Prescilla Tulipat

Despite the EDSA People Power 1, 2, and 3, 30 million Filipinos still live below the poverty line. Many are "informal settlers" (or "squatters") in urban areas struggling for a pittance of land to live in, as most live near creeks, aqueducts, rivers, under bridges, and in streets in the inner sections of cities, such as Metro Manila.

I am quite familiar with their pain, as I live in the "other" (poor) side of Makati City. I see the contrast between the well-off living luxuriously in one side of city and the "other" side wallowing in poverty.

On hindsight, EDSA People Power 3 (that emerged when former President Estrada was deposed) was largely about the landlessness of poor people resulting from the lax implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and the maneuvering of landowners to convert prime agricultural lands. This led to massive displacement and migration of farmers and other sectors to urban areas in search of much needed jobs.

Central Luzon was known historically as the country's rice granary as well as the hotbed of various revolutions since 1896. Now, many areas in this region have been turned into plush subdivisions, golf courses, and shopping malls. It is now devoid of the revolutionary fervor and social intimacy once prevalent among the people.

These historical realities challenge us to seek alternative paths to development for, with, and by the people. The people who were in EDSA 3 must have the chance to manage development by themselves. I must admit, though, that this alternative governance would confront head-on the existing ‘open market' or neoliberal model of development and land tenure. I believe that community-based management of land by the poor people via community titling or ownership and co-housing management-cum-building of green communities will just be a starting point for fully tapping the abundant potential of "people power."

This kind of approach to development will recognize the poor beyond "vote-getters" during election time, beyond "eyesores" to be removed or hidden from view, beyond lazy and underproductive citizens unworthy of social services, beyond hindrances to environment management because they live in dangerous places, and beyond security risks due to the crimes often occurring in their communities. Instead, the poor are recognized as participants in a development model that puts a premium on people and taps their strengths towards the transformation of society.

To pursue this kind of people-centered alternative development requires the capability building of poor people so they can become managers of their own development. It requires support (financial and otherwise) like any action plan.

It is fundamental to have exemplars of this kind of development promote the viability of this emerging model. I believe there is already a vast array and wealth of such experience and through the media, computer technology, and information networking, these model experiences and lessons can be shared.

For the Philippines, I propose the co-sharing of costs in building such a model of community-based collective housing management of green communities. From the local government, 20% can be drawn from the taxes paid by subdivision developers, a minimum of 5% the gender and development budget from the local government, a certain percentage from the overseas development assistance budget, contributions from concerned citizens, and from the grassroots people themselves who would be amenable to a scheme such as payment for land in terms of work hours and other creative fund-raising activities. Local media can also contribute by documenting and disseminating the project information and results while universities can be tapped for their expertise in environment management, poverty analysis, and field research.

In the light of present-day globalized actions, how can one resist such an emerging model of cooperation between and among local, national, and international agencies and entities? Also, the concepts of bayanihan (cooperation) and balikatang-bayan (support) are deeply rooted in our Filipino culture.

The Millennium Development Goals aim to halve the number of urban poor by 2015 and to ensure the provision of their basic services. This would seem to be based in part on a universal recognition of the potential conflicts embedded in the situation of landlessness of the urban poor, land conversion of prime agricultural lands, and the concomitant environmental degradation. If not addressed, it can become another volcano of protest in the next decade.

Interestingly, there is an approved local plan now in Quezon City, my workplace, to put up "green buildings." I am hoping that these buildings become not only showcases of modernization but nurseries of "green" development as well. It would be worthwhile to see these green buildings co-exist with "green" communities collectively managed by the poor.

If we tapped People Power 1 and 2 to remove the dictatorship and a corrupt leadership, we can again tap the abundance of people power to liberate us from poverty and environmental degradation. I am still hopeful that the spirit of EDSA People Power will lead to a political maturity and managerial capability of poor people through creative engagements in community-based land management, co-housing, and building of "green communities" towards a sustainable future.

Ms Prescilla Tulipat is from the Philippines and is part of the student batch for SY2010-2011 and one of the Asia Leaders Program (ALP) scholars, pursuing her MA degree in Gender and Peacebuilding at the University for Peace. ALP is a dual campus masters degree project, a shared initiative between The Nippon Foundation, University for Peace, and the Ateneo de Manila University. This is her reflection paper for the lecture that Pedro Walpole gave on Practices of Conflict Management in Asia focusing on natural resources and resource use, conflict, and management last 18 to 20 April 2011.