by Nicasio Angelo Agustin
Many groups, civil society and non-government organizations, are closing ranks to campaign for the passage of a national land use code. The President mentioned in his first SONA that a national land use code shall be a priority piece of legislation of his administration.
The mere mention of “land use” stirs a feeling of anxiety and angst, primarily because of persistent and mounting problems related to the management and utilization of land and other land related resources in the country. This is quite expected as land, being the platform of all human activities, becomes the subject of conflicts, violations and transgressions.
There is no problem on land, per se, except that it is too scarce to accommodate opposing, competing, and conflicting uses. The unique characteristics of any given parcel of land should have been enough to safeguard it from abuse and misuse. Yet, owners and users, rational beings as they are, have to derive some level of satisfaction from the use or non-use of their lands, and these self-serving interests, behaviors and motivations create the whole gamut of problems on land use.
In a free market setting, the cyclical interplay among the supply, demand and price of any commodity could eventually strike a proper balance that is both beneficial to consumers and producers. For land, as a commodity, however, this interplay is almost impossible to reach, primarily because the supply is fixed (and so is its location), the demand (competing and otherwise) is always increasing, and price, which is usually unknown, is very flexible and bendy. Hence, market failure – which manifests itself in various forms of local physical and social disorder and imbalance – is inevitably massive.
The only way to correct such market failure is through the regulation of the use of the land. The ultimate intention of such regulation, however, must be to promote, ascertain and establish general welfare, safety and health, and economic well-being for the poor and the rich, for landed and landless people alike.
The government – whether national and local – is expected to discharge such responsibility to regulate through its inherent power to police and control actions of the people. In terms of land use allocation, local governments have been charged with the responsibility to manage their natural and physical resources, including land, and to formulate comprehensive land use plans consistent with and supportive of national policies and responsive to current global, national and local development challenges, such as the general themes of sustainable development, environmental protection, climate change, and disaster risk management, just to name a few.
Some local governments have good, well-crafted, and very comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances. Yet, majority of these localities are still grappling with the problems of degradation of their forest, marine and coastal resources, unproductive agricultural lands, polluted rivers and water bodies, air pollution, uncollected garbage, increasing informal settlements, pervasive traffic congestion, urban blight and urban decay, and many more. Why? Because these plans and zoning ordinances, together with national policies, are not strictly implemented and enforced.
Policies (or the lack of them) and planning (and the malpractice of it) are usually blamed as the main culprits of our sad local conditions. To me, this is only one part of the problem. The other part is enforcement and the implementation. This ultimately challenges the political will of local as well as national leaders to really make things happen for the better and for the common good.
If we want a national land use code, there are certain things that should be done. One, review our national policies to ensure consistency, harmony, acceptability and enforceability. Two, assess our structures on land administration and land use regulation from national down to local level with the end in view of clarifying roles and responsibilities, and most of all, of establishing accountabilities. It is not only identifying who will do what, but asking a more valid question: “Who will “punish” the government (national or local) for not responding to critical local problems or for not formulating a plan or for not implementing a plan or a zoning ordinance or for not enforcing a policy or for its own violation of rules and laws?” Three, revisit our processes (again, from national down to local) to warrant simple yet operational and practical approaches to address problems or to attain our aspirations, and one that involves all stakeholders in decision making. Finally and more importantly, professionalize not only the planning profession but the whole public service.
Fell free to send your comments to nic_agustin@yahoo.com.
