PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN POVERTY: The Experience

of the City of Calapan

In studying economic development, I have always been aware of the
gap that exists between theory and practice. Way back in my grad student
days, Big Theory was the rule indeed, I suppose I was somewhat unusual
in that I made the transition from the theoretical disciplines of political
science and economics to the practical level of hands-on development
work. (I also never managed to finish my dissertation and never quite made
it to the big Ivory Tower in the sky, but that's another story best filed away
in the lost dreams folder).

I have recently revisited the development literature, both for personal

reasons and out of professional necessity in my current consulting work at
the Asian Development Bank (ADB). And I must say that I am impressed by
the breadth and logic of current development philosophies.

Let's take a quick look at some widely accepted principles in the

mainstream development community, at the three descending levels of the
world as a whole, Asia as a region, and the Philippines specifically. All
three share in common placing poverty reduction at the core of
development work.

Global Level: In September, 2000 the UN General Assembly ended the

Millennium Summit by adopting a set of Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). In addition to the first MDG of eradicating extreme poverty and
hunger, the others include achieving universal primary education,
promoting gender equality, reducing child mortality, improving women's
reproductive health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases,
ensuring environment sustainability, and "developing a global partnership
for development."

With specific reference to poverty, the MDGs specify three targets:

• Target 1: Halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty

between 1990-2115
• Target 2: Halve the proportion of population below minimum level of
dietary energy consumption and halve the proportion of underweight
children (under five years)
• Target 3: Halve the proportion of people without access to safe
drinking water or those who cannot afford it by 2115.

Asian Level: ADB's Poverty Reduction Strategy, as embedded in its Long-

Term Strategic Framework, is equally admirable. ADB identifies three
fundamental pillars of poverty reduction:
 • Social Development (human capital development, population policy,
social capital development, gender equality, social protection);
• Good Governance (government accountability, public participation,
predictable legal framework, transparency, anticorruption initiatives);
and
• Pro-poor Growth (labor-intensive employment and income creation,
public/private sector provision of basic services, poor area public
investment. regional and subregional cooperation, environmental
sustainability)

Philippines Level: The Arroyo administration's official development agenda

focuses specifically on issues of poverty and unemployment. The key
document here is the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP),
2001-2004, which stresses poverty reduction through equitable growth,
rural development, and social sector investment. The four primary
strategies are:

• Macroeconomic stability and equitable growth, using sound fiscal

and monetary policies to keep inflation low and avoid surges in
unemployment; modernize all sectors through HR development and
technology;
• Comprehensive HR development, basic education, health, shelter,
water, electricity; safety nets for most vulnerable sectors;
encouraging poor to participate in governance;
• Modernization of agricultural sector with social equity; agrarian
reform, improving rural infrastructure, implementing land reform;
• Effective governance through transparency, reducing graft and
corruption, strengthening partnerships with civil society and the
private sector.

Poverty is conceptualized broadly, taking into account not only income but
its impact in terms of human deprivation, development, and quality of life.

THE SAD STATISTICS

During the 1990s, the Philippines made significant progress in fighting

poverty. According to the Family Income and Expenditure Survey of 1997,
poverty incidence fell from 49.3% of total population in 1985 to 40.6% in
1994 and 36.8% in 1997.

According to an ADB study conducted by Ernie Pernia and Arsenio

Balisacan, however, the decline in poverty rates did nothing to improve the
country's notoriously inequitable income distribution. Despite the more-or-
less sustained economic growth from 1985 to 1997, the poorest 20% of the
population only improved their income 0.5% for every 1% growth in
average income. In other words, they slipped further behind and income
inequality became even more extreme.

The absolute gains were attributable to rapid economic growth during the
Ramos administration, increased foreign investment, relative political
stability, and decent public sector revenues associated with the
privatizations introduced as part of the FVR reform agenda. (see
Globalization Part 1 and Globalization Part 2).

