See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319644559

Mega Cebu: mega hopes, mega risks for a sustainable urbanization

Article · January 2017

CITATION READS

1 1,151

1 author:

Ramon Cavada Sevilla

University of San Carlos (Philippines)
4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Comprehensive Land Use Planning Philippines View project

Governance issues in Mega Cebu View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramon Cavada Sevilla on 12 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MEGA HOPES,
MEGA RISKS FOR
A SUSTAINABLE
URBANIZATION
Ramon Sevilla, PhD
It is without doubt that if one has lived in
Cebu in the past 40 years or so, one would
have seen significant changes in the shape
and scale of the city. In contrast to the small
provincial city atmosphere of the 60s and
70s, Cebu City has undergone a remarkable
transformation. Rapid growth was driven at
first by manufacturing, tourism and real estate/
commercial development, OFW remittances,
and more recently, the IT sector. This is shown
in recent estimates of the Cebu Investment
Promotion Center (CIPC) that show foreign
direct investments (FDI) alone contribute an
impressive 8.2 Billion Pesos monthly payroll
to Cebu’s economy. Growth has spilled over
to surrounding cities and municipalities giving
impetus to a connurbation called “Metro Cebu”
arrayed in a linear pattern over an 80 kilometer
strip of narrow coastal plain. Rapid urbanization
into peri-urban areas and surrounding cities has
predictably outstripped the limited planning,
Figure 1. Mega Cebu
financial and governance
capacities of existing local
government units resulting in
chaotic land use, traffic congestion,
environmental degradation, intra-
and inter-city inequalities in incomes,
housing, services and infrastructure.
Recognizing the interdependent, networked
linkages among these cities and municipalities
and the unique spatial configuration of urban
expansion, the Metro Cebu Development and
Coordinating Board (MCDCB) representing the
7 cities and 6 municipalities was formed in
2011 as a coordinating body for metro-wide
planning and development to respond to the
challenges of rapid urbanization. It partnered
with JICA to formulate a sustainable urban
development vision for Metro Cebu by 2050
through a participative process of consultative
meetings and workshops with different
stakeholders to arrive at a vision called
“Mega Cebu 2050” that is supposed to
reflect the public interest in “balanced
development”. (Figure 1)
A reading of the “Roadmap Study for
Sustainable Urban Development in
Metro Cebu” by JICA (Final Report,
June 2015) indicates a self-fulfilling
plan based on projections of existing
trends in rapid urbanization, population
growth and business investments
in Metro Cebu. Essentially, the
plan implies that if we continue to
promote and manage somehow
the growth trends we may achieve,
through the generative forces of
urbanization economies putative
economic development benefits of a
“Mega Cebu” by 2050. Mega Cebu’s
population will reach 5 million by 2050,
double the population in 2010.
By contrast, the entire province is
estimated to reach 12.09 million,
almost triple the 4.13 million
population
in 2010. The plan
prescribes the measures
that will make the metropolis in its breadth
and scope workable and orderly through a
strategy of mass transit (a clearly defined north-
south spine for efficient access to jobs, housing
and entertainment); a spatial plan based on
polycentric development (with identified centers
for industrial, entertainment/commercial and
tourism/residential activities) (Figure 2) guided
by transit oriented development (TOD), and
construction of key infrastructure (roads, dam,
sewage treatment, drainage). This won’t come
cheap. The estimated investment required up
to mid-term (2030) for infrastructure projects
is 608.3 Billion Pesos (~US$13.83 Billion).
The plan envisions these investments will
promote continued competitiveness of the
urban economy, livability (through provision of
basic services and environmental protection),
and accessibility (public transport and network
linkages). Because of the number of LGUs
involved, the development process will be
coordinated by an area-wide metropolitan
organization.
Underlying the strategy of Mega Cebu is the
strategy of induced urban agglomeration in
which value is created via spatial organization
and location. However, for the vision of
economic development (and hence, prosperity)
to be realized the geographer, Edward Soja
argues that the positive (i.e. “spatial capital”)
must outweigh the negative externalities
(socio-spatial injustice such as inequalities, land
dispossession and environmental degradation)
that are certain to unfold.

