Challenges Of Water Governance In The Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science144 (2): 197-208, December 2015ISSN 0031 - 7683Date Received: ? Feb 20?Challenges of Water Governance in the PhilippinesAgnes C. Rola1, Juan M. Pulhin2, Guillermo Q. Tabios III3,Joy C. Lizada4, and Maria Helen F. Dayo51College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines Los Baños andNational Academy of Science and Technology, College, Los Baños, Laguna, 4031, Philippines2College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines Los Banos,College, Los Baños, Laguna, 4031, Philippines3College of Engineering, University of the Philippines Diliman andNational Academy of Science and Technology, Diliman, Quezon City, 1101, Philippines4College of Management, University of the Philippines Visayas, Iloilo City, Iloilo, 5000 Philippines5Gender Center, University of the Philippines Los Baños, College,Los Baños, Laguna, 4031, PhilippinesUsing a multi-dimensional framework of governance, this paper analyzed the state of watergovernance in the Philippines from the legal, organizational, and operational perspectives atvarious governance levels. Data were taken from secondary sources and case studies done bythe authors. Results showed that the many legal documents for water are a source of confusion;that water data for planning are inadequate; that there are numerous water agencies, theseare not connected vertically nor horizontally; and, that these various institutions do not havesufficient human and financial resources and presence at the local level to be effective in theirmandates. The authors recommend: 1) to review the legal and institutional framework forwater; 2) to improve on planning and decision making mandates; and, 3) to study and implementmore participatory models of water governance fitted to the Philippine context.Key words: customary laws, participatory governance, Philippines, private-community partnership,water governanceINTRODUCTIONDevelopment practitioners all over the world haverecognized the role of water governance in addressingfuture water scarcity. In 2001, Kofi Anan of the UnitedNations and in 2002, Tadao Chino, former AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB) President, have both declaredthat the water crisis is a governance crisis. An ADB reportfurther stated that if some Asian countries will face a watercrisis in the future, it will not be because of physical scarcityof water, but because of inadequate or inappropriate watergovernance (including management practices, institutional*Corresponding authors: jmpulhin@up.edu.phacrola@up.edu.pharrangements, and socio-political conditions), which leavemuch to be desired (ADB 2007). For the Asia-Pacificregion, the literature contends that water shortage willbecome a major constraint in the economic and socialdevelopment of the region's individual countries unlessequitable and efficient water allocation policies andmechanisms are developed (UNESCAP 2000).Globally, the supply of water may not be limited asgleaned from projections data of Rosegrant et al. (2002)where only 10 percent of total renewable water shall havebeen withdrawn in 2025. In the Asia-Pacific region, inparticular, only a small portion of the renewable watersources can be tapped, even if statistically, the per capita197
Philippine Journal of ScienceVol. 144 No. 2, December 2015annual use of 400 cubic meters (m3) is only 12 percentof the 3,360 m3 per capita renewable water resourcesin the area (Webster & Le-Huu 2003). Focusing onthe Philippines, it was noted that the annual water useaccounts for only 12 percent of available supply (FAO2002). Viewed in isolation, this figure tends to suggestthat the need to manage water use and conserve waterresources is not a pressing concern.However, several facts quickly dispel this notion in thecase of the Philippines (Rola & Francisco 2004). First,the per capita water availability has been declining overthe years (Webster & Le-Huu 2003) brought about byincreased water demand arising from economic growthand population increases and by decreased water supplyassociated with degradation of watersheds in the country.Second, the data on aggregate availability are illusory inthat they indicate the average supply per capita per year,without regard to the distribution of available supply. Trueavailability is contingent on time, place, quality, and cost.In terms of spatial differences across the country, theprojections for 2025 show that in a high-economic growthscenario, the water balance, which is the differencebetween the amount of water resources potential and thewater demand, will be negative for some regions in thePhilippines due to rising water demand in Metro Manila.All Mindanao regions have positive water balances (JICA/NWRB 1998). In the low-economic growth scenario,Central Luzon region is still projected to have a negativewater balance.This same study shows that 17 of the 20 major riverbasins in the Philippines will experience water shortagein 2025. This is projected to happen in the high-economicgrowth scenario and on the assumption that there is nowater resources development program. The river basinsin the Luzon region will face the most serious shortagesby the year 2025.Finally, the Philippine freshwater ecosystem faces severeproblems of pollution and rising costs of potable watersupply. Surface water accounts for about three quartersof freshwater supply, but many of the major rivers andlakes, particularly those passing through or close to urbancenters, are heavily polluted. Fifty of the major rivers arenow considered biologically dead, a term used to describeplaces that no longer support any life form because of overpollution. While the main river systems in Metro Manilaare “biologically dead”, the siltation and chemical residuespose a serious problem to major lakes, including LagunaLake, Lake Danao, Lake Lanao, and Lake Leonard (Rola& Francisco 2004). This situation shows that ensuringpotable water supplies to households will becomemore costly as water treatment requirements increase.The increase in population and economic activities has198Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippinesconsiderably increased the effluents being discharged towater bodies. Domestic sewage has contributed about 52percent of the pollution load while industries account forthe remaining 48 percent (NSCB 2006). Other sources ofwater pollution are inefficient and improper operation oflandfills or incinerators and inadequate public cooperationon the proper disposal of sewage and solid wastes. Toxicred tide outbreak in Manila Bay occurs regularly, whichsimply shows the extent of degradation of this resource.Relatedly, available data also point to an increasingincidence of water-borne diseases, such as typhoid andparatyphoid, diarrhea, H-fever, malaria, schistosomiasis,and cholera (Rola & Francisco 2004). In sum, therefore,the current state of water resources in the Philippinesshould be a cause for concern among policymakers.Given the above, this paper surveyed the literature tounderstand the current water governance environmentin the Philippines guided by the frameworks developedby Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO) (2011) and by Malayang (2004). Theseframeworks are discussed in Section 2. Section 3 discussesthe results of the review on the state of water governancein the Philippines; while Section 4 offers ways to moveforward. Section 5 contains brief conclusions andrecommendations.METHODOLOGYAnalytical FrameworkRogers & Hall (2003) define water governance as “the rangeof political, social, economic, and administrative systemsthat are in place to develop and manage water resources, andthe delivery of water services, at different levels of society”.Araral and Yu (2013) argue that this definition isproblematic because practically the entire literature onwater policy, economics, finance, politics, regulation,law, and management would fall under this definition.To these authors, the mechanisms to develop and managewater resources are often not well specified and thus theiroperational implications for research and governancereform are unclear. They provide an alternative operationaldefinition of water governance in terms of variousdimensions of water law, policies, and administration thathave been commonly regarded in the literature as importantdeterminants of performance. These include water rights,pricing, decentralization, accountability, integration,private sector participation, user group participation, andorganizational basis of water management among others(Araral and Yu 2013). Furthermore, according to the sameauthors, water governance has largely been studied interms of disciplinary orientations. As a result, the literature
Philippine Journal of ScienceVol. 144 No. 2, December 2015has not evolved into a multi and inter-disciplinary agendadespite the fact that water governance should be inherentlymultidisciplinary in orientation.The framework used in this study deepens the multidisciplinarity of water governance as proposed by Araraland Yu (2013). It recognizes that water governance isa very complex process, because of the nestedness andinterlocking set of decisions about water (Malayang 2004).Decisions about policies, laws, institutional structure,incentives, and capacity development are made by amulti-layer of decision-makers: national, regional, local,and even ethnic authorities.The FAO (2011) framework used in the study expressedgovernance according to principles and pillars. Theprinciples of governance include accountability,effectiveness, efficiency, fairness and equity, participation,and transparency. These principles can be expressedthrough three pillars. Pillar 1 includes policy, legal andinstitutional regulatory framework. Pillar 2 relates toplanning and decision making processes. Pillar 3 relatesto implementation, enforcement, and compliance.A second governance model which is a three-dimensionalmodel is expressed by Malayang (2004). He argued that waterdecisions and actions in the Philippines are a product of theinterplay among multiple institutions operating in differenthierarchies of authority (multilevel), and from differentRola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippinessectoral perspectives (multisectoral). In addition, becauseconcerns on water may conceivably include a number ofissues over its uses and features, it is multi-thematic as well(that is, it covers a range of technical, social, economic, andpolitical concerns on water). The three- hierarchy, sectors, andthemes define a “governance space”, where water decisions oractions occur, or which can be located at any given time (seeFigure 1). Further, Malayang (2004) also observed that waterdecisions and actions are not events that occur by themselves,but are a product of complex competition and collaborationamong institutions and their concerned constituencies indifferent hierarchies of governance. Institutions and theirconstituencies will either compete or collaborate to addresswater concerns. While collaborative mechanisms maybeinstituted to accommodate the different interests over variousconcerns, actors will nonetheless seek to have their interestsupheld eventually. Thus, water decisions and actions areactually shaped by the dynamics of institutional competitionand collaboration occurring within an area (not a point) in thegovernance space (Malayang 2004).This paper used the FAO (2011) model in the analysis ofwater governance in the Philippines, discussing each ofthe pillars from the point of view of the multi-dimensionspresented in the Malayang (2004) model.The variables under study can be classified as 1) policy,legal, and institutional dimensions of Philippine watergovernance; 2) planning and decision making processes;Figure 1. Three dimensions of water governance (Malayang 2004).199