Although the Philippines escaped the Asian financial crisis in better shape
than many of its neighbors, the crisis did have a significant impact, an
impact exacerbated by the damage done to the agricultural sector by the El
Niño phenomenon during 1997-98. Both urban and rural sectors were hard
hit by rising prices and a weakened labor market, causing poverty to begin
edging up again. These factors contributed to a major increase in the
number of Filipinos earning less than $276 a year (considered the minimum
required to meet basic living requirements here), from 27 million in 1997 to
31 million in 2000 (39.4% of the population)

Enough statistics! Let's turn to a brief discussion of two practical areas

that illustrate what we're talking about.

PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION #1: MALNUTRITION AND HUNGER

I have been acutely aware of the relationship between poverty and hunger
since my first trip here in 1982. As a statistical programmer cum
development economist on a USAID-funded project based at Cornell, I
came to Manila to analyze data from a national nutrition survey. The survey,
conducted by the National Nutrition Council (NNC), provided the basis for
targeting food and nutrition services designed for mothers and children in
the most impoverished parts of the archipelago.

Although the work I did was both technologically primitive and abstract -
tabulations painstakingly extracted from a Fujitsu computer using an
ancient Fortran compiler and hand-drawn maps with stick-pins and
annotations showing malnutrition prevalence rates - it was also a real eye-
opener for me. While I had studied political and economic development at a
theoretical level for years, those endeavors had been intellectualized and
idealistic. In the process of analyzing that real world nutrition data, I came
to appreciate the existential reality that underdevelopment and poverty are
more than concepts in a book - they are directly related to starvation,
illness, and human degradation.

Thus, I found it sad that when I returned here in 1998, the situation, while
somewhat improved, was still not that good. When I again analyzed data on
a nutrition study, this time for UNICEF, the numbers were still appalling.
Still just numbers spit out by a computer, but still numbers reflecting real
human suffering.

The NNC, the same organization I worked with so long ago, recently
developed a Philippine Nutrition Country Profile with funding from the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Findings showed
that, just like 20 years ago, the biggest problems are protein-energy
malnutrition (PEM) and micronutrient deficiencies. Paralleling the general
trend in poverty statistics, there was a decline in the prevalence of
malnutrition during mid-1990s, followed by gradual increases beginning in
1998. There are now approximately 4 million (32%) preschool children who
are underweight-for-age, 3 million (20%) adolescents who are underweight-
for-age, and 5 million (13.2%) adults who are chronically energy deficient.
Vitamin A deficiency is a serious problem, with 7% of pregnant women and
8% of infants under six months being severely deficient. Iron deficiency
anemia affects 57% of infants, 51% of pregnant women, and 46% of
lactating women.

The primary cause of malnutrition is the inequitable distribution of food,

which is related of course to poverty. The typical Filipino diet is grossly
inadequate for energy and other nutrients, causing human bodies to
compensate for inadequate energy intake by utilizing protein as an energy
source; the usual result is PEM. This situation is unlikely to improve as
long as an estimated 28 million Filipinos are unable to buy food to meet
basic nutritional requirements.

PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION #2: FAILED LAND REFORM

Poverty in the Philippines is most acute and widespread in rural areas.

Although Manila certainly has its share of urban poor, the National Capital
Region has the lowest poverty incidence in the country. Nationwide, one
can compare the 1997 poverty incidence rates of 21.5% in urban areas to
the 50.7% rate in rural areas. The rural poor tend to be self-employed,
primarily in agriculture or casual labor. They are almost all landless.

The state of "landlessness" is, of course, nothing new. The Spanish

bequeathed to the Americans a colony with an extreme concentration of
wealth and land, with the Spanish elites and religious orders controlling
vast estates. The Americans themselves assumed title to approximately
two-thirds of all arable land in the Philippines.

The American colonial administration saw land reform as crucial for

political stability and economic development given the extreme poverty
and unequal land distribution. The Americans were not accustomed to the
colonial role, and always had a difficult time juggling their own democratic
traditions with the realities of administering a colony halfway around the
world. The dilemma in this case was how to uphold property rights
(meaning the commercial interests of large landholder) while creating a
more equitable system that would raise the standard of living of the large
numbers of rural poor.

