Strategic Planning Workshop for Localizing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in Naga City

Cristina Hall, Villa Caceres Hotel, Magsaysay Ave., Naga, Philippines 01 - 02 October 2019

Workshop Report

I. Background In 2015, various member States of the UN agreed on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In line with this, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and UN-Habitat are jointly implementing the project “Localizing the 2030 Agenda through a Sustainable Urban Resource Management (SURM) approach”. The objective of this project is to strengthen the capacities of local governments and other key urban stakeholders to implement the 2030 Agenda in the area of urban resource management by minimizing the negative and maximizing the positive environmental, social, and economic impacts of urban consumption and production systems. Naga City in the Philippines is one of five pilot cities in the Asia- Pacific Region.

The Solid Waste Management Board of Naga City, in collaboration with ESCAP and the Naga City People’s Council (NCPC) (the project’s Implementing Partner in the city), aims to explore solutions related to the priority area of intervention: Solid waste management and livelihood opportunities. In this endeavor, the different sectors and stakeholders in Naga City will work together for the next three (3) years, to design and implement innovative solutions that can leverage policy and institutional change for Sustainable Urban Resource Management (SURM).

ESCAP will support the Board through capacity development activities across three streams: to undertake stakeholder engagement activities (Collaborate); to identify appropriate solutions in the priority area of intervention (Think in Systems); and to collect, analyze, and disseminate data and information (Strengthen Evidence).

This workshop will invite 40 participants, including representatives from the city and national governments, civil society and communities, academia and research institutions, the private sector, and development partners to be key stakeholders of the project implementation process and co-design the solutions for Naga City achieving the 2030 Agenda through Sustainable Urban Resource Management.

II. Workshop Objectives 1. Convene and strengthen collaboration across sectors to engage in the Solid Waste Management Board to address the solid waste management challenges of Naga City and create livelihood opportunities for the most vulnerable through solutions on capacity development, policy and planning, and awareness raising. 2. Collaboratively undertake a strategic planning process to (a) identify and prioritize specific environment and livelihood challenges in Naga City, and (b) develop future scenarios, define key milestones, and outline strategic actions that will serve as inputs for the elaboration of the Environment chapter (2021-2010), the planning of the pilot activity (2020-2021), and data collection and analysis (2019-2020). 3. Establish self-organizing working groups that, based on the “theory of change” outlined during the workshop will (1) elaborate the environment chapter; (2) collect, analyze, and disseminate data; and (3) plan for the pilot activity. 4. Create a vision statement for the Environmental Chapter for Naga city. 5. Increase participants’ understanding of the local resource challenges, environmental policy and institutional landscape in Naga City.

III. List of Participants

Name Institution Position 1. Damian Santiago Barangay Local Gov’t. Unit Barangay Councilor 2. Analyn Madrid Bicol State College of Applied Nexus Focal Person Science and Technology (BISCAST) 3. Joy San Carlos CDRRMO Program Officer 4. Joframel Baz City Health Office Asst. City Health Officer 5. Wilfredo Prilles Jr. City Planning and Dev’t Office CPD Officer 6. Engr. Herlyn L. Delos City Planning and Engineer I Reyes Development Office (CPDO) (documenter) 7. Art Cledera City Planning and Zoning assistant Development Office (CPDO) (documenter) 8. Norman Posugac City Planning and Planning Officer III Development Office (CPDO) (facilitator) 9. Art Esmeralda Counsel of Laity, Archdiocese President of Caceres 10. Marivic Abawag Department of Education Teacher (documenter) 11. Nestor Franz A. Fortuno Department of Environment OIC CENRO and Natural Resources (DENR) 12. Delia N. Calleja Department of Labor and Labor and Employment (DOLE) Employment Officer III 13. Rosemarie Dela Trinidad Department of Trade and STIDs Planning Officer Industry (DTI) Cam. Sur 14. Michelle Ann Buenaobra Dept. of Interior and Local LGOO II Govt. (DILG) 15. Nanette Tidon Environmental Management Engineer V Bureau 16. Cerin Kizhakkethottam ESCAP Consultant 17. Aline Roldan ESCAP Consultant 18. Godofredo Ang Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Director Commerce 19. Mely de Guzman Gov’t Retirees Past President, PIO, Treasurer 20. Joanaviva C. Plopenio INECAR - Ateneo de Naga OIC / facilitator University 21. Shane Bimeda INECAR - Ateneo de Naga RA / documenter University 22. Ruth Lumbera INECAR - Ateneo de Naga Research Assistant University (documenter) 23. Jay Abawag INECAR - Ateneo de Naga Research Assistant University (facilitator)

24. Gilma S. Bongaway Informal Waste Sector BC President 25. Francisco Paulo Pastor LGU City Parks and Recreation Head Lim Facility Management Office (CPRFMO) 26. Ernesto Asence III Naga City Agriculture Office Agricultural technician 27. Sonny Dy Reyes Naga City Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce NCFCCI 28. Edmund Millare Naga City LGU 29. Annabel Vargas Naga City LGU City Social Welfare and Development Officer 30. Ramil Hana Jr. Naga City LGU 31. Johann Dela Rosa Naga City LGU CRO 32. PSSg Rochelle Idian Naga City Police Office 33. PCpl Lalaine San Juan Naga City Police Office 34. Eduwardo Agomaa Naga City PWD Group President 35. Adolfo Olivan Naga Filipino-Chinese President Chamber of Commerce 36. Philip B. Aranzo Naga Imaging Center PCO Cooperative (NICC) Doctor’s Hospital 37. Claro Alfonso Naga Market Stallholders President Federation (NAMASFED) 38. Ma. Theresa Britanico NCPC Documenter 39. Marion A. Ramirez NCPC documenter 40. Marivic Balance NCPC Chairperson 41. Christopher H. Balane NCPC 42. Joel Brabante NCPC P.O./Admin 43. Nancy K. Fernandez NEDA 5 Senior EDS 44. Teopisto De Guzman PAMANA President 45. Liza Mapa Rural Improvement Club Vice President 46. Carlo O. Lopez San Rafael Housing President Association 47. Tripulca, Kylie Sangguniang Kabataan SKF President/City Federation (youth) Councilor 48. Juddene Bernardo SKF Staff 49. Carlo Castillo SKF Office 50. Rosa G. Rully SKF Office SKF 51. Melchor E. Llantero Solid Waste Management SEMS Office 52. Ma. Katherin Carizo St. Jude Orchard Homeowners Admin Association 53. Rosenante Pobar TESDA AO V 54. June Tamayo Tan TESDA Regional Director

55. John Paul Arellano University of Nueva Caceres Faculty

IV. Preparations for the Workshop

A) Stakeholder Engagement and Mapping The project core team had the objective of engaging a diverse group of participants including representatives from the city and national governments, civil society and communities, academia and research institutions, the private sector, and development partners, stakeholders who should be engaged in co-designing and implementing the solutions for Naga City to achieve the 2030 Agenda through Sustainable Urban Resource Management.

In September 10, 2019, the core team made up of Ms. Marivic Balance, Mr. Wilfredo Prilles Jr., Mr. Ricardo Responde, Mr. Christopher Balane and Joanaviva C. Plopenio met at the office of Mr. Johann Dela Rosa who has to attend to an urgent call of the City Mayor and therefore was absent. The objective on the said meeting was determining participants to the 2-day workshop. Mr. Prilles facilitated the meeting and the identification of participants was made based on the City Ordinance 2001-073 entitled “An Ordinance Creating The Naga City Solid Waste Management Board (SWMB), Defining Its Composition And Functions, And Providing Funds Therefore” (http://naga.gov.ph/sp-matters/ordinances/ordinance-no-2001-073/). The members of the City SWMB are the following:

Chairman: City Mayor Vice-Chairman: Chairman of the Committee on Environment & Ecology of the Sangguniang Panlungsod Members: President of the Association of Barangay Captains of Naga City or his representative Chairperson of the Sangguniang Kabataan Federation of Naga City A. One Representative each from the following government agencies: 1. Environment & Natural Resources Office (ENRO) 2. City Planning & Development Office (CPDO) 3. City Engineer’s Office (CEO) 4. City Health Office (CHO) 5. Community Environment & Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the DENR, Naga City 6. Philippine National Police (PNP-Naga) 7. City Agriculture Office (CAgO) 8. Schools Division Superintendent of the Division of City Schools of DECS 9. City Director of the DILG-Naga 10. DTI-Camarines Sur Office B. One Representative of the following non-government and civic organizations: 1. Ladies In Green Foundation, Inc. 2. Rural Improvement Club (RIC) 3. Naga City Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry 4. Knights of Rizal, Naga City Chapter 5. Naga City People’s Council (NCPC)

6. Council of the Laity of the Archdiocese of Caceres (Religious) 7. Isarog Garden Society Foundation, Inc

Other government agencies were included such as the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Three (3) members of the informal waste sectors, the homeowners association members (considering subdivisions are also producing solid wastes: one each coming from high end subdivision and low end subdivisions), street cleaners, garbage truck driver and crew, barangay Triangulo representatives, Hospital representatives (for hazardous wastes generation), academic institutions, social welfare development office, market stallholders, chamber of commerce and the Pamilyang Migrante kan Naga (PAMANA) were added for inclusive and diversified stakeholders.

