Arturo Corpus in his paper titled Land Use
Policy Impact in Human Development in the Philippines (2012/2013) mentioned the
following issues and concerns in land use planning:
1.
Supply-bias and lack of consideration for demand.
Following
tradition, land use planning has been heavily-biased towards land suitability
rather than land use demand. This contributes to land market distortions
because prescribed land uses tend to be based on what is physically suitable
rather than on what the city or municipality needs. It is also flawed in the
sense that, for example, the protection of the natural environment is
meaningless if not related to what it is being protected from (social demand).
Impact-wise, it has also encouraged land use conflicts, e.g. the occurrence of
commercial activities in residential zones or land conversion at the urban
periphery due to unanticipated demand.
The lack of
consideration for demand is also demonstrated by the weak or even absence of integration
between demographic analysis and subsequent land use recommendations in the CLUP.
(This weak link applies to the situation analysis in general and the proposed
land use plan and PPAs.) By underemphasizing demand, especially in the extended
future, big ideas and the identification of major strategies and directions to
accommodate growth are overlooked in favor of short term incremental responses.
Consequently, infrastructure and other support services to address primary
demand requirements tend to be ignored. This is often the path of least resistance
in urban expansion but it also leads to inefficient sprawl in the longer term.
2. Lack of inter-local/metro integration.
The lack of
planning integration among LGUs is most glaring in metropolitan areas. This has
compromised land use compatibility across local boundaries (often complicated
by boundary disputes) as well as the efficiency of basic services such as
transportation and traffic management, security, and flood control and
drainage.
3. Use of outdated or inappropriate planning principles and design
parameters.
Many land use
plans do not reflect current planning principles and approaches. In some cases,
western planning concepts are haphazardly applied even if these are
inappropriate or impractical to local conditions.
4. Spatial equity vs social equity.
This is especially
evident at the regional and national levels, where social equity is often
deemed congruent with spatial equity. Thus for example, each province or region
is compelled to have the same number of state universities, an international
airport, or a provincial/regional industrial center, regardless of market or
competitive considerations.
5. Lack of disaster risk reduction provisions.
This is
increasingly obvious with recent floods and other disasters. And it has spurred
unprecedented
attention on the application of disaster risk reduction on local land use and
development planning. The technical aspects of disaster risk reduction such as
the preparation and use of geohazard maps, for example, are better understood
today more than ever before. Greater clarity and advocacy, however, are
required. In particular, the concepts of risk, vulnerability, probability and
tradeoffs as part of disaster risk reduction have yet to be fully understood
and accepted. Further, there is still a need for more science in policy
advocacy (e.g. rain intensity and not logging is more often the primary cause
of landslides, or distance from a fault line does not necessarily mean less risk,
or tall buildings are not inherently more dangerous than short buildings during
an earthquake). Meanwhile, the quality and availability of disaster risk
reduction planning tools such as geohazard maps need to be continuously
improved.
Even
assuming the technical merits of land use plans and policies, their development
impacts are not realized because of weak linkages to the rest of the planning-implementation
process. There is evidence, for example, that only a minority of projects
identified by land use plans is budgeted and implemented. Further,
opportunities for corruption take place at both ends of the planning implementation
process. Spot zoning occurs at the planning stage when a specific parcel is rezoned
in response to incentives and pressures from vested interests and LGU
officials. In some cases, for example, the CLUP and zoning ordinance prescribe
low densities for existing high density areas in order to force developers to
negotiate with city officials. During periodic reviews of the CLUP and the
zoning ordinance, usually every five years, changes in zoning classifications
are likewise the subjects of political tradeoffs, compromise, and corrupt
practices. At the budgeting and implementation end of the process, favored
projects (some funded through pork barrel funds) may be inserted or
prioritized, regardless of their relevance (or lack of it) to the overall CLUP.
TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, a logical
approach is, first, (a) politicize the planning process by increasing or
introducing genuine participation among stakeholders, thereby encouraging
broader public ownership of the plan and enhancing the possibility that
proposed projects are shepherded and implemented. Second, (b) increase the
technical basis for budgeting and implementation in order to reduce the
influence of a “dividing the spoils” approach to resource allocation (Corpuz
2007, p.16). LGUs should also hire licensed Environmental Planners in
compliance to R10587. The CLUP Planning Team should also be capacitated to
effectively carry out the demands of the land use planning process.
Ensure that
their zoning ordinance and the comprehensive land use plan of which the zoning
ordinance is an implementing instrument are formulated through a broad
participatory an consultative process so that the plan and the zoning ordinance
are the product of social consensus (Serote, RPS, 153)
<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4267074632853356"
crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