The Americans, as they did in so many other areas, relied on their own
idiosyncratic historical experience. They opted for public land grants on
the "homestead" model (i.e., the model used in settling Oklahoma and
other areas of the American West), theoretically empowering poor peasants
to become independent small-scale farmers. This was institutionalized
when the American Congress passed the Public Land Act (1902), the Friar
Lands Act (1903), and the Rice Share tenancy Act (1933). Each of these
laws provided for land entitlements and extended the possibility of
landless tenants gaining title to land.

However, in practice, American colonial efforts at land reform strongly

favored the landowners, the educated, and the wealthy. Procedures such as
land surveying, notice requirements, and excessive legal costs ensured
that potential peasant benefactors did not gain access to land. Indeed,
landholders took advantage of bureaucratic and costly procedures to not
only retain their holdings but to significantly increase the size of their
plantations.

Since independence in 1946, the Philippines has had four land reform
programs (under Presidents Magsaysay (1955), the first Macapagal (1963),
Marcos (1972), and Aquino (1987)). The latter, known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), was by far the most ambitious.

President Aquino made CARP the centerpiece for her economic

development policies, capitalizing on the fact that the EDSA Constitution
made owning land a constitutional right of Filipino farmers. However,
implementation problems existed from the beginning, exacerbated by
corrupt and incompetent management. Among the problems with CARP
have been:

• An extended land valuation process

• Few and excessively vague guidelines for landowner compensation
• Extended landowner-tenant negotiations
• Lack of bureaucratic coordination
• Inconsistent implementation

Today, CARP is still alive and kicking under the auspices of the Department
of Agrarian Reform. Erap made a big deal out of handing out land titles to
peasants during photo ops, and President Arroyo is now doing the same.
However, the bottom line is that land reform has never been effectively
implemented in the Philippines. In fact, a good case can be made that
efforts at land reform over the last 15 years have served only to perpetuate
the cycle of rural unrest, poverty, and economic stagnation.

REALITIES

Poverty remains the central development issue in the Philippines and,

despite the ambitious development goals laid out in the MTPDP, the
country has not been able to sustain the economic growth required to
reduce poverty to acceptable levels.

While I offer no solutions, I would make a few closing observations.

First, there is a fundamental disconnect between Filipino élites and the

poor. The political leadership in the Philippines has always been drawn
from those élites, and those politicians have traditionally played the role of
patrons and benefactors, relying on the pork barrel and personal/family
funds (often acquired through corruption) to essentially buy votes. The
core principle of democracy - that representatives should be drawn from
those they represent and advocate for the true interests of their
constituents - has not been operative.

Philippine Presidents in particular have been drawn from the ranks of the
wealthy and privileged. How can they relate to what it means to be poor or
hungry? Even if their heart's in the right place (which is not all that
common), well-photographed visits to squatter settlements are not the
answer.

Second, the Philippines system is exceedingly politicized. President Arroyo

herself is already focused on the 2004 presidential elections. In a sense,
you can't blame GMA. Her predecessor, Erap, had a built-in constituency
among the masa. But President Arroyo must create such a base, given that
she is the daughter of a previous President and has virtually nothing in
common with the poor people of her country. She has worked hard to
develop support among the common folk, dressed in jeans with regularity,
and sung on stage with popular recording artists.

She has also latched onto fighting poverty as a key policy emphasis. In her
State-of-the-Nation (SONA) address on July 22nd, she emphasized the so-
called "rolling stores" - trucks loaded with subsidized rice, rice, sugar, and
canned meat that ply the streets of Manila - as a sterling example of her
administration's anti-poverty programs. The only problem was that her
remarks had knowledgeable economists practically rolling in the aisles,
given that few poor people ever get access to the trucks and only 5% of the
nation's poor live in Metro Manila. But real poverty alleviation programs
where they are most needed - say in rural Mindanao - would lack the
publicity opportunities of the rolling stores on Manila streets.
True anti-poverty programs take a long time to bear fruit, and the
politically-driven nature of Philippine government sector programs almost
ensures that the emphasis will continue to be on quick fixes or
interventions that provide high visibility and political payoffs.

This is unfortunate given the seriousness of the situation and the

implications for the country if concerted action is not taken.

