The MMETROPLAN MYSTERY

I am often asked about MMETROPLAN and if it holds the key to the mystery of why our dear Metropolis is this way today. I cannot claim to be an expert on it, and unfortunately I do not have much time to devote to reading every page of the 2-inch tome. (about 5 centimeters, but yes, "inches" sounds more poetic)

Behind these questions seem to be an underlying assumption that IF ONLY WE HAD FOLLOWED THE MMETROPLAN, a "blueprint" for development prepared in those good ol' days when Metro Manila was a mere fraction of its blightedness now, the recent tragedies brought about by typhoon Ondoy may not have been as severe.

If only it were that simple.

The MMETROPLAN (or at least the volume that I'm looking at) seems to be essentially a comprehensive transport plan for Metropolitan Manila, completed in 1977. It dedicates 32 pages of Urban Development recommendations, and a section on "Making sure that urban development takes place in areas which are suitable for development."

But it is on a map labeled "Areas Suitable for Development, 1977-1985," that it makes a strong statement regarding the Marikina Valley areas: RESTRICT URBAN EXPANSION UNTIL PROBLEMS RELATING TO FLOODING AND POLLUTION CAN BE RESOLVED.



I am glad that Arch. Palafox brought it up, if only to draw attention to the fact that at some point in our history (and indeed all throughout), there was analysis going on, there was planning going on, and great minds were at work to put together recommendations that were designed to ensure a better life for us all in our respective habitats. And that these processes were never taken seriously enough to act on them, but perhaps only seriously enough to fund them and then have the plans published in some form.

What I find worrisome is how there seems to be a notion that merely REVIVING THESE PLANS (including reviving the Paranaque Spillway project) is the key to ending our woes.

And as always, I am worried that all the blaming and finger-pointing will drain our energies and make us feel that we are doing something, when what we really should be doing is re-studying the areas that have been affected, taking into consideration all the changes and the new information, and move on from there.

The old plans are useful for the kind of information and clues they give us as to origins of certain things (especially their sections on analysis), and not for people to thump their chests to say, "see, we were right all along" and make everyone else wrong.

I am for accountability, and at this point let me just say that we, as citizens, are all accountable. At the same time, if we just go beyond the blaming and critically analyze how and where decisions were made and how the action moves forward, (and indeed, how plans are prepared, and their relationship to implementers) we might get somewhere.

People seem to have the impression that MMETROPLAN had a very complete guide to how the metropolis should develop, and had quite detailed locations of where to build and where not to build in the Marikina Valley. That would have been ideal.

But it only mentions general areas in the Marikina valley and beyond and went on to say that a more detailed feasibility study must be undertaken to determine specific areas that are suitable and unsuitable for development within those bigger localities.

As we now know, this did not happen.

MMETROPLAN does give policy directions and recommendations on guiding and controlling development, which again, unfortunately, were not picked up either by national or local government. And neither did the public learn about them.

And perhaps that is the clue to where we could improve on: establishing the links between planning and implementation, and between and among the plans that are being created here and there.

Perhaps, because MMETROPLAN was mostly a TRANSPORT PLAN as you will see in the Table of Contents of the Final Report, below, it was not circulated among non-transport people? Just wondering.



Another thng that is worrisome are the twin directions of merely relocating thousands of squatters OUTSIDE Metro Manila AND relying on technofixes, including the very expensive and quite useless approach of dredging.

If you think critically about these two megafixes, and imagine them undertaken without addressing more fundamental issues of over-development at the tops of watersheds, they will certainly pose more problems than they will solve.

Let me borrow from Darwin Fandino Flores' notes from the briefing by the Manila Observatory, U.P. National Institute of Geological Sciences and Jun Palafox last October 16, 2009. I have kept his comments in parentheses because they give life and specificity and therefore more power to the descriptions.


1. Areas are increasingly flood-prone as a result of:

1.1 subsidence due to groundwater extraction (too many deep-wells)
1.2 limited/inoperative drainage (basurang itinatapon sa mga estero at waterways, illegal structures)
1.3 limited absorptive capacity of urbanized areas (sinemento nang lahat ng pwedeng sementohin)
1.4 increased run-off from provincial high grounds due to deforestation (of surrounding
mountains/hills... naging mga subdivision na sila)
1.5 rising sea level due to climate change (ayan na!)

2. Overflowing of Laguna de Bay

2.1 siltation due to deforestation (of surrounding mountains and hills at saka mga basura)
2.2 limited egress to Manila Bay via Pasig River
2.3 limited egress via other channels (hinarangan ng mga subdivision at kung anu-ano pa)

3. Inadequate warning (walang effective local warning system)

Item 1 can still be rooted to the following:

1. overloading, overpopulation, and inbound migration (to Manila from the provinces);
2. inappropriate city configuration due to inappropriate city design and violation of zoning rules


I think it is a very good list. But I hope whoever's in charge of the solutions don't focus on 2.2 which they have tended to do all these years. 2.2 only justifies the very expensive and hard to measure "dredging" (and anything unmeasurable is prone to... you're right, corruption). Dredging is often too little, too late. Dredging means that you've already let the mountaintops dump their sedimentation down the river. That means that our authorities have not done anything to prevent erosion from happening further upstream.

Dredging only provides us a false sense of security that something is being done, when in fact it is about as effective as cutting off one's foot when clearly, a better diet and lifestyle would have prevented diabetes from resulting in complications.

I'd also be a little careful about citing "inbound migration." I think that's a knee-jerk reaction to justify "balik probinsya" programs even if there is no probinsya for people to return to. Most of the inhabitants of these settlements are home-grown. They have long ceased to remember how it is to live la vida agricultural, and in fact could be so urbanized that bringing them to the rural areas may only result in further degradation of natural ecosystems.

I could be wrong but I'd say the height of urban in-migration happened about a couple of generations ago. If I remember correctly, Metro Manila experienced a decrease in its growth rate about one or two censuses ago, with Region IV receiving much of its outmigration.

We might as well accept the reality that the people living in formal and informal relocation sites on hillsides and along waterways are at least two generations worth of Metro Manila informal settlers.

Consider this: in many of these communities, women have babies at age 14 or 15, and are grandmothers at 30. Many of them may even have babies every year. Since menopause is still far away, they can continue to have babies even through grandmotherhood.

Sure, we could address all of the above issues (and in fact we must), but if we don't address and provide support for people to effectively map out their family lives and indeed the rest of their earthly existence in such a way as to not unduly stress the environment upon which they rely on individually and collectively, we would continue to be wiped out again and again. And again.

We must find the courage to go beyond the usual and cliche solutions of "dredging, cementing and relocation" by working on our critical understanding of the real roots of Metro Manila's development problems.

And acting on them.



* Thanks to EnP Bituin Torte for generously lending her copy of the MMETROPLAN for my use.