Philippine Journal of ScienceVol. 144 No. 2, December 2015and, 3) implementation, enforcement, and complianceprocesses. These variables are studied across the governancespace in terms of hierarchy, sectors, and themes.Data SourcesData were taken from secondary information, reviewof related studies and two case analyses: the MetroIloilo Water District governance of the province ofIloilo, Philippines and the conflicts of the Mt. Banahawwater allocation in the province of Quezon also in thePhilippines.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSPolicy, Legal and Institutional RegulatoryFrameworksNational LevelThere are at least 8 legal frameworks that govern the watersector in the Philippines. These are the Presidential Decree1067 Water Code (1976); Presidential Decree 198 ProvincialWater Utilities Act (1973); Presidential Degree 522 (1974)Prescribing Sanitation Requirements for the TravellingPublic; Republic Act 7586 National Integrated Protected AreaSystem Act (1992); Republic Act 8041 National Water CrisisAct (1995); Republic Act 8371 Indigenous Peoples RightsAct (1997); Republic Act 9275 Clean Water Act (2004); andRepublic Act 8435 Agriculture and Fisheries ModernizationAct (AFMA). According to the study of Hall et al. (2015), thelaws address several themes including: (1) legal treatment ofwater resources (ownership, rights and distinction betweentypes surface or ground and sectors/uses); (2) propertyrights (basis, i.e. permits/license/franchise for collectionand distribution; private rights granted to individual versuscollective; whether rights can be leased, transferred, recalledby granting authority; right to water quality) and theirenforcement; (3) legalized inter-sectoral prioritization andbasis for prioritization; (4) legal linkages between land andsurface water, and between land and forest/environment; (5)inter-governmental responsibility on water law; (6) integratedtreatment of water law with other laws on land, forest andenvironment, and for water planning and development; (7)favorability to private sector and NGO participation in waterplanning and development; and (8) openness to marketsolutions (as opposed to state/government ownership orintervention).The Water Code of the Philippines (NWRB 1976) is theover- arching law that governs water access, allocation anduse. It stipulates rules on appropriation and utilization ofall waters; control, conservation and protection of waters,watershed and related land resources; and, administrativeand enforcement of these rules. It defines requirements200Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippinesfor application of water permits and conditions of its use.It also sets charges per rate of withdrawal based on thepermits. During periods of drought or water scarcity, theWater Code prioritizes the use of water for domestic use,followed by irrigation, and other uses.The laws above can sometimes be conflicting. Forinstance, while the Water Code stipulates that the stateowns all the water in the country, the Indigenous PeoplesRights Act protects the rights of indigenous peoples withrespect to resources contained in their ancestral domain.Therefore, water is not freely shared with the othercommunity members. The National Integrated ProtectedArea System (NIPAS) Act provides for watershedprotection so water supply can be sustained. This overlapswith the provisions of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act.Similarly, AFMA provides that all watersheds that aresources of water for existing and potential irrigableareas and recharge areas of major aquifers identified bythe Department of Agriculture and the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources shall be preserved assuch at all times,which is consistent with the NIPAS Act.Local Water GovernanceThe Philippines legal framework allows some dichotomyin terms of functions and jurisdiction in water resourcegovernance. Local governance functions by the LocalGovernment Units (LGU) include Community-basedForest Management, waterworks system and water qualitymonitoring. The LGUs decisions and actions are stillbounded by powers at the national level. This has beena source of conflict between the national and local watergovernance.Conflicts Between National Policies and Local Agreements in Provisioning Domestic Water SupplyThe current institutional regulatory framework is weakin terms of clarity of purpose. For instance, the domesticwater supply in Metro Iloilo (one of the city centers southof Metro Manila) is taken from a watershed that contains asmaller watershed which is a Protected Area and managedby the National Government. On the other hand, this largerwatershed is managed by the locally organized WatershedManagement Board. This board is composed of more than20 representatives of government, non-government, andacademic institutions. Due to its sheer size, it is quitedifficult to really point out who is ultimately responsiblefor the stewardship of this watershed. There is thereforea need to clarify the relationship between the ProtectedArea Management Board of the smaller Watershed,established by an Act of the National Government, andthe Watershed Management Board, established underthe Local Government Code. In the meantime, thisissue poses challenges for the sustainability of the water