Poverty and malnutrition are already at alarming levels in this country, and
the country's too-rapid population growth is magnifying the strain on
limited budgetary resources. The rapidly growing population is
jeopardizing the quality of basic social services, contributing to the
ongoing decline in quality of basic education, and limiting access to health
care (especially primary health care, reproductive health/family planning,
immunization, and feeding programs).

Achieving any significant reduction in poverty will require rapid economic

growth, growth of a magnitude not seen in recent years. Further,
addressing issues of inequality will require significant investments in
human capital, especially in improving the quantity and quality of primary
education.

Most importantly, implementing effective anti-poverty programs based on

the quite valid model laid out in the MTPDP will require strong political
leadership and a previously unobserved commitment to truly representing
the interests of the poor. Whether such leadership will be forthcoming is, I
suppose, the $64,000 question.

I would like to extend my warm greetings to the organizers and

participants of the Urban Poverty Learning Workshop being held here in
Singapore. I would also like to thank the World Bank and the Government
of Singapore for their generous invitation to me to participate and make a
presentation in this workshop regarding the experience of my city, the City
of Calapan, in the Philippines, in addressing the problem of urban poverty.
Background of Urban Poverty in the Philippines poverty started to manifest
itself in the Philippines in the decades immediately after World War II,
particularly in the major cities of the country such as the greater Manila
area. It was country where growth was mainly concentrated.
It was during the decade of the 1960s and 1970s that massive migration
from the rural areas in during this time that Manila and its suburbs
assumed the role as a major urban center in the the provinces to the urban
centers of the Philippines started to occur as people looked for
employment and livelihood opportunities in the cities. The tremendous
imbalance in development in favor of the Metropolitan Manila area and
other major regional centers attracted hordes of migrants from the less
developed and neglected provinces of the country to work or study in the
nation’s capital.
The past three decades also witnessed the ballooning in the
population of the Philippines from 40 million during the early 1970s to
close to 80 million people at the start of the new millennium. The major
cities and urban centers of the country received a big share of this runaway
population growth. This further exacerbated the housing and settlements
shortage, severely taxed social services and aggravated the problems of
unemployment and limited income opportunities as the major cities proved
unable to satisfactorily provide for their burgeoning urban population thus
highlighting the problem of urban poverty in the country’s cities.
The period from the 1980s and 1990s up to the dawn of the new millennium
in 2000 witnessed the growth of more urban centers outside the Metro
Manila region as urban development rapidly spread out to the countryside.
This period saw the dramatic increase in the number of cities in the
Philippines from 60 cities in 1991 to 114 cities as of year 2001. In other
words, within a ten year period, 54 new cities were created in the
Philippines. These new cities are geographically dispersed all over the
Philippine archipelago and almost all of them are located outside the Metro
Manila region.
These new cities, which are mostly provincial capitals or provincial growth
centers, emerged after they experienced urbanization and development
brought about by the dispersal of commercial and industrial activities in
the countryside as more firms relocated outside Metro Manila. New
commercial investments also started to pour in these provincial centers. In
the final decade of the 20th century, these provincial centers assumed urban
characteristics and were thus converted into cities.
However, the rapid urbanization that occurred both in the metropolitan
regions of the Philippines and in the emerging provincial growth centers
highlighted one form of poverty - urban poverty. In these metropolitan and
provincial cities, the rapid increase in urban population resulted to the lack
of employment and income opportunities, shortage of Perspectives ON
URBAN POVERTY: The Experience of the City of Calapan
It was during the decade of the 1960s and 1970s that massive
migration from the rural areas in the provinces to the urban centers of the
Philippines started to occur as people looked for employment and
livelihood opportunities in the cities. The tremendous imbalance in
development in favor of the Metropolitan Manila area and other major
regional centers attracted hordes of migrants from the less developed and
neglected provinces of the country to work or study in the nation’s capital.
The past three decades also witnessed the ballooning in the population of
the Philippines from 40 million during the early 1970s to close to 80 million
people at the start of the new millennium. The major cities and urban
centers of the country received a big share of this runaway population
growth. This further exacerbated the housing and settlements shortage,
severely taxed social services and aggravated the problems of
unemployment and limited income opportunities as the major cities proved
unable to satisfactorily provide for their burgeoning urban population thus
highlighting the problem of urban poverty in the country’s cities.
The period from the 1980s and 1990s up to the dawn of the new millennium
in 2000 witnessed the growth of more urban centers outside the Metro
Manila region as urban development rapidly spread out to the countryside.
This period saw the dramatic increase in the number of cities in the
Philippines from 60 cities in 1991 to 114 cities as of year 2001. In other