Like any high
powered consultant
study, (with resources
not available to local authorities)
the plan is sanguine about creating a better
future by 2050 in Mega Cebu portraying this
as if it were a single destiny that, according to
its promotional video, will be a “wholesome,
advanced, vibrant, equitable and sustainable”
metropolis. However, a critical reading of the
plan’s numerous “moving parts” should give
us all pause about the future fulfillment of the
plan’s vision and whether it is even desirable in
the first place.
Among the more important potential negative
spillover effects: first, a high proportion (76%)
of the Mega Cebu’s site is hazard prone,
and obviously not a good place to build a
metropolis unless there are costly mitigation
measures and strict development controls so
that development does not intrude into hazard
prone areas. Physical planning includes setting
urban limits to development (via the Metro
Cebu Circumferential Road - Figure 3) in order
to protect ecologically sensitive areas. This
remains a big question for future metropolitan
governance arrangements as the consultants
recognize that “land use planning and control
is very weak and will remain so for a very long
time”. Could the idea of Mega Cebu portend a
disaster waiting to happen in both physical and
social terms?
Second, projected average densities in the major
work and residential centers by 2050 spread
out in “work” and “play” growth centers (Figure
2) will be 3 to 4 times existing densities in
Cebu City in 2015. This would imply multi-story
housing, from medium rise to high rise buildings
which will have significant impacts on the size
of living spaces, and a vastly transformed nature
in neighborhood and community life that will
shape the quality of everyday life. Will social
life in the city be more fragmented, lonely, less
convivial especially under conditions where there
are not enough public spaces for socialization
and political expression? To paraphrase Lisa
Peattie (1998), creative activity and a sense of
community count as much for human happiness
as much and maybe more than material standard
of living. The spectre of corporatized “bundled
cities” comes into mind (Dick direct investments (FDI) and technology transfer.
and Rimmer, 1998). These are Thus, there is a need to upgrade the technical
produced by corporate mega- skills set of our labor force otherwise only low
projects that privatize urban space wage, low value added production stages will be
and create consumerist oriented attracted to come here. There should also be
“geographies of nowhere” (Kunstler, thinking in promoting clusters of complementary
1993) either in new green field sites industries to maximize local multiplier effects
that displace valuable agricultural not only in wages but also in innovation diffusion
land or if in existing areas, displace (Scott and Storper, 2003).
vernacular neighborhoods. In so doing,
Mike Douglass (2016) argues that the As Mega Cebu grows and becomes a magnet
destruction of “the city’s lived spaces of for migrants, the failure to create enough jobs
social meaning and community bonds… in the formal sector makes it unlikely to reverse
and the loss of public and common spaces the present high poverty incidence in Cebu
in which social capital is produced” may that earned it the title of “the poverty capital
seriously undermine the capacity for urban of the Philippines” according to a recent article
resilience in the face of climate change and of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (4/1/16). The
the vagaries of the global economy. prospect of more social inequalities and threat
to social cohesion looms in the horizon as a
Third, JICA estimates that Mega Cebu will fourth concern notwithstanding the confident
need another 1 Million jobs by 2050 compared projections that per capita GDP of Mega Cebu
to 2010. However, there is no indication by 2050 will be almost 15 times than the
what the economic drivers will be, since the 2010 level. The JICA study is silent on social
consultants admit that at present there is no mitigation measures for example, for informal
“salient sector that will function as a locomotive settlers, housing for low income workers
for future industrial development” in Cebu and the elderly.
and hence, job creation – particularly as both
secondary and tertiary employment are expected Fifth, there is high political risk involved in the
to grow to 87% by 2050, from 80% in 2010. assumption that if implementing agency does
By far, our existing manufacturing is primarily not have the resources to implement costly
engaged in low wage, low skill assembly jobs infrastructure, “the implementing agency may
that by nature of the “middle income trap” consider applying for national government
the Philippines finds itself, would be difficult support”. This assumption would seem almost
to attract more of these investments. In the inconceivable given the possible shift to a
existing fast growing IT-BPO industry, there federalist structure in the horizon and likely
are reports that such kinds of jobs might strong objections of other states in the future
disappear within ten years as a result of federal system (Manila Bulletin, 7/22/16) over
automation (Business Mirror, 5/7/16). Thus, such huge subsidies that privilege Cebu over
this sector will face redundancies unless we others. If subsidies are limited, PPP projects
can move to the higher valued added KPO may need to charge near market rates for cost
(knowledge process outsourcing) industry. The recovery and profit that could be
JICA recommendation of pursuing Cebu’s unaffordable to many.
potential as a retirement haven and further
development of the tourism industry not only
requires large investment in
facilities and infrastructure but
is also highly dependent on the
preservation and enhancement
of the natural environment,
something that may suffer
from the backwash effects of
Mega Cebu’s appetite for food
production, water pollution,
overexploitation and destruction
of ecotourism potentials, as
well as uncontrolled peripheral
urbanization in the fringe areas
of Mega Cebu.
Prospects for developing
technical or cultural creativity
for “creative industry” as a
“development direction” in the
JICA plan will not automatically
come from agglomeration.
It would also require closer
academic-industry linkages,
predicated on developing
innovative collaborations and
international linkages, attracting
talented human resources to our
universities and, as studies show,
leveraging the important role
of amenities to attract creative
people (Florida, 2002). Finally,
the prospect of new businesses
Figure 2. Concept of Urban Structure and Urban Functions in
in clean technology products
Metro Cebu
(part of the JICA scenario)
will be dependent on foreign