B) Co-design of workshop agenda ESCAP and the project core team designed together the workshop agenda via teleconference meetings. Once the specific objectives for the workshop were identified, the workshop agenda was designed.

V. Workshops Agenda The workshop agenda was structured in six sessions distributed in two consecutive days. Session 1 introduced the project and presented the results of the rapid baseline assessment. After the prioritization of the main environmental problems faced in Naga during session 2, the workshop structure followed three guiding questions: 1) Why do we want to change the situation of these challenges? or What kind of future are we trying to create?” (value and future-oriented); 2) What are the problems and their causes? What do we know and do not know about these problems? (present and past oriented; value and data-driven discussion); 3) How can we solve these problems, given our visions for the future and our understanding about the problems? (action-oriented).

Day 1 was dedicated to 3 specific sessions: • Opening Prayers, National Anthem • A brief acknowledgement by Mr. Wilfredo Prilles Jr. • Session 1: Introduction and Setting the Scene o Introduction of the project “Localizing the 2030 Agenda through a Sustainable Urban Resource Management (SURM) approach”; SDGs o Short welcome remarks by the City Mayor, Hon. Nelson Legacion o Rapid Baseline Assessment: Policies and ordinances in the city and the environmental situation of the city

• Session 2: Identifying Priority Environment and Livelihoods Challenges o Outlined program for the next three (3) years: Environmental Issues and challenges and the development of an Environmental Plan to achieve the SDGs by 2030 o Identification of priority issues/challenges of the city

o Categorizing priority issues/challenges into 4 groups according to commonality: ▪ Solid Waste Management (SWM) ▪ Air and Water Pollution ▪ Sustainable Livelihood ▪ Land Use Conversion o Casting ballots (post-its tagging for topic of interest) by individual participants thereby forming working groups o Eventually SWM group was split so that five (5) groups were formed, among which two (2) focused on SWM o In each group, identification of specific issues and challenges within the thematic topic using problems tree exercise. o In each group, categorization of issues in a continuum horizontal line between HIGH IMPACT and LESS IMPACT. o Classification of those issues in a vertical line between HIGH CERTAINTY and LOW CERTAINTY of occurrence, forming a matrix (Impact vs Certainty).

• Session 3: Visioning – Environment and Livelihoods Scenarios for 2030 (WHY) o Naga City Scenarios: elaboration of Status Quo, Worst Case and Best/Preferred Case in each of the 5 groups, corresponding to their issues/challenges o Group presentation of outputs on worst case scenario and narratives. o It was proposed that maybe keywords or pillar words can also be used instead of writing the whole vision statement

Day 2 was for the development of working groups tackling specific issues through the following activities under three (3) sessions: • Short opening prayer then a recap of the previous day was facilitated by Mr. Willy Prilles • Continuation of Session 3: Visioning – Environment and Livelihoods Scenarios for 2030 o Continued transforming the best-case scenarios into reality by first stating it into a vision statement and presentation of group outputs to the plenary o Prioritization through dot democracy for the identified issues or challenges by each group ▪ All participants voted on the issues/challenges on the impact/certainty matrix identified by all breakout groups ▪ Highest voted issue will be priority issue for finding solution by the group • Session 4: Analyzing problems and strategic areas of intervention (WHAT) o 7 WHYS was employed to dig deeper on the causes of the issue/challenge and thus find appropriate solution. o Identification of existing and missing data and information about the issues. ▪ Plenary reporting o Mapping for the location and resource distribution of the city in terms of addressing the identified priority issue/challenge per group. ▪ Plenary reporting

• Session 5 – Identifying Key Milestones and Strategic Actions 2020-2030 (HOW) o Backcasting is employed to come up with strategies to achieve goals set by 2030 and at the same time addressing priority issue/challenge ▪ Plenary reporting • Session 6 – Guidelines to plan for next step (HOW) o Action Planning – next 5 months, personnel, other stakeholders, list of group members ▪ Plenary reporting • Closing Activity o Fishbowl – participants form a circle and sharers of their experience in the workshop form an inner circle and shared. ▪ 7 participants shared realizations and learnings

VI. Workshop Proper

Session 1: Introduction and Setting the Scene

Opening Remarks and introduction Mr. Wilfredo Prilles acknowledged the presence of the stakeholders and conducted the preliminaries such as opening prayer and the singing of the National Anthem of the Philippines.

Opening Remarks of Mayor Nelson Legacion The City Mayor acknowledged the importance of the UNESCAP Project for Naga City. He also identified the challenge of finding leverage for the improvement of the Solid Waste Management System of the City in the context of Sustainable Development and the betterment of the livelihood and welfare of the people of Naga City. He also mentioned how the project is opportune considering the closure of the more than 50 year-old sanitary landfill at Balatas and the operationalization of the new Sanitary Landfill at San Isidro. The failure to operationalize a waste to energy facility in the previous years pushed the city to further study SWM through benchmarking in other countries. He expressed hope that the various stakeholders will be “all in” for this important undertaking.

Introduction of UNESCAP Project, Cerin Kizhakkethottam Ms. Kizhakkethottam greeted the stakeholders and introduced UNESCAP and the support available to its stakeholders. She introduced the project being implemented “Localizing the 2030 Agenda in Asia-Pacific Cities through Sustainable Urban Resource Management” and the related international development frameworks, such as People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnership (5Ps) and the 17 sustainable development goals. She further explained why localizing the SGDs is important and how the local key stakeholders can join forces to address issues and achieve the SDGs. Ms. Kizhakkethottam also mentioned how Naga City was selected to become one of the 5 cities awarded with the grant to implement the project. The lecture also introduced the objectives of the workshop, including the creation of the Environmental Chapter for the Comprehensive Development Plan of the City, data collection, implementation of the Community-Based Monitoring System and others.

Introduction to environmental resource situation and policy arena regarding Solid Waste Management and Livelihood Opportunities for Naga City

Rapid Baseline Assessment: SDGs in Naga – Mr. Wilfredo Prilles Jr. Mr. Prilles introduced the various laws and policies from the national level down to the local level related to solid waste management, livelihoods, and green urban space. Various plans and projects that are currently implemented within the city were also mentioned, including their weaknesses. For example, the plans for the conversion of the old Balatas Dumpsite into a 3.5 hectare green enclave through the Forest in Our Midst (FOM) Project along with other plans for the urban poor communities and socialized housing. Mr. Prilles mentioned the research conducted by the Solid Waste Management Office personnel about the use of a probiotic bacteria that lessens the smell of the old dumpsite.

Current Environmental Situation of Naga City – Joanaviva C. Plopenio Ms. Plopenio provided a comprehensive presentation of the environmental problems in Naga City. The lecture started with an introduction of Naga City and its location in relation to the Bicol River (one of the 18 major river basins in the country) and the Mt. Isarog Natural Park (MINP). Some topics presented included the advantages of the watershed (MINP) and the current reality in terms of water supply and demand in Naga City: too much extraction and too little replenishment; on the solid waste issue, it is estimated that 72,237 cubic meters of solid waste was generated in 2016 and 0.419 kg/day of solid waste was generated per capita in Naga City in 2017. In the best scenario - if 50% of waste generated is diverted - the new sanitary landfill will last for 5-8 years. Session 2: Identifying Priority Environment and Livelihoods Challenges

2.1 Prioritization through breakout groups and card storming Objective: This process aimed to surface the issues/challenges/problems that the participants encounter on a daily basis and deemed urgent.

After setting the situation for Naga City through the previous sessions and speakers, the participants discussed in small groups the question “What are the main priority issues/challenges/problems on environment and livelihoods you think the city should solve in the next five years?” and wrote their answer who were seated on various tables were given meta cards and asked to answer the focus question: “What are the main priority issues/challenges/problems on environment and livelihoods you think the city should solve in the next five years?” Answers should be written within 3-5 specific words, concrete, and posted on the wall. Afterward, the posted cards were processed by Mr. Jay P. Abawag and stimulated a discussion in the plenary. Based on the discussion, the posted cards were validated according to its urgency as issues/challenges, themes, or contexts.

The images above showed the activity for surfacing of urgent environmental issues/challenges/problems based on the knowledge of the participants.

The images above showed validation and clustering of urgent issues/challenges according to themes or contexts.