words, within a ten year period, 54 new cities were created in the
Philippines. These new cities are geographically dispersed all over the
Philippine archipelago and almost all of them are located outside the Metro
Manila region.
These new cities, which are mostly provincial capitals or provincial growth
centers, emerged after they experienced urbanization and development
brought about by the dispersal of commercial and industrial activities in
the countryside as more firms relocated outside Metro Manila. New
commercial investments also started to pour in these provincial centers. In
the final decade of the 20th century, these provincial centers assumed urban
characteristics and were thus converted into cities.
However, the rapid urbanization that occurred both in the metropolitan
regions of the Philippines and in the emerging provincial growth centers
highlighted one form of poverty - urban poverty. In these metropolitan and
provincial cities, the rapid increase in urban population resulted to the lack
of employment and income opportunities, shortage of decent housing and
the
proliferation of slums, land tenure insecurity, insufficiency of potable water
supply and inadequacy of sanitation facilities. A booming urban population
also put tremendous pressure on the delivery of vital social services such
as education and health care.
The cycle of economic boom and bust that the Philippines experienced
since the 1980s up to the Asian financial crisis in 1997 as well as political
instabilities and natural calamities that the country experienced in the final
decade of the last century aggravated urban poverty in the Philippines.
Dimensions of Urban Poverty
Let me share my perspectives on urban poverty based on the practical
experiences I have gained as a City Mayor who has to grapple daily with
the problem of urban poverty. My years as a City Mayor have brought me in
close contact with the face of urban poverty in my city. Based on what I
have observed, the manifestations and causes of urban poverty are
interrelated in a cyclical pattern. Urban poverty is a multidimensional
problem. One dimension of urban poverty results to the occurrence of
another dimension. One form of deprivation gives rise to another form of
deprivation. Urban poverty is therefore made up of a series of deprivations
that afflict a poor family.
To illustrate, lack of income or employment is a dimension of poverty.
Because of a family’s lack of income, the children are deprived of proper
education. Inability to obtain education is another dimension of poverty.
Lack of education, in turn, hinders a person’s ability to engage in
productive work and activity and thus to earn income. This vicious cycle of
lack of income, ignorance and illiteracy goes on and on and is transmitted
from one generation to another.
Lack of income also means the inability to provide proper nutrition or to
obtain medical care and services for the family leading to malnutrition,
sickness and poor health. Ill health and malnutrition causes physical and
mental retardation that prevents a person from receiving education or from
being gainfully employed and thus from earning income. Again, the result
is a vicious cycle of lack of health, education and income for a family
exacerbating poverty.
Land tenure insecurity and homelessness, another dimension of urban
poverty, is caused by failure to acquire assets because of inadequate
income. The Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto, identifies the lack of
secure property rights on assets on the part of the poor as one of the
principal causes of poverty in the Third World. To quote de Soto, “the lack
of property explains why the poor can’t get credit, insurance or utility
services; they have no property to lose and because they have no property
to lose they are not taken seriously. “
It will therefore be seen that in order to make a dent in the war against
poverty, direct interventions must be made in the areas of education, health
and social services, shelter and settlements and livelihood assistance that
will give the poor the opportunity to free themselves from various forms of
deprivations and lift themselves from poverty.
Urban Poverty in the city of Calapan- The City of Calapan is the capital of
the island province of Oriental Mindoro which is located in the Southern
Luzon Area 130 kilometers south of Manila. The city is one of the country’s
new cities having been chartered only in 1998. However, for many decades,
Calapan has been a major food producer and the center of trade and
commerce in the province of Oriental Mindoro. It has also served as the
center of education in the province as it hosts several institutions of higher
learning. Long before it was converted into a city, Calapan has been the
premiere town in the province because of the presence of business
establishments and agriculture-based industries, aside from its health and
education facilities. It has a population of 105,910 as of 2000. Population
growth rate is 2.36%. The city’s land area is 250.06 square kilometers. The
city’s economy is dual in nature. Agriculture is the main industry but the
city also has a growing urban-based commercial activities and agro-based
industrial activities. Before it became a city, Calapan has already exhibited
urban characteristics.
Like other urban centers, the City of Calapan has not been spared from the
problem of urban poverty. As of year 2000, the household poverty ratio in
the city is 33.7%. The household poverty ratio is the total number of
households below the poverty threshold/total number of households. The
National Economic Development Authority has set the poverty threshold
for 2000 in the Southern Tagalog Region wherein the City of Calapan is
located at P15,306.67.
It is therefore clear that one of the dimensions of urban poverty in the City
of Calapan is income poverty. This was brought about by lack of adequate
employment and livelihood opportunities since the city, being principally