Figure 3. Metro Cebu Circumferential Road
Sixth, the lynchpin of the plan lies on the
metropolitan institution necessary to coordinate
the activities and decisions of the different LGUs
in order to realize the value creation possibilities
of urban agglomeration. The plan argues that
land use, transport planning and infrastructure
should be integrated and coordinated to achieve
“efficient land use, environmental protection and
develop livable urban environments”. But more
likely than not, this will be difficult to achieve if
there is no coordination of locational investment
decisions under conditions of unfettered
competition for investments. The consultants
indicate that the “implementation plan should
be designed in parallel to the progress of the
transformation of the MCDCB to a metropolitan
government”. Therefore, individual LGUs must
fully support the changes in their roles and
powers otherwise, stonewalling, political turfing
and resistance will create delays especially in
the absence of a higher power that supervises
project assurance. The recommended capacity
building and institutional development that will
transform MCDCB to Metro Cebu Development
Agency (MCDA) is fraught with challenges in
securing the most capable and experienced
personnel even as the best institutional
framework still needs to be determined. Thus,
unless the above conditions are met it is difficult
to expect a surfeit of positive spillovers to be
created that will counter the negative ones.
While the above may be dismissed as a
speculative inquiry to the Mega Cebu 2050 plan,
that like any plan is full of imponderables, do
we proceed with optimism or with pessimism?
The uncertainties in the delivery of the
recommended sequence (even changes) of
project infrastructural components may create
an entirely different outcome than what has
been envisioned in the JICA plan. It is therefore
legitimate to ask, who bears the consequences?
In the absence of incomplete infrastructure
provisioning that threatens the realization of
continued economic growth, will Mega Cebu
end up with large pockets of slums rather than
prosperous settlements alienating many city
residents that may become breeding grounds for
social instability from unfulfilled aspirations? The
JICA plan, while setting the overall framework,
should not reduce our options to a single
future based primarily on trend extension that
promotes spatial expansion. The alternatives
View publication stats
Source: JICA STUDY TEAM
cannot occur by letting market forces unfold
completely unrestrained until negative
externalities make future economic development
impossible or that reversals in the form of
disinvestments make recovery difficult.
One possible alternative would depend on a
national regional policy that encourages spatial
equity wherein more appropriate centers in other
provinces with adequate land and resources
are promoted as alternative growth centers.
This will reduce the development pressures in
Cebu and the expectation that the government
supports (if at all politically feasible) the
maverick ambitions of an existing fast growing
center where physical growth is not suited.
Recognizing its geographical and ecological
limitations, Cebu should instead focus on a more
selective, downscale, compact growth based
on a few targeted sectors capitalizing on its
tourism potentials (including retirement haven,
medical hub, MICE) since, after all, it is supposed
to be the 6th best island in the world and
therefore should make protection of its natural
environment and preservation of historic sites
as its number one priority rather than pursuing