Philippine Journal of ScienceVol. 144 No. 2, December 2015supply in the province, manifested in the following: 1)deforestation in the upper watershed, landslides, floodingor drying up of water source especially during the summermonths (non-availability of water); 2) conflicts due to thecompeting uses of the water; and, 3) degradation of theriverbed caused by sedimentation and quarrying which isimproperly regulated.Conflict between ICCs and local governments in domestic water supply provisioningThe current conflict for the rights to the use of waterbetween the indigenous cultural communities (ICC) andthe local governments (LGUs) representing the state isa concrete example of tensions in water governance inthe Philippines (Rola 2011). As example, ICC residingnear the mouth of the river and other water sources arenot willing to share the water for an LGU project onrural water supply that is meant for lowland householdconsumption. The State enforced its stewardship ofnatural resources citing the provisions of the WaterCode that anybody can apply for a water permit for theuse of the resource beyond household needs. While thelaw provided public information about water permitapplication, mechanisms for doing this has not beeninstituted. Thus, in practice, an entity securing a waterpermit does not necessarily ask the permission of localcommunities who use said resource. This practice runscounter to the customary laws and other national laws.For example, as supported by the Indigenous PeoplesRights Act (IPRA) of 1997 and implemented by theNational Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP),any use of resources within the ancestral domain of theIP should get permission from the community followingthe principle of free and prior informed consent or FPIC(RA 8371).Conflicts on Water Uses: Sacred Use of Water versusOther UsesThis case showed the conflicts arising from the policyof commoditization of water in the rural areas and thecustomary water laws. Water is used differently in thesacred area, mostly to meet spiritual needs of the localsand pilgrims.Ciudad Mistica is one dominant religious group in thismunicipality of “sacred waters”. This organization hasbecome the water elite because they control the mostabundant water source in the area. The Ciudad Mistica’sexclusive water access to this source and its members’relatively better position creates tension with otherreligious groups as water supply from other sources aredecreasing.On the other hand, drawing water from the major waterreserves in Mt. Banahaw, in the province of Quezon,Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippinessettlers on its slopes have felt that while they are closest tothe water resource base, their own supply from the waterdistrict is threatened by two phenomena: 1) diversion ofsupply to where demand is high, and 2) pricing of waterbeyond the financial capability of
water governance Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines 1College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines Los Baños and National Academy of Science and Technology, College, Los Baños, Laguna, 4031, Philippines 2College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines Los Banos,
PART III Globalism, liberalism, and governance 191 9 Governance in a globalizing world 193 ROBERT O. KEOHANE AND JOSEPH S. NYE JR., 2000 Defining globalism 193 Globalization and levels of governance 202 Globalization and domestic governance 204 The governance of globalism: regimes, networks, norms 208 Conclusions: globalism and governance 214
IoT, discuss how IoT operations can be governed and what is needed, including the roles and responsibilities involved in IoT governance, and describe a proposed governance framework implementation as well as the future challenges facing IoT governance. This paper is intended to showcase how IoT governance can be implemented.
Water Re-use. PRESENTATION TITLE / SUBTITLE / DATE 3. Water Scarcity. Lack of access to clean drinking water. New challenges call for new solutions Water Mapping: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Reclaim Water resources Water Fit for Purpose Water resources Tap Water Waste water Cow Water Rain water Others WIIX Mapping True Cost of Water
Corporate Governance, Management vs. Ownership, Majority vs Minority, Corporate Governance codes in major jurisdictions, Sarbanes Oxley Act, US Securities and Exchange Commission; OECD Principles of Corporate Governance; Developments in India, Corporate Governance in Indian Ethos, Corporate Governance – Contemporary Developments. 2.
Module 5: Effective NGO Governance page 145 MODULE 5 EFFECTIVE NGO GOVERNANCE Good governance is key to the growth and sustainability of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Module 5, “Effective NGO Governance,” presents methods and techniques for planning and implementing actions to improve an organization’s governance.
Objective: To acquire knowledge of ethics, emerging trends in good governance practices and sustainability. Contents: Part A: Ethics and Governance (70 Marks) 1. Introduction Ethics, Business Ethics, Corporate Governance, Governance through Inner Consciousness and Sustainability Failure of Governance and its Consequences 2.
Governance SOA Governance is the set of policies, rules, and enforcement mechanisms for developing, using, and evolving service-oriented systems, and for analysis of the business value of those systems Design-time governance Runtime governance Change-time governance SOA Governance was crea
IT Audit Virtual Training for PEMPAL CONCLUSION Although components of IT are technical in nature, the measurement of IT governance is less technical. Although auditing IT governance require IT skills, however IT governance is more about governance and less about technology IT governance is a result of global practices and research.