The major environmental and livelihood issues identified for Naga City were the following:

Stakeholder Group Environment and Livelihoods Challenges in Naga (2019-2020) Solid Waste • Solid waste management problem Management • Right mindset of the people • Low awareness of proper disposal of waste Non-Strict • Poor Implementation of existing policies on SWM Implementation of • Implementation of ordinances (all) Laws • Need to strictly implement penalties for violators • Policies and laws implementation – poor • Lack of collaboration between institutions (poor implementation) Land Conversion • Conversion of agricultural land to business/residential land use • Sustainable livelihood • Low farm income Water Pollution • Wastewater treatment facility • Wastewater treatment prior to disposal Sustainable • Low prioritization on exploring livelihood opportunities on waste livelihood management • Sustainability of livelihood and employment • Low farm income Poor infrastructure • Support infrastructure for all facilities

Air Pollution • Air pollution • Traffic congestion • Simplify mass transport

Other issues/challenges mentioned: 1. Livelihood training and development per barangay 2. Sustainability of programs/projects 3. Informal settlers that utilize land fill site as source of living 4. Poor implementation of policies 5. Employment 6. Pollution – air, water, noise 7. Smoke belching 8. Garbage along Naga River and Bicol river 9. Waste Segregation 10. Information dissemination of proper waste management 11. Outlet for waste recyclable components and biodegradables 12. How to dispose increasing waste coming from electronic gadgets, garments 13. Air and water pollution 14. Segregation (waste) full implementation 15. Garbage segregation 16. Education

2.3 Working Group Formation Method: formation of at least five (5) working groups by voting according to their interests. The participants received post-its where they wrote their names and affiliated institutions. They posted their names on the topic/theme that they want to address and/or that caught their interest.

List of Priority Environment and Livelihoods Challenges Naga - 2019-2020 1. Solid Waste Management 2. Pollution 3. Sustainable Livelihood 4. Land Conversion Law implementation issue and poor infrastructure were removed as they cut across all issues and thus will be always considered when tackling the issues/challenges. Air, Noise and Water Pollution were combined under the Pollution heading. Solid waste management were divided into two (2) working groups hence five (5) working groups total.

Five (5) groups were created where two (2) covered solid waste management and the other three (3) focused on one of the main prioritized themes: Land Use Conversion, Pollution, and Sustainable Livelihood.

The images above showed how the participants tagged themselves on the urgent issue/challenge/problem that they were interested in.

Session 3: Visioning – Environment and Livelihoods Scenarios for 2030 (WHY) Ms. Aline Roldan discussed the process for achieving the SDGs through the project via three (3) key processes: Collaboration, systems thinking and scientific data gathering for informed decision making. She also tackled the components of solving problems considering the people, the type of problem, the process and the expected outcome and how mental models impact problem solving. She also discussed how innovation can be achieved when finding a solution through three (3) different learning loops (single, double, and triple loop of learning) – emphasizing the importance to build understanding about the problem and the creating a shared vision for future outcomes before the identification of solutions. This was then transposed as the structure of the sessions designed for the two-day workshop. The lecture was followed by the problem tree exercise and scenario building by identifying specific issues under the four (4) major issues.

3.1 Problem Tree Method: The participants were asked to identify specific problems that led to their chosen main issue/challenge; and then identify causes of these issues, thereby resulting in a three- tiered problem tree.

These images showed participants constructing problem trees. 3.2 Impact vs Certainty Matrix

Method: These causative problems were then placed in a matrix in terms of less or more impact and further moved according to high and low certainty of happening.

Creation of Impact/ Certainty matrix

3.3 Scenario Building Method: Creation of descriptive scenarios depicting worst case, business as usual and preferred scenarios through artistic representation, such as drawing, collage of photos, and narrative. The different groups created scenarios about the impact of the issues/challenges/problem for the year 2030.

Participants create scenarios pertaining to issues/challenges/problems in their respective group

Session 4: Analysing problems and strategic areas of intervention (WHAT)

4.1 Voting and Prioritization Method: groups rotated and visited other groups, casting one vote on priority issues/challenges/problems in the impact/certainty matrix. The issue/challenge which received the highest vote became the focus for the strategizing.

Each group moved from one matrix to the other and cast a single vote by participant for the most urgent issue/challenge/problem in the matrix. The participants also voted on their own matrix.

4.2 The Seven (7) Whys Method: to better understand the problem, underlying reasons were surfaced by asking “Why?” seven times. The groups were given time to ask and answer why the priority issue happens or is an issue. Then as the reason emerge, it is again discussed by asking another why, until the group has dug to the utmost reason or root cause for the issue. See example below:

Group: Solid Waste Management 1 Issue: Weak segregation practices at household level Why? Because shallow understanding Why? Because of lack of information Why? Because people are busy attending to other matter Why? The government will take care of it.

Why? People don’t feel responsibilities and even play smart aleck when confronted. Why? Weak belief in policies Why? Doesn’t see benefits

Why? No incentives and penalties.

(Translation)

4.2 What we know and don’t know Method: Participants were asked to identify the things that are familiar to them. They were also asked to provide available information and data to support their claim based on records and report. On the other hand, they were also asked to identify the things that they do not know about the issue/ challenge, the data or information that are missing, and the kind of data that would help them better understand the problem. Below is an example of the session’s output:

4.3 Mapping Exercise Method: Reflect on the geographical dimension of the issue using the Naga City map. Participants located contributing factors (such as resources and intervention conducted by the city about the issues) by writing these on post-its and placing them on the map of Naga City where the prioritized issue has a high impact. Also, to understand the need for data gathering, each group discussed what they knew and did not know about the resources and interventions identified, using the map as a reference to think about data gaps and needs geographically. Participants wrote key ideas in post-its and attached them in the map.

These images show the mapping of the known and unknown factors of the prioritized issues. 15

Session 5: Strategy – Identifying key Milestones and strategic actions 2020-2030 (HOW)

5.1 Backcasting Method: Backcasting – drawing a timeline from 2030 to the present, identify outcomes to be achieved by 2030, and discuss actionable objectives to be achieved (can be per year or every 2 years) in reverse.

Backcasting was employed to identify strategies/objectives and activities leading to solution or eradication of the prioritized issues. This was done by writing the 2030 Vision or translating the vision into one or more one goals related to the voted issue. Then, going backwards each 2 years identifying what milestones or activities are needed to achieve the goal down to the current year (2019). In case there are more than one goal identified, the “backcasting” from 2030 to 2019 can be done by each goal separately.

This process is easier as the objective (eradication of problem) is clear and thus specific factors and strategic steps to the solution emerged.

Participants create specific milestones leading to problem solution or eradication. Session 6: Preparation of Action Plans 2019 (NEXT STEPS)

6.1 Action Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Method: filling up of forms and a Gantt Chart for activities in the next 5 months and starting to reflect about stakeholder engagement based on template provide.

This session directed the participants towards the next steps for their priority issue based on their unit and personal commitments. Each group identified who they were, who else needs to be involved, what are the target activities, and timeline for the next months. The outputs are basically action plans.

VII. Closing Remarks

Fishbowl feedbacks: Mely de Guzman: “The workshop is very interesting. After this activity, I decided not to convert my land. We own parcels of land in barangays Cararayan, Carolina and along Almeda Highway. I was actually planning to set-up a resort while somebody wants to buy the land.”

Analyn Madrid: “I have attended several strategic planning sessions but this one has the best methodology ever.”

Jordan Ronquillo: “First time to hear about governance, ordinances. The more I appreciate the activity since I am not from Naga City, I came from Laguna.”

John Paul Arellano: “I really appreciate the whole session since I came from the academe. Very helpful ito sa academe since estudyante ang kausap and they can contribute din sa planning.” (This is very helpful in the academe since you are talking with students who can contribute to planning.)

Ms. Gilma (Informal Waste Picker) “This is not the first time I attended. I just hope that the plan will push through. Sana madagos ining mga planong ini ta kan mga enot mayo man nangyayari.” (I hope this push through. These plans become reality because in the previous such planning nothing happened.)

Melchor Llantero: “Since I became an employee of LGU Naga, I have been with SWMO. I have conducted various researches especially on how to produce a microorganism/probiotic system. I just realized now that we are more who advocate proper solid waste management. (He is talking about the increased in the number of people supporting proper waste management) I hope that we will realize this plan. Hoping to realize the vision even when I retire from the service.”

Francisco Lim “Seeing the problem on solid waste and livelihood in Naga, this plan is of great help.”