reliant in agriculture, has a limited economic base.
Income poverty in the city is translated to health poverty as the poor
cannot avail of effective and adequate health services because of their
inability to pay for it. It has resulted in the occurrence of malnutrition in
poor households because of the families’ inability to spend for their food
security needs.
Likewise, income poverty has forced many families to forego the education
of their children, particularly in college. College education in the
Philippines is beyond the reach of many of the poor below the poverty
threshold. But there are also cases where children from very poor families,
especially in the rural areas, were forced to drop out before finishing
elementary or high school.
Another dimension of urban poverty in the City of Calapan is the lack of
adequate housing and land tenure security. At present, 29.69% of the
population live in informal settlements. They live either in public lands,
privately-owned property or along riverbanks without tenurial rights.
Fighting Urban Poverty: Experience of the City of Calapan
Fighting urban poverty is one of the main thrusts of the City Government of
Calapan under my administration. This is in line with our conviction that
City Governments can assume a leading and proactive role in combating
poverty. Cities can create a climate conducive to local economic
development by facilitating investments and economic activities. Cities can
likewise ensure that the urban poor can share in the benefits of
development through a comprehensive delivery of social services.
Our anti-poverty campaign is in line with the thrust of the administration of
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on poverty reduction. To boost the
Arroyo Administration’s war against poverty, the League of Cities of the
Philippines has resolved to adopt as one of its primary advocacies the fight
against poverty. All member cities are called upon to draw up their
respective poverty reduction action plans.
Our city’s war against poverty is being led by the City Anti-Poverty Council
whose principal task is to propose programs, projects and activities
designed to alleviate and reduce poverty. The council also coordinates and
monitors the implementation of said programs, projects and activities.
Although the city mayor chairs the council, its operations are led by an
Anti-Poverty Action Officer. Key departments of the City Government as
well as representatives from sectoral organizations such as farmers’
groups, women and youth associations, senior citizens’ federations,
entrepreneurs and cooperatives were invited to sit in the council.
 To address the lack of income and employment opportunities, the
City Government has encouraged the entry of outside investments in the
city. These investments have generated employment for the residents and
livelihood opportunities for related enterprises. For example, when well
known fast food chains based in Metro Manila opened their branches in our
city, it employed hundreds of young residents. The opening of a big
shopping mall in our city also generated employment to several hundred
people. Our encouragement of domestic tourism has led to the
construction and opening of several resorts, including an international
hotel chain, that gave employment to many individuals.
We believe that by expanding our city’s economic base through an
increase in commercial activities, we can promote local economic
development and thus create additional jobs and income opportunities for
the city’s residents.
To expand livelihood opportunities for the poor, the City Government has
also started a microfinance program targeting the youth, women and senior
citizens, particularly those residing in the rural areas. Seed capital
assistance was provided to organizations of youth, women and the senior
citizens to enable them to start a small enterprise. The beneficiaries used
the seed money to finance livelihood projects such as a small village store,
a dressmaking shop, a motor repair shop, a poultry farm, a piggery or a
fishpond.
To address health poverty that was brought about by the inability of a poor
family to obtain adequate and quality health care due to lack of income, the
City Government adopted a social health insurance program in partnership
with the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation. Under this scheme,
Medicare insurance was provided to 10,000 poor families which is
equivalent to 50,000 beneficiaries. The City Government pays the premium
contributions for the Medicare insurance of the poor beneficiaries who
were enrolled in the program.
This health insurance program has already reaped benefits for the poor.
One housewife, for example, was billed P5,000.00 for the hospitalization of
her sick daughter in a private hospital. This amount is certainly beyond the
reach of the poor in the Philippines. But because she is a Medicare
beneficiary, she paid only P800.00 from her own pocket. The balance was
shouldered by her health insurance. Another example was that of a poor
farmer and his wife who were both hospitalized. Their bills amounted to
P15,000.00 which was certainly a princely sum for a poor peasant. But
because of our city’s health insurance program, the couple did not pay
even a single centavo for their hospital bills.
Our city’s Medicare insurance program is turning out to be one of our most
effective anti-poverty interventions. It has enabled many poor families to
have access to effective and quality medical care with little or at virtually
no cost to them. This program has certainly advanced our battle in the
health poverty front.
We have likewise given emphasis to the preventive and promotive aspects
of health care. This is called the primary health care approach. Our City
Health Department conducts advocacy campaigns on proper health
practices among poor families in order to equip them with knowledge and
skills in safeguarding their own health. This is anchored on the idea of
“putting health in the hands of the people.”

