By Augusto B. Agosto, environmental planner, real estate consultant, ADB consultant
I write in response to your recent interview with architect Joseph Michael Espina regarding Metro Cebu’s need to adopt the Jica (Japan International Cooperation Agency) 2015 watershed-based development framework. His call for green belts, green loops, floodplain restoration and watershed protection raises important points for public discussion.
However, two questions must also be raised in the interest of fairness, accuracy and public accountability.
First, why were these same measures not implemented during the three years that Espina served as Cebu City planning coordinator? During that period, he exercised direct influence over the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Clup), zoning policies and upland development controls — tools that could have been used to institutionalize the exact interventions he is now recommending.
If the Jica framework was already understood to be the correct model, the public deserves clarification as to why watershed-based zoning, upland conservation rules, green-belt protection mechanisms and relocation land-banking were not initiated when he had the authority to put them in motion.
Second, the recommendations he now promotes appear inconsistent with Cebu City’s actual land use and zoning shifts under his leadership. The City Planning and Development Office’s own GIS data comparing 2020 existing land use with the proposed 2023–2032 zoning shows that Cebu City’s land-use direction moved away from, rather than toward, the Jica model. For example, forest lands decreased from 9,312 hectares to 2,892 hectares (a loss of 6,419 hectares), while agricultural land declined from 13,322 hectares to 3,653 hectares (a loss of 9,668 hectares). At the same time, commercial zoning more than doubled — from 983 hectares to 2,038 hectares, much of it expanding into upland barangays such as Guadalupe, Banawa, Kalunasan, Lahug–Busay, Tisa, Buhisan, Pardo, Budlaan and Pulangbato. These upland areas, which were predominantly forest, agricultural, or buffer zones in 2020, were rezoned into commercial, mixed-use, or estate-type development in the new Clup.
Residential zones meanwhile decreased by 183 hectares and socialized housing remains only 318 hectares, or roughly 1.06 percent of Cebu City’s land area — far too small to support long-term relocation needs. Industrial land increased only modestly — from 43 hectares to 122 hectares, far below the levels recommended by Jica for economic decentralization and balanced urban growth. Despite repeated hazard warnings, several flood-prone lowland areas also continued to experience development pressure.
These concerns relate strictly to public policy decisions, not to personal matters. They address how zoning choices — or the absence of needed safeguards — have shaped the city’s vulnerability long before typhoon Tino, whose destruction revealed the consequences of weakened uplands, reduced natural buffers and development encroachment into high-risk zones.
As Cebu rebuilds from the devastating impacts of typhoon Tino, public discourse must include not only forward-looking solutions but also a clear understanding of prior planning choices and their consequences. Accountability, consistency and transparency are essential if Cebu’s future land-use direction is to be truly science-based, safety-oriented and resilient.