dreams to become a general manufacturing
and commercial center for almost any type of
investment offered by global capital and become
a “chaosmopolis” (Conley, 2002). As Cho (2014)
argues, the protection of the environment
should extend towards “the restoration and
regeneration of nature by consciously returning
more than is taken.”
By improving its amenities through an
environmentally focused development, Cebu
might well be able to attract higher value added
skills intensive jobs in design and financial
services while narrowing down its functional
specializations to a few sectors where it can
concentrate its energies and excel. While
Cebu’s strategic advantage as an educational
hub lies mainly in its skilled and educated labor
force, the very same labor force produced can
move to jobs in other growth centers rather
than actively expect jobs to come to the
workforce. By contrast, rural development
should be actively promoted that prioritize
the localization of food production (with
the coming impacts of peak oil) and
enhancement of environmental and
resource amenities for tourism and
retirement haven. Finally, a bigger challenge lies
in developing the new planning arrangements
necessary to allow and encourage meaningful
public participation in policy making and
planning for sustainable urbanization in such
aspects as promoting supporting enterprises,
housing, and human resource planning to
match the needs of preferred investments
geared to safeguard and enhance Cebu’s natural
environment. This is particularly relevant given
Etemadi’s (2000) previous research in Cebu
that concluded NGOs and people’s organization
have limited influence on the policies of the city
government. There needs to be new institutional
mechanisms where city residents can assert
and negotiate their differences with state and
private business interests “in a productive and
affirmative way” (Conley, 2002).
References:
Alzona, R. (2016), “Call centers predicted to disappear in
10 years”, Business Mirror, May 7.
Cho, Myung-Rae (2014), “The Governance of Park Won-
Soon Administration: A Performative Governance for a
Progressive City”, Journal of Daegu Gyeongbuk Studies
13:2, pp. 1-9. Cited in Douglass (2016).
Conley, V.A. (2002), “Chaosmopolis”, Theory, Culture and
Society, 19:1, pp. 127-138.
Doronila, A. (2016), “Cebu ‘poverty capital of the
Philippines’”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 1, 2016.
Douglass, M. (2016), “The Rise of Progressive Cities
in Asia: Toward Human Flourishing in Asia’s Urban
Transition”, Asia Research Institute, Working Paper
Series No. 248, National University of Singapore, March.
Etemadi, F.U. (2000), “Civil society participation in city
governance in Cebu City”, Environment & Urbanization,
12:1 April 2000, pp. 57-72.
Florida, R. (2003), “Cities and the Creative Class”, City
and Community, 2:1, pp. 3-19.w
JICA/MCDCB (2014), The Roadmap Study for
Sustainable Urban Development in Metro Cebu, Interim
– III Report, Volume II: Main Text, ALMEC CORPORATION,
ORICONSUL, December.
JICA/MCDCB (2015), The Roadmap Study for
Sustainable Urban Development in Metro Cebu,
Final Report Main Text, ALMEC Corporation, Oriental
Consultants Global Co., Ltd., June 2015.
Manila Bulletin (2016), “Pimentel eyes federalism, peace
road map, drug war as top legislative agenda”, July 22,
2016.
Kunstler, J.H. (2013), The Geography of Nowhere: The
Rise and Decline of America’s Man-made Landscape,
(20th Anniversary Edition), published by Kunstler.com.
Scott, A.J. and Michael Storper (2003), “Regions,
Globalization, Development”, Regional Studies,
vol. 37: 6&7, pp 579-593.