Workshops Outcomes from Working Groups

1) Working Group: Solid Waste Management 1

Facilitator: Wilfredo Prilles Jr. (NCPC) Documenter: Ruth Lumbera (INECAR – ADNU) Group Participants: 1. Melchor E. Llantero (Solid Waste Management Office – LGU Naga) 2. Annabel Vargas (City Social Welfare and Development Office – LGU Naga) 3. Engr. Francisco Lim (City Parks and Recreational Facilities and Management Office – LGU Naga) 4. Claro Alfonso (Naga Market Stallholders’ Federation-Naga City Peoples’ Mall) 5. Gilma Bonganay (Informal Waste Sector) 6. Rosa G. Rully (Naga City Sangguniang Kabataan Federation/Youth) 7. Kylie Tripulca (Naga City Sangguniang Kabataan Federation/Youth)

a) Analyzing problems, causes, impact, and uncertainty

Main Problem/Challenge: Unsustainable Waste Management System Problems: 1. Weak segregation practices at household level 2. Weak Information Education Communication (IEC) at household level 3. Lack of Incentive mechanism 4. Non-functional barangay Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) 5. No clear/ Limited role for Informal Waste Sector 6. Poor extended producer’s responsibility (sachets, residual plastics) Other Challenges Mentioned: 1. Livelihood training and development per barangay 2. Sustainability of programs/projects 3. Informal settlers that utilize land fill site as source of living 4. Poor implementation of policies 5. Employment 6. Pollution – air, water 7. Smoke belching 8. Garbage along Bicol river 9. Waste Segregation 10. Information dissemination of proper waste management 11. Outlet for waste recyclable components and biodegradables 12. How to dispose increasing waste coming from electronic gadgets, garments 13. Air and water pollution 14. Segregation (waste) full implementation 15. Garbage segregation 16. Education

Mr. Prilles facilitated the discussion in the group thereby eliciting appropriate responses.

MATRIX Less Impact More Impact High Certainty Weak IEC at household

level

Lack of Non-functional Weak segregation incentive barangay practices at mechanism materials household level recovery facility ______Unclear/limit ed role for informal waste pickers.

Poor extended Low producers’ Certainty responsibility

The matrix for the impact/certainty showed that the upper right quadrat (high certainty-more impact) revolved around infrastructure and practices of stakeholders.

b) Worst Case Scenario (2030)

“Naga Smells Part 2” “Balatas Dump Site: And Pagbabalik” (The Return) “Team Naga Goodbye Na?”

• Naga smells all over again. San Isidro SLF becomes Balatas Part 2. • 90% of households still do not

segregate waste.

• Informal Waste Sector remains economically disadvantaged. • Disease outbreaks are commonplace. • Functional barangay MRFs remains a dream. • SWMO is unable to keep Naga clean and becomes demoralized. • Big plastic producers resist EPR and get away with it. • Team Naga suffers setback at the polls. • “An Maogmang Lugar” vision becomes a nightmare.

This narrative for the worst-case scenario referred to the old sanitary landfill (Balatas Dumpsite) that emits unpleasant odor during certain times of the day despite its closure. The “political cost” came up as Mr. Prilles is part of the administration which received flak for some environmental issues such as the location of the new sanitary landfill which is beside a river plus the other issue on allowing tree cutting along its roads.

c) Best Case Scenario and vision statement (2030)

“Maogmang Lugar” man giraray!

• Former Balatas dump site is clean and green • Naga is a child-friendly city • There is a secure future for the next generation • Housing is resilient • A vibrant Central Business District and a world-class Naga City People’s Mall • Citizens have gainful jobs • Healthy people, healthy lifestyle • Naga is a liveable city in accord with nature

The narrative of “Maogmang Lugar” man giraray (Happy Place Still) is an echo of a Naga City a decade ago with a return to nature or a caring for the environment note.

d) Business as Usual Scenario (2030)

Narrative explaining this scenario: • The Solid Waste Management Office (SWMO) is “pagal pa man giraray” (still tired/exhausted) • The Informal Waste Sector (IWS) is still “limitado sa San Isidro” (limited to San Isidro Landfill); no other opportunities available, “hard life man giraray” (still have it tough/are still poverty-stricken) • 75% of Households still do not segregate waste

• Plastics “lalong naggulpi ta mayong

pakimano an mga producers” (“tingi mentality”, “heritage of smallness” Current reality for the Solid Waste • Barangay MRFs are still non-functional Management Office (SWMO) of the City was (37-40%) on a downward spiral since the waste • Waste-to-Energy is still wasted energy generated by the City is growing and the • The garbage fee is still almost free (at PhP resources of the SWMO is not at par with 50.00/year). projected solid waste output. One member is • San Isidro Landfill is full after 10 years; fromThe the activitySWMO. on Business As Usual was only prepared“kulog bypayo two na naman groups: kung Solid sain Waste Management Group 1 and the Pollution Group. mahanap bagong lugar”

e) 7 Whys

Why? People don’t feel responsibilities and even play smart aleck when confronted. Why? Weak belief in policies Why? Doesn’t see benefits

Why? No incentives and penalties.

(Translation)

f) Know and don’t know

Unknown Known • SWMO lang an kargado sa IEC, dapat • Dae aram an level of knowledge kan kabali an eskwelahan, etc. (Only the households (The extent or level of Solid Waste Management Office knowledge of households re: waste (SWMO) conducts IECs; schools and segregation – the percentage of other organizations should also do the compliant and non-compliant same) households) • Mayong ordinansa na naglilinaw kan • Dae mi aram kun insentibo (There is no existing napapasunod/naiimplimentar an ordinance that gives emphasis on penalties (We don’t know if the incentives for waste segregation) penalty scheme is strictly • There is an existing penalty scheme for implemented) non-compliance to waste segregation: 1st Offense – PhP 500.00 2nd Offense – PhP 1,000.00 3rd Offense – PhP 1,500.00

g) Results from Mapping

The group identified 11 out of 27 barangays/villages in Naga City with acceptable levels of waste segregation in households. This is based on the criteria set by the SWMO, according to Mr. Llantero. The barangays/villages are as follows: (1) Calauag, (2) Cararayan, (3) Concepcion Grande, (4) Dayangdang, (5) Pacol, (6) Peñafrancia, (7) Sabang, (8) San Felipe, (9) San Francisco, (10) Sta. Cruz, and (11) Tinago. The other 16 barangays have very low compliance with the ordinance. However, it was revealed by Mr. Llantero of SWMO that currently they do not have the exact number of households doing waste segregation.

The group has also marked the areas in the map where presences of Environmental Watch Groups/Organizations from the Informal Waste Sector are found. These groups collect and segregate trash from various areas in the city where selling from recyclables collected are their main source of livelihood. These people are organized into five (5) identified groups:

1. Baal Group – for Barangay Pacol and San Felipe areas 2. Balkin Group – for areas within the Central Business District of Naga (or Centro) 3. IWS Group (where Ms. Gilma is part of) – within the former Balatas Dump Site and the New San Isidro Sanitary Landfill 4. SAMAKA Group – for Vistamall and Robinsons Mall 5. MRF Cooperative – for SM City Naga

h) Backcasting

2030 Vision: Sustainable and Strategic steps/Milestones (every year or each 2 years) progressive City thru shared responsibility Goal A • 2030: Sustainable and progressive City thru shared responsibility • 2024: 100% of Households are segregating their waste* • 2023: 75% of Households are segregating their waste 100% of • 2022: 50% of Households are segregating their waste Households are • 2021: segregating their o 1st half: The Sangguniang Panlungsod passes/adopts waste an incentives ordinance with penalties and incentive mechanisms including a clear policy on Extended Producers’ Responsibility (EPR). There will be an annual contest for the Best Performing Schools, Barangay, and Zone co-sponsored by civil society organizations o 2nd half: 100% of the Barangay Materials Recovery Facilities are functional and the IWS-operated (with Barangay Sabang’s MRF as a model). This will also serve as the monitoring mechanism for the level of compliance. • 2020: 10% of Households are segregating their waste. Weekly training/IEC activity is being conducted in every barangay for the 202 zones in Naga.