To address poverty caused by lack of education and skills, the City

Government is investing a considerable portion of its annual budget to
support education. In the Philippines, education is primarily a function of
the National Government in the sense that it is the Department of
Education that hires and pays public school teachers, allocate budgets for
school construction and maintenance and formulate school curriculum.
As we have demonstrated in the City of Calapan, cities can play a vital role
in improving access to education and in upgrading the quality of public
school education in their respective areas. The anti-poverty agenda of
cities must put strong emphasis in supporting public education because
poor families send their children to public schools. Thus, the public school
system can be made an instrument in providing one of the important
interventions in the fight against poverty – that of providing to children of
poor families access to quality education that will give them the
opportunity to advance in the social ladder.
 In order to support public education, we used city funds to build
schools and to repair and maintain existing classrooms in order to ensure
that school children will have a decent place to study. We also provide for
equipment such as books and computers to public schools. We have
introduced information and communications technology classes in public
schools. We have also taken the initiative to wire our public schools to the
internet in order to bring to our children the wealth of knowledge that can
be found in the worldwide web.
At present, almost all of the 62 barangays in the City of Calapan have
elementary schools. To ensure that grade school pupils can pursue high
school education after graduation, the City Government is supporting the
operations of eight (8) public high schools, half of which are in strategic
rural areas.
An important program that the city is implementing is the City College
Scholarship Program. At present, the city is sending 500 young people to
college by paying their full tuition fees. This program seeks to address the
problem of being confronted by many poor families who are unable to send
their children to college because of the high cost of college education.
Through this program, poor but talented young men and women can now
acquire college education. Since the program started in 1996, more than
100 scholars have already earned college degrees. We have embarked on
this college scholarship program because we recognize that college
education provides one of the means to ensure social mobility on the part
of the poor. By sending hundreds of young men and women to college, we
are creating a pool of future business managers, educators, information
and communication technology workers and other skilled workers.
As an anti-poverty measure, the city has taken steps to provide land tenure
security and property rights to landless informal settlers. The city has
initiated the implementation of the Community Mortgage Program or CMP
that benefited close to 800 informal settler families. Under the Community
Mortgage Program, the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation
purchases the land being occupied by the informal settlers directly from
the landowner. In turn, the informal settlers, through a village association
that they have organized, will pay to the corporation the amortization for
the property. The CMP is one of the government’s laudable social programs
as it ensures land tenure security for the poor by enabling them to pay and
eventually own the land they have been occupying for many years.
The City Government of Calapan has also entered into a partnership with
the local Catholic Church. Under this scheme, the local church purchased
at least ten (10) hectares of land to be used as a resettlement site. The city,
as its counterpart, provided funds for the initial amortization for the lots
allocated to informal settlers who were relocated to the resettlement sites.
The city also provided funds for the purchase of materials to be used for
the construction of houses. As their counterpart, the informal settlers
shouldered the cost of labor for the construction of their houses. Close to
400 families have benefited from this partnership program between the city
and the local Catholic Church. The City Government has exercised the
power of eminent domain by expropriating a five (5) hectare land to be
used as another resettlement area for informal settlers living along
riverbanks. We plan to rehabilitate a river that runs through the center of
