together.
Closing Remarks
MR. BENEDICT BALDERRAMA
Mr. Balderrama closed the program by saying that the essence of having an inclusive city is having space for everyone where participation by all sectors is appreciated. The workshop was a glimpse or practice of the kind of participation that an inclusive city dreams about. Everyone has hope for a systematic, sustainable, progressive and more participative future. He said that gradually, all should practice correlating, listening, helping and participating with and among one another to get to an inclusive city. This workshop called for all to participate and engage and with this, he sees a bright future for Metro Manila.
Distribution of Certificates
The 2-‐day workshop ended by the project team giving out certificates of attendance to
the attendees.
50
Student Assistants distributing the certificate of participation to the participants.