*Note: • 2024 is the target year because the lifespan of the new San Isidro Sanitary Landfill (5- 8 years) is taken into consideration, hence, the urgency to act on the waste management situation in the city.

i) Action plan and stakeholder engagement for the next months

Name Organization How do I want to engage (Sector) (responsibilities, time, how often I can meet, how I can contribute) Wilfredo Prilles Jr. City Planning and - can provide technical assistance Development Office – LGU Naga Rosa G. Rully Senior Citizen - can provide participants from the Counterpart of SK senior citizen sector and the SK Federation Council President/Councilor Kylie Tripulca Gilma S. Bonganay Informal Waste - can provide participants from the Sector Informal Waste Sector

Melchor S. Solid Waste - can mobilize staff/personnel Llantero Management Office - can provide leadership and – LGU Naga technical expertise

Francisco Lim City Parks and - can provide participants Recreational Facilities Management Office – LGU Naga Claro Alfonso Naga City Market - can assist in drafting the policy Stallholders’ - can provide technical expertise Federation – Naga - can provide a venue for meetings City Peoples’ Mall - can provide participants from the market stallholders’ sector Annabel Vargas City Social Welfare - can provide/organize participants and Development from the 4Ps, Queen, and Office – LGU Naga Sanggawadan Members

Output(s) What (Key activities) Who would like to contribute October November December January February 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 SWMO – training design, resource persons Organizing for IECs CSWDO- participants from 4PS, Queen, Sanggawadan, IWS CAgO- modules on composting, organic farming Barangay Councils/Senior Citizen Organization – participants DepEd- participants NAMASFED, MNCCI, FCCI - participants Dry Run for each focus group (with evaluation) Working Group assessment of dry run to improve training IEC per target group Start of implementation of weekly IEC training by barangay zone Drafting of ordinance on SURM

2) Working Group: Solid Waste Management 2

Facilitator and Documenter: Mr. Norman Posugac (CPDO – LGU Naga) Group Participants (name, organizations): 1. Engr. Nestor Franz A. Fortuno (DENR-CENRO Iriga City) 2. Engr. Herlyn L. Delos Reyes (CPDO – LGU Naga) 3. Mr. Norman Posugac (CPDO – LGU Naga) 4. Mr. Jordan Ronquillo (University of Nueva Caceres) 5. Mr. Damian Santiago (Barangay Local Government Unit of Triangulo)

a) Analyzing problems, causes, impact, and uncertainty

Main Problem/Challenge: Poor implementation of environmental laws Problems: a) No segregation from big commercial establishments b) No segregation at household level c) Use of plastic as common packaging material Other Challenges Mentioned: 1. Absence of plans because it is not a priority. 2. Lack of awareness because of lack of information 3. Lack of alternative packaging materials because there is no research/studies on alternative packaging materials.

MATRIX Less Impact More Impact High Use of plastic Poor implementation of Certainty packaging environmental laws

Lack of research / studies Individual behavior Absence of plans Lack of Awareness No segregation No segregation at from big household level Low commercial Certainty establishment

For SWM Group 2, the reasons for the solid waste issue ranged from individual behavior to policy implementation. This was maybe due to the participation of a provincial official of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), a major government agency.

b) Worst Case Scenario (2030)

“Naga City 2030 Disaster” • In 2030, the San Isidro Sanitary Landfill (SLF) is full beyond its capacity. • When a super typhoon arrives, the garbage will overflow into the Yabo River, causing the river to clog and overflow

• The situation will cause

extreme flooding and spread of

water-borne diseases.

c) Best Case Scenario and vision statement (2030)

“I Have a Dream” • A vibrant city sustaining its environment by empowered people through commitment, research, and political will to protect and preserve nature with compassion.

d) Whys

Group: Solid Waste Management 2 Issue: Poor implementation of environmental laws Why? There is vague accountability system. Why? There is no oversight. Why? Because of poor monitoring, planning, and study. Why? Low priority

Why? Because of multiple tasks

Why? There is lack of manpower.

e) Know and don’t know

Known Unknown • There are environmental laws. • The extent of implementation of environmental laws. • There are organizations or institutions • Details of the laws (especially that are charged to implement these penalties) laws. • If these laws have been subjected to reviews and amendments to be more responsive to the changing needs of time and environment.

f) Results from Mapping

There was distribution of issues all across Naga City: Organic Farms, Livelihood and Segregation for the upland barangays; livelihood and segregation for majority of the

downtown barangays, and discharge point along with livelihood and segregation for some other barangays.

g) Backcasting

2030 Vision: Sustainable and Strategic steps/Milestones (every year or each 2 years) progressive city thru shared responsibility Goals for 2030 were • 2030: The goal is to have a responsive law where citizens not identified by the are adhering to it. group • 2027: Indicators of M.O.V. • 2025: Reviews of environmental laws. • 2021: Incentive structures and strong public-private partnership. • 2020: IEC campaigns, accreditation (ISO) • 2020: Application for ISO • 2020: Development of ISO Standards for environmental laws and practices • 2019: Research and appraisal

h) Action plan and stakeholder engagement for the next months

Name Organization How do I want to engage (responsibilities, (Sector) time, how often I can meet, how I can contribute) Kgd. Damian Barangay LGU of Provide site for pilot project Santiago Triangulo Jordan Ronquillo Academe Research Nestor Franz Fortuno National Agency Research, personnel support Norman Posugac LGU – Naga (CPDO) Research Herlyn de los Reyes LGU- Naga (CPDO) Research

The group did not formulate their own action plan.

3) Working Group: Pollution

Facilitator: Joanaviva C. Plopenio, Ateneo de Naga University-INECAR Documenter: Shane B. Bimeda, Ateneo de Naga University-INECAR Group Members: 1. Nanette A. Tidon, Department of Environment and Natural Resources- 2. Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) 3. Michelle Anne C. Buenaobra, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) 4. Architect John Paul B. Arellano, University of Nueva Caceres/Academe (UNC) 5. Analyn A. Madrid, Bicol State College of Applied Sciences and Technology/Academe (BISCAST) 6. Art R. Esmeralda, Counsel of Laity Archdiocese of Caceres 7. Armando Carlo O. Lopez III, San Rafael Neighborhood Association 8. Police Staff Sergeant Rochelle R. Idian, Philippine National Police (PNP)

a) Analyzing problems, causes, impact, and uncertainty

MATRIX Less Impact More Impact High Use of plastic High volume of Certainty packaging vehicles Overuse of farmlands Absence of wastewater treatment facility

Improper disposal of Direct discharge hazardous wastes of wastewater and solid waste to river

Videoke/karaoke High volume of Absence of Vehicular vehicles green spaces emission Use of inorganic Burning of Absence of trees fertilizer garbage especially plastic Low Insufficient Certainty sewerage system

This group was composed of mostly academic institutions representatives.

b) Worst Case Scenario (2030)

“Naga City Apocalypse: Nga Nga Na! “ Nga Nga refers to an open mouth.

• By 2030, Naga City is in ruins and is suffering from flooding, drought, acid rain, food shortage, and water shortage due to slower groundwater recharge rate. • The general population is affected by heatstroke due to the increasing temperature and absence of trees and green spaces in the city. • Traffic is hellish in the City. Furthermore, many are suffering from water-borne diseases. • There is high mortality rate and lower life expectancy. • There is high crime rate and social unrest because of very limited resources.

c) Best Case Scenario and vision statement (2030)

“Green and Progressive City of Naga” (Saganang Naga) [though appropriate translation for “sagana” is bountiful.]

• By 2030, Naga is already a Green and Progressive City. It boasts of clean environment and

sustainable development. The water in Naga River is now clear and clean. • A floating market for locally produced farm products already exists in the river. • There is a functional waste-to-energy facility and Naga becomes a zero-waste city. • Plastics, especially the single-use plastics are banned while refilling stations for many market and household products are in place. • The city is walkable with a balanced urban ecosystem, with green buildings and parks in the city’s bounds. People live with simple and healthful lifestyle. d) Business as Usual Scenario (2030)• Furthermore, the City has effective mass transport system which includes point to point public transport schemes.

• The 2030 Naga Man Giraray (Same Old Naga) is a city where videoke/karaoke in

the neighbourhood will still be prevalent; canals are discharging in the Naga River. • Vehicles are noisy, and there are a lot of smoke belchers, and solid waste is prevalent. • Farmers still use inorganic fertilizers and a broad spectrum of insecticides. • There are outbreaks of diseases since population has increased and living condition is poor (informal settlers and e) 7 Whys row houses).

Group: Pollution Group Issue: Insufficient Sewerage System Why? It is not part of the plan; no comprehensive Sewage System (SS) Plan Why? We don’t have experts to formulate SS plan in the government (LGU) Why? We don’t have trainings for SS planners. Why? It is not a priority Why? Because the LGU did not see the significance of the SS. Why? Because they don’t have data, information regarding pollutants Why? No methods/protocols to gather data regarding the discharge of the sewerage and pollution issues.

The dynamics between the needs for data and the capacity to conduct research for data generation which is actionable was at play since sometimes politicians or the LGU have different thrusts or priorities. The policies are mostly reactive.

f) Know and doesn’t know

Known Unknown • Naga City has an existing • We do not know if there is an expert on Comprehensive Land use Plan sewage treatment system in the Local (CLUP) Government Unit (LGU).

• The Environmental Management • Are there really trainings on sewage Bureau of the Department of treatment available for the experts in the Environment and Natural LGU? Resources (EMB-DENR) conducts regular monitoring of the Naga • Is there a comprehensive plan on sewerage River. On the other hand, the system outlined in the Comprehensive Land water sampling is conducted Use Plan (CLUP) of Naga City? generally on the river and do not sample the point sources of • At what level of engagement is the LGU in pollution. Furthermore, the terms of their sewage treatment plans (if analysis does not include the full there is a plan)? testing of the water sample. • Are there reports of pollution control • We know that there is existing officers in the establishments? Where are technology on the collection and these reports? Do they include those processing of sewage. recently opened small commercial

establishments which used to be • The Metro Naga Water District residential/households in classification? (MNWD) is constructing a wastewater treatment facility in • What is the amount/ percentage and Caromatig, Carolina, Naga City for chemical components of the sewage being septic waste only. discharged from the households?

• Does the concerned unit know the protocol on how to gather the data (related to sewerage and discharge)?

• Do they gather data (related to sewerage and discharge)?

• Are there experts within the community (in Schools, Universities, and other sectors)?

• Do the people, especially the ones living near the river, truly understands the importance of a sewage treatment system? How it affects and relates to the other problems in their lives and in the city?

------other comments------• Sewerage system can be used to recycle water, including run off, for other purposes • Treated and clean water can also be connected to the water supply grid of the Metro Naga Water District to augment the water supply in the area • The sewage treatment facility can be constructed using the public-private- partnership scheme • Systems thinking and coordination between the involved government agencies in construction so that the work on storm drainage, road widening, and sewerage system will just be done simultaneously.

g) Results from Mapping

Identified sources/hotspots of pollution:

Downtown-Urban Naga • High “Daytime” Population

Riverside Areas (of the Naga River) • Direct discharge of wastewater along the riverside without treatment • Air and water pollution • Noise pollution in Central Business District 1 and 2 • Traffic congestion • Less green spaces in Central Business District 1 and 2

San Felipe • High population • Use of fertilizers and pesticides

Balatas • High population • Leachate from dumpsite

Cararayan • High population • Use of pesticides and fertilizers • High incidence of households with unsanitary toilets

Pacol • High incidence of households with unsanitary toilets • High population

San Isidro • Use of pesticides and fertilizers

Carolina • Use of pesticides and fertilizers • High population

Panicuason • Use of pesticides and fertilizers • High incidence of households with unsanitary toilets

h) Backcasting

Key Environment and/or livelihood challenge: Pollution

2030 Vision: Strategic steps/Milestones (every year or each 2 years)

Green and Progressive City of Naga 2030 Goals: • 2028: Monitoring and Evaluation of Water (sewerage) Discharge Class B Water Quality o Academia in Naga River o Water Quality Testing • 2026: Functional Water –Treatment Facility • 2025: Fully operational Sewerage System o Turn-over of project o Allocation of fund for maintenance and other operational expenses (MOOE) o Organizational structure/Institutionalization o Capability/training • 2024: Compliance of households and commercial establishments o Incentives, monitoring of households o Penalty o Interconnected Drainage System • Coordination of barangays • 2023: Strategic clustering of households and commercial establishments and construction of drainage system in areas without sewerage system • Ground-breaking • Monitoring of construction • Program of work • 2022: Approved plans and Environmental Compliance certificate, permits and funding o Inclusion in the Executive and Legislative Agenda (ELA) o Conduct of the ELA o Permit application o Bidding process • 2021: Resolution to approve projects and recommendation for funding application o Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Councilors) of infrastructure and environment to sponsor resolution o Drafting of resolution with the help of the academia Stakeholders’ Consultation o Issue invitation to attend series of public consultation o More Information Education and Communication campaign o Awareness campaign o Coordination with concerned government agencies (MNWD etc) • 2020: Feasibility Studies (Data Gathering) o Approval of the Local Government Unit o Conduct of Feasibility Study (and Data Gathering) (c/o City Planning and Development Office) o Technical Report o Programming of work • 2019: Submission of proposals • Organize the technical working group • Series of meetings • Review of related literature

i) Action plan and stakeholder engagement for the next months

Output(s) What (Key activities) Who would like to October November December January 2020 February contribute 2019 2019 2019 2020 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5. Organize technical working group 1a. Create groupchat Ar. John Paul Arellano (Google Drive) (UNC) 1b. Inception meeting Joanaviva C. Plopenio (ADNU) 2. Series of meetings 2a. Outline of proposal Analyn A. Madrid (BISCAST) 2b. Drafting of the proposal Analyn A. Madrid (BISCAST) 2c. Finalizing the proposal Ar. John Paul Arellano (UNC) 2d. Review and revisions Joanaviva C. Plopenio (ADNU) 3. Submission of proposal to Michelle Anne C. the City Mayor’s Office Buenaobra (DILG) through the City Planning and Development Office 6. Communication letters Michelle Anne C. from CPDO Buenaobra (DILG) 5. Follow up of Mayor’s Michelle Anne C. Approval Buenaobra (DILG)

Additional stakeholders to engage in the elaboration of the chapter and how:

Name Organization Why to How to engage them When Who will engage to engage them engage them them Presiden Liga ng mga Major Department t Barangay Stakeholde of Interior (League of r and Local Barangays in Governmen Naga) t (DILG) Engr. City Technical Alex engineering Assistance Caning Office Presiden Metro Naga Major t Chamber of Stakeholde Commerce r and CPDO Industries During Maam Naga City Major Meetings/Consultation the Balance Peoples Stakeholde s drafting Council r of Heads Academia Major proposa Stakeholde l r and Technical Assistance Sir Willy City Planning Major Sir Willy Prilles and Stakeholde Prilles Developmen r and t Office Technical (CPDO) Assistance Director Metro Naga Major CPDO Palma Water Stakeholde District r and Technical Assistance

4) Working Group: Land Conversion/Agriculture

Facilitator: Johann de la Rosa (Community Relations Office - LGU Naga) Documenter: Art Cledera (City Planning and Development Office, LGU Naga) Group Participants: 1. Mrs. Merly de Guzman (Retirees, GSP, Red Cross, Lions) 2. PCPL. Lalaine San Juan (Naga City Police Office) 3. Ernest Asence (City Agriculture Office, LGU Naga) 4. Nancy Fernandez (NEDA Regional Office 5)

a) Analyzing problems, causes, impact, and uncertainty

MATRIX Less Impact More Impact High Low farm income Certainty Poor monitoring Urbanization Migration scheme

Government Illegal Social housing Economic Illegal allows it conversion programs/social Aggression settlement (conversion) services

_____ Poor and low Cultural Low soil Lack of ____ appreciation for changes fertility/farm opportunities/ agriculture productivity employment etc. Non-priority Politicized programs Poor inter- agency coordination Non-passage Low of land use Certainty plan

The group was able to identify priority issues/ problems that concern the agriculture sector in the city of Naga. Based from the rotation voting of all the participants on the issues posted, it came out that the issue/ problem that has the most number of votes in agriculture is the poor and low appreciation of the constituents for agriculture. It was followed by illegal or unregulated conversion of prime agricultural lands to residential, industrial, and other non- farm related uses. The third among them is the presence of illegal settlements that is caused maybe by non-passage of Land Use Act.

b) Worst Case Scenario (2030)

“Naga, An Mapungao na Lugar (Naga, The Sad Place)”

• It is 2030, and 95 % of the population is affected by massive hunger brought about by uncontrolled and unregulated land conversion. They don’t have access to food and produce and lack income to provide for their

basic needs.

• The communities have turned into slums, where poverty is widespread and criminality is substantially high. • There was a massive land conversion in Naga in 2020 as it was the local government’s priority in the city’s development plan. • In 2025, the local government gave free entry to all investors and established their businesses

in farming government protected

areas. • This problem has affected farms and forests. The policies and laws on land conversion were in conflict with the economic targets of the local government. People are suffering from malnutrition and various diseases. Climate change has made the situation worse. The city has become barren and arid. • I wish planners, decision-makers,

and policy-makers in 2019 knew

how to strategically implement the laws concerning land conversion and had a well- implemented land use plan and would have done responsible measures as it encountered urbanization. • Naga, an Mapungao na lugar.

c) Best Case Scenario and vision statement

“Sustainability, Higher Levels of

Living”

• It is 2030; Naga City just

received recognition for

being the most liveable and

most sustainable city in Asia!

• Because of good and strong

governance, the local

ordinances are well-crafted

and strictly implemented.

• The collaborative efforts of the city government and its

constituents lead to

discipline and order.

• Farmers and the rest of the local sector enjoying the benefits of higher level of living and there's an economic balance in terms of development. • The city has attained income security for all of the constituents.

d) Business as Usual Scenario This group focused on best and worst case scenarios only.

e) 7 Whys

Group: Land Conversion-Agriculture Issue: Poor or Low Appreciation for Agriculture

Why? Low farm income Why? Low productivity Why? High farm input costs Why? High cost of labor and fertilizers Why? Presence of high paying off-farm opportunities and existing trade agreements Why? Farmers do not prefer organic farming because of its nature as labor intensive. Why? Dependency on synthetic inputs

f) Know and doesn’t know

Known Unknown • Low farm income • Trade agreements • Low productivity • Quantity/volume of farm inputs • High cost of farm labor (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) imported • Inputs are imported • Source of imported farm inputs • Lack of locally produced inputs • Laws and regulations on farm inputs • Dependency on synthetic inputs importation

The group said that the Trade Agreements, Quantity or volume of agricultural products imported, its sources, and other laws and regulations about it are unclear to them or they only have little knowledge about it. They thought that the expertise only belongs to the national level thus making it hard for them to understand its contribution to their problem though, they believe, it has a major impact on the issue at hand.

g) Results from Mapping

The group was able to identify the location of farming areas using the given map. They labelled it as the following: LI- LOW INCOME; LC-LAND CONVERSION; and OF-ORGANIC FARMING. Based from the outputs, it is noted that more areas are still under low income farming areas while land conversion areas are already taking its place in most parts of the city given the fast urbanization pace that the

city has.

h) Backcasting

2030 Vision: Strategic steps To be the Greenest and Most Sustainable City in Asia!

2030 Goals: • 2029: Local manufacturer of natural farming inputs under the Public GOAL A Private Partnership scheme Natural farming Facility • 2026: Monitoring of natural farming inputs facilities • 2025: One (1) natural farming inputs facility per barangay (village) established and managed by community-based organizations • 2023: Selection of associations that will manage the facility • 2021: Supporting the formation of farmers association • 2020: Operational organic trading post; Feasibility study of locally producing natural farming inputs GOAL B • 2022: Ordinance approved requiring 40% of farming inputs to be Incentives for organic locally produced; IEC Campaigns about the ordinance farming and permaculture • 2021: Presentation of ordinance regarding organic inputs to possible investors; Elaboration of the ordinance through consultation with stakeholders regarding the use of natural farming inputs • 2020: Request for amendment of policy regarding outsourcing of organic inputs; Government subsidy for organic inputs; Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) regarding organic certification GOAL C • 2029: Functional Agribusiness in Naga City Agribusiness • 2025: Provide facilities for agribusiness • 2023: Zoning areas of production for agribusiness; Training for agribusiness. • 2022: Selection of farmers for agribusiness • 2021: Identification of farmers interested in agribusiness (baseline survey)

In the backcasting session, the group identified three major areas of intervention: the creation of natural farming facility in the long-term, the creation of incentives for organic farming and permaculture, and the support to create agribusinesses. After the discussion of these alternatives, the group agreed that even if farmers reduce their costs and increases their incomes; these measures are not going to solve per se the land conversion issue. The population of Naga city will largely increase in the coming years. The urban planning departments need to increase density and provide affordable housing to avoid urban sprawl.

i) Action plan and stakeholder engagement for the next months

Output(s) What (Key activities) Who would like to October November December January 2020 February contribute 2019 2019 2019 2020 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Stakeholder Mapping City Agriculture Office Baseline Data Analysis City Agriculture Office Stakeholder’s Consultation re: Agriculture Council Problem Identification and composed on Farmers’ strategy Associations, farm land owners, National Government Agencies, LGU Naga Call for ideas/strategies on City Agriculture Office improving the agricultural sector. Draft (section) on agricultural City Agriculture Office development under the Economic Development Chapter of the City Development Plan. Validation Meeting Stakeholders

5) Working Group: Sustainable Livelihood

Facilitators and Documenters: Marion A. Ramirez and Maria Theresa Britanico Group Participants:

1. Liza M. Mapa (Rural Improvement Club, Naga City) 2. Rosemarie V. Dela Trinidad (Department of Trade and Industry-Naga) 3. Kat Carizo/Melanie Banas (St. Jude Orchard Homeowners Association) 4. Teofisto R. De Guzman Jr. (Pamilyang Migrante ng Naga City) 5. Rosenante S. Pobar (TESDA-Bicol) 6. Apang Olivan (Naga City Filipino Chinese Chamber of Commerce) 7. Sonny T. Dy Reyes (Naga City Filipino Chinese Chamber of Commerce) 8. Godofredo Uy (Naga City Filipino Chinese Chamber of Commerce)

a) Analyzing problems, causes, impact, and uncertainty

MATRIX Less Impact More Impact High Lack of values Lack of Certainty understanding motivational factors Support system Market strategy (money/technical/market ing)

Online Lack of financial literacy Geographical Lack of presence mismatch sustainable (online market platform People like Lazada, engagement Market mismatch Zalora) (without dedicated/passio Cost of doing business nate/motivated Mismatch of skills (BIR, FDA,etc) members of Availability of sustainable funds livelihood groups)

______Proper transport & Understanding Job Mismatch market of goods & money mindset services

Climate change

Low Educational curriculum Certainty

b) Worst Case Scenario (2030)

“The Mystery Remains”

• It is 2030, and 50% of the population is affected by poverty. They don’t have employment and source of income. • The areas/ neighborhoods/ communities in Camaligan, Milaor, Canaman, Gainza, Pili, and Magarao do not have source of income, too. • In 2024, too much drought happened in Naga City

and had the following consequences: No more rice production, No more water along the Bicol River, No more agricultural production, and No more water source within Naga City and nearby towns • In 2025, drastic increase in the number of poverty threshold. The problem of poverty is critical since 2019. And it got worse and worse because of lack livelihood opportunities. This problem affects specially the areas/communities of the 27 barangays of Naga City. • The policies and plans of the city government failed to do by the constituents because of the scarcity of resources.

• People are suffering from food scarcity,

unemployment, and resources (natural resources, financial, human resources) and the environment is deteriorated. • I wish planners, decision makers, and policymakers in 2019 knew comprehensive development plan and would have done religiously, sincerely, and the c) Best Case Scenario and vision statementbayanihan spirit. (2030)

The good scenario of Naga City was visualized by the group through the visioning process in case the identified issues/challenges were resolved. From the paper cut- outs, the group presented their good scenario.

“Naga Na!”

• Funds are available. • Copra industry is accelerating. • Palay production can supply the high demands of the city. • Tourists are coming in. • There is employment for skilled workers.

d) Business as Usual Scenario

This group focused only on best and worst-case scenarios. e) 7 Whys

Group: Sustainable Livelihood Issue: Lack of People Engagement in opportunities to improve their livelihoods Why? No motivating factors Why? Lack of trust and certainty. Why? Lack of opportunity. Why? Insufficient knowledge Why? Lack of training/information Why? Character (lack of interest and attitude) Why? Family. f) Know and don’t know

Known Unknown • There are existing projects (for • Types of trainings livelihood) • Which agencies provide training • Financial Support • Personal attitude • Existing trainings • Lack of information dissemination • Lack of funding

g) Results from Mapping

It has been noted that they are not sure of the current status of said livelihood projects. From the discussion, it has been observed that different agencies have different database. Therefore, there is a need to have a centralized database with regard to sustainable livelihood.

h) Backcasting

2030 Vision: Prosperity and good business reputation , Strategic steps/Milestones (every year or each 2 years) prominence in Naga City Goals for 2030: • 2027: Global market of local products, local products are • Global market for available internationally local products • 2025: Online presence and marketing platform (e.g. Lazada, • Empowered Shopee), Market matching, networking organizations • 2023: High quality products, passed the quality standards • Satisfied (DFA, DTI, DOST), Product development, benchmarking/ employees good practices, improvement of equipment • 2021: Empowered Organizations, organizations are duly recognized and accredited (business name, mayor’s permit, BIR, FDA, LTO, Barcode, etc.), Highly satisfied members (well compensated, involved in decision making) • 2020: Synergy among stakeholders (private and public), established database (assisted clients, assistance given), mapping of interventions (training, funding, etc.) of various organizations (NGA, NGOs, and LGUs).

The SL group came up with the following: • Agriculture as economic base, may focus on organic products, boosting of products to local and international markets • Linkages to different networks (manufacturing and services)

i) Action plan and stakeholder engagement for the next months

Name Organization How do I want to engage (Sector) (responsibilities, time, how often I can meet, how I can contribute) Liza Mapa Rural Improvement - can assist in gathering the women Club (RIC) – Naga and farmers in the rural areas of City Naga Rosemarie V. Dela Department of Trade - can provide assistance in terms of Trinidad and Industry (DTI) – business registration Camarines Sur Office

Kat Carizo/ St. Jude Orchard - can assist in the dissemination of Melanie Bañas Homeowners information to household with Association, Inc. subdivisions Teofisto R. De Pamilyang Migrante - can network with OFWs regarding Guzman, Jr. ng Naga (PAMANA) any opportunities Rosemarie S. Pobar Technical Education - can assist in providing employable and Skills technical skills Development Authority (TESDA) – Camarines Sur Apang Olivan, Naga City Filipino - can assist in providing linkages and Sonny Dy-Reyes, Chinese Chamber of network to businessmen in the city Godofredo Uy Commerce

Output(s) What (Key activities) Who would like to contribute October November December January February 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Creation of Technical Working Lead: LGU – CPDO Group (TWG) Contributors: DTI, TESDA, DOLE, DA, DOST, DAR, PSA, NGOs Data Consolidation TWG and responsible units of LGU Naga Submission of consolidated data/ TWG and organizations validated report involved in the validation

Summary of Workshop Outcomes

1) Summary of Outcomes and Linkages with the 2030 Agenda

Participants’ Priority Major Problems Data and Information Naga City Linkages with the Recommendations Issues Gaps 2030 Goals 2030 Agenda of Activities 2019- 2021 Solid Waste Priority problem: Limited capacity of On Household Solid Waste 100% of Households are Goal 11. Make cities and Weekly training/IEC activity Management Landfill. The lifespan of the new San Isidro Segregation segregating their waste human settlements in each of the 202 barangay Sanitary Landfill is 5-8 years. There is the • The extent or level of knowledge in 2030. inclusive, safe, resilient zones. By 2020, 10% of urgency to act on the waste management of households on waste and sustainable Households are segregating situation in the city, specially increasing segregation their waste. solid waste segregation. • The percentage of compliant and Target: 11.6 non-compliant households. Indicator: 11.6.1 More specific problems: There is no exactly number of • Lack of household solid waste number of households doing segregation. Cause believed to be the waste segregation. lack of incentives and penalties. • No information on how penalties • Limited financial resources to improve are being implemented. SWM. The garbage fee is almost free (at PhP 50.00/year). • No segregation from big commercial establishment/ Poor extended producers’ responsibility • Non-functional barangay materials recovery facility • Use of plastic packaging • Unclear/limited role for informal waste pickers. Pollution The main problem is an insufficient sewage On water pollution Class B Water Quality in Goal 6. Ensure availability Formation of a technical system. The root causes are believed to be Naga River in 2030. and sustainable working group, data

the lack of data and information about • No sample on the point sources management of water and gathering, technical reports, pollutants, and that there are no methods of pollution. sanitation for all and preparation of or protocols to gather data regarding the • Water analysis does not include feasibility studies. discharge of the sewage and pollution the full testing of the water Targets: 6.2; 6.3; 6.4; 6.6; issues. samples. 6.a; 6.b • Are there reports of pollution Indicators: 6.2.1 ; 6.3.1; Other problems include: control officers in the 6.3.2; 6.4.1; 6.4.2; 6.6.1; • Absence of wastewater treatment establishments? Where are 6.a.1; 6.b.1 facility these reports? Do they include • Improper disposal of hazardous wastes those recently opened small • Direct discharge of wastewater and commercial establishments solid waste to river which used to be • Overuse of farmlands and use of residential/households in inorganic fertilizer (Use of pesticides classification? and fertilizers) • What are the

• Use of plastic packaging amount/percentage and Goal 11. Make cities and • High volume of vehicles and Vehicular chemical components of the human settlements emission sewage being discharged from inclusive, safe, resilient • Absence of green spaces and trees the households? and sustainable • • Does the concerned unit know Burning of garbage especially plastic the protocol on how to gather Target: 11.6; 11.7 the data (related to sewerage Indicator: 11.6.2; 11.7.1 and discharge)? Do they gather

data? • Do the people, especially the ones living near the river, truly understands the importance of a sewage treatment system? How it affects and relates to the other problems in their lives and in the city? • Lack of clarity on local capacity: Is there an expert on sewage treatment system in the Local Government Unit (LGU)? Are there trainings on sewage treatment available for the experts in the LGU? Are there experts within the community (in

Schools, Universities, and other sectors)? • Lack of clarity on policies and governance: Is there a comprehensive plan on sewerage system outlined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) of Naga City? At what level of engagement is the LGU in terms of their sewage treatment plans (if there is a plan)? Livelihoods The informal waste sector (IWS) was not Unconsolidated data on the type of • Global market Goal 8. Promote • Creation of Technical well represented resulting for the group to livelihood trainings provided, name for local sustained, inclusive and Working Group (TWG) be out of focus in identifying problems and of provider, recipients or products sustainable economic • Data Consolidation providing solutions to sustainable beneficiaries, and their status after • Empowered growth, full and • Submission of livelihood matters. availing the said programs. organizations productive employment consolidated data/ • Satisfied and decent work for all validated report Priority problem identified: Low people workers engagement Target: 8.5 Indicator: 8.5.2 Other challenges identified: • Lack of value understanding • Skills of most of the population are mismatched with what the market demands.

• Lack financial literacy among the youth and marginalized • Poor holistic support system Goal 17. Strengthen the from the government. means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for Insufficient inputs. Planning session must sustainable development be redone with representatives of low- income stakeholders and informal waste Target: 17.11 sector, with support from local experts on Indicator: 17.11.1 livelihoods.

Sustainable Land conversion through illegal • Trade agreements In 2030, 100% of farmers Goal 2. End hunger, • Feasibility study on locally Agriculture settlements, low income of farmers who • Quantity/volume of will be using locally at achieve food security and produced natural farming sell their lands for residential and imported agricultural least 40% of locally natural improved nutrition and inputs. commercial use, and unsustainable inputs (fertilizers, produced farming inputs. promote sustainable • Request for amendment farming activities. pesticides, etc.) agriculture on ordinance. • Source of imported In 2030, farmers have a • Outsource organic inputs, Group agreed that even if farmers reduce agricultural higher income, higher Targets: 2.4 subsidized. their costs and increases their incomes; products/inputs productivity, lower Indicator: 2.4.1 • Identification of farmers these measures are not going to solve per • Existing Laws and farming costs, and Naga interested in agribusiness. se the land conversion issue. The regulations regarding have increased in organic • Participatory Guarantee population of Naga city will largely importation of farming. System (PGS) – organic increase in the coming years. The urban agricultural inputs. certification planning departments need to increase Land conversion is • Stakeholder Consultation density and provide affordable housing to minimized on the use of natural avoid urban sprawl. farming inputs • Support the formation of farmers associations. • Operational organic trading post. Environmental Naga city has multiple ordinances; Stakeholders do not know why In 2030, Naga city has Goal 16. Promote • IEC campaigns, Law however they are not implemented and ordinances are not being enforced. responsive laws and peaceful and inclusive accreditation (ISO) Enforcement enforced. citizens who are societies for sustainable • Application for ISO responsive to the laws. development, provide • Development of ISO access to justice for all Standards for and build effective, environmental laws and accountable and inclusive practices institutions at all levels

Target: 16.6 Indicator: 16.6.2

List of Goals, targets, and indicators

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture 2.4 By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality 2.4.1 Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture

Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all 6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations 6.2.1 Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services, including a hand-washing facility with soap and water 6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally 6.3.1 Proportion of wastewater safely treated 6.3.2 Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality 6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity 6.4.1 Change in water-use efficiency over time 6.4.2 Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available freshwater resources 6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes 6.6.1 Change in the extent of water-related ecosystems over time 6.a By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies 6.a.1 Amount of water- and sanitation-related official development assistance that is part of a government-coordinated spending plan 6.b Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management 6.b.1 Proportion of local administrative units with established and operational policies and procedures for participation of local communities in water and sanitation management

Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable 11.6 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management 11.6.1 Proportion of urban solid waste regularly collected and with adequate final discharge out of total urban solid waste generated, by cities

11.6.2 Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g. PM2.5 and PM10) in cities (population weighted) 11.7 By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities 11.7.1 Average share of the built-up area of cities that is open space for public use for all, by sex, age and persons with disabilities

Once more specific information is collected and the goal-setting process is completed, other related goals might include SDGs 1, 3, 8, and 12.

2) Recommendations for Next Steps The first strategic planning workshop is a starting point to develop the Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Development Plan of Naga City (2021-2030). Further collaborative and consultative meetings will happen in the following year to produce an effective plan for sustainable urban resources management. For each of the priority issues, the next steps will include:

a) Evaluation Environmental Chapter 2011-2020: Progress and lessons learned. b) Completion of Problem Assessment and Data Gap Analysis. c) Goal setting: Participatory scenario planning, vision statement, review of 2030 goals, and linkages with 2030 Agenda. d) Planning and Implementation: List objectives, plan of actions, outputs, indicators, monitoring system, and stakeholder engagement plan for each group.

Annexes

Participant Evaluation Form (see Appendix 2)