the city. The first step that we have to undertake in the rehabilitation and
cleaning of this river is to relocate about 400 informal settlers who have
made the riverbanks their home for many years. At present, we are now
backfilling the five-hectare property that we have expropriated so that the
initial batch of informal settlers can be relocated. Based on our city’s
experience, addressing housing poverty and land tenure insecurity is more
difficult compared to the other dimensions of urban poverty. First, we have
to contend with the resistance of informal settlers to be relocated. We
addressed this by engaging in community organizing and involving the
informal settlers in the resettlement process through a series of dialogues
and consultations. We also have to contend with the increase in real estate
values in our city that makes it prohibitive to acquire resettlement sites
near the center of the city. We addressed this difficulty by entering into a
partnership with the local church that was able to raise enough funds to
purchase at least ten hectares of land for resettlement purposes. We also
resorted to the exercise of the power of eminent domain to acquire a
resettlement area not far from the place where an informal settlement to be
relocated is presently situated.
Corollary in the fight against urban poverty is the need to address poverty
in the countryside. As the experience of many cities in the Philippines
demonstrates, urban poverty has roots in rural poverty. The rural poor
would most likely leave the farms for the city in search of employment and
livelihood opportunities, but all too often, they end up jobless and
homeless in the urban centers thus swelling the ranks of the urban poor.
Programs to alleviate rural poverty must be undertaken as vital
components of over-all poverty reduction efforts. In this regard, our city is
also delivering to the rural poor the social development programs being
extended to the urban poor especially in health care, education and
livelihood generation. We have extended a package of technical and credit
assistance to farmers’ associations in order to help boost agricultural
production. We have improved our rural infrastructure through the
construction of a network of cemented rural roads linked to the city center
in order to facilitate mobility of people and agricultural products. We are
implementing rural potable water system and rural electrification projects.
Lessons Learned
Our experience thus far in confronting urban poverty teaches the following
lessons. First, economic growth characterized by increased economic
activities in a city is necessary in order to provide income, employment and
livelihood opportunities to the urban poor. Second, substantial investments
must be made for well-targeted social development programs, particularly
in health care, social welfare, education and housing that will enable the
poor to meet their minimum basic needs and improve their standard of
living. Third, it is desirable to involve peoples’ organizations or
associations in service delivery and in the implementation of anti-poverty
programs to ensure a more focused targeting of the programs. Fourth, the
runaway population growth in the Philippines must be checked as it puts
tremendous pressure in the delivery of social services. While our cities’
populations rapidly increase, our resources remain limited to provide for
the basic needs of our burgeoning urban populations. Finally, City
Governments must improve their governance so that they can effectively
address the problem of poverty. Facilitating economic growth in cities, the
crafting and implementation of social development programs and the
setting up of efficient administrative and institutional mechanisms that
support pro-poor programs and activities can only be made possible
through improved governance of our cities.
Conclusion
Urban poverty presents one of the biggest challenges to city
administrators today. The programs, services and interventions we have
formulated to address urban poverty in our city need to be enhanced and
sustained so that the level of poverty will be significantly reduced. We must
work together – city mayors and urban policymakers, peoples’
organizations, communities and institutions like the World Bank – so that
we can wage a united front against poverty and make the citizens of our
cities healthier, more productive, properly sheltered, better fed and better
educated. Together, let us fight urban poverty with passion and dedication
and let us endeavor to win the war against poverty before the end of the
first decade of the new millennium. Rent housing and the