Mbsdmp Process and Activities Report

Republic of the Philippines National Economic and Development Authority

Manila Bay Sustainable Development