05/11/2025
There were frequent and severe floods in Cebu and the latest is the devastating effect of Tino. It had been continuously stated that Cebu necessitates a careful review of its Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) because the existing plan is largely seen as outdated and inadequate to address the rapid urbanization Cebu had been doing under the watch of the politicians. And said urbanization resulted to increase in built-up areas and a corresponding decrease in open spaces and vegetative cover (such as forests and annual crops) and because of past planning failures and a lack of regulatory mechanisms, Cebu allowed development and illegal structures to encroach on river easements, wetlands, and natural floodplains which blocked the waterways contributing to the occurrence of floods.
The solutions are the integration of Disaster Risk Reduction and Prevention explicitly considering flood risk parameters in land use policies to guide government agencies and private developers on proper project locations and necessary mitigation measures, such as requiring rainwater catchment systems and retention ponds in new projects and establishment of a Holistic Water Management harmonizing land use strategies with a long-term integrated drainage master plan and water management policies to ensure the city's development supports, rather than obstructs, the natural flow of water. And it could have been mandated by a CLWUP which is considered the primary document that dictates how land can be used. Without an updated, strictly enforced, and science-based one that prioritizes flood mitigation and environmental protection, Cebu's flooding woes—exacerbated by climate change—will only continue to worsen.
Now, why is it hard to come up with a CLWUP that should be both responsive to the needs of the people and preventive or at least mitigating the devastating effects of calamities through the proper use of spaces? This is the most important question nowadays not only tackling the situation of Cebu about its urban planning and infrastructure challenges but also all over the Philippines. Said challenge of having a responsive and preventive CLWUP is one important hurdle separate and different with the difficulty in implementing such a good one including the related master plans often because of two major issues: political will and fragmented governance.
And then the idea of a private sector-manned development authority with the following purposes, mainly because we need to shift the implementation responsibility to a less political, more technocratic body—potentially driven by the private sector:
• Consistency and Long-Term Vision: A private sector-led authority is typically less vulnerable to the four-year election cycle that often causes policy shifts, project delays, or cancellation of previous administrations' flood control and CLUP-related initiatives. They can enforce a consistent, long-term master plan.
• Technical Competence and Efficiency: Private developers and engineers often possess specialized expertise in large-scale infrastructure and can execute projects more efficiently and with less bureaucratic red tape than some government agencies.
• Accountability and Transparency: While not immune to issues, a development authority with private sector oversight can introduce stronger corporate governance models and demand high standards of project quality, directly addressing public concerns about alleged corruption and substandard flood control projects.
• Inter-LGU Coordination: Flooding in Metro Cebu is a transboundary issue (rivers and watersheds cross multiple Local Government Units or LGUs). The current CLUPs are localized, but a metropolitan-wide authority, ideally with private sector management best practices, could enforce a unified plan across all member cities and municipalities.
Besides, there is an overwhelming positive response from the Current Institutional Set up of Cebu approving the Metropolitan Cebu Development Authority (MCDA) Concept. They are actually pushing for a more empowered, metropolitan-wide body as already recognized by Cebu's stakeholders with the following adjustments:
• The Problem with MCDCB: Currently, there is a Metropolitan Cebu Development and Coordinating Board (MCDCB), but it functions primarily as a coordinating, planning, and recommending body without legal and institutional powers. Its decisions are not binding on the LGUs.
• The Proposed Solution (MCDA): Key government officials, civil society groups, and the private sector have long advocated for the creation of a legally empowered Metropolitan Cebu Development Authority (MCDA).
We hope that Cebu should do this as soon as possible. Meanwhile, we will continuously campaign for the creation of Palawan Island Integrated Development Authority with the purpose of involving the private sector heavily in the planning efforts. Thereafter, the next crucial step should be the communication of the constituents to their respective leaders with the coordination to the authority. And then, collaboration and cooperation efforts should be made among and between all departments, sectors, institutions for the actions to be institutionalized and given the necessary enforcement powers that a future PIIDA would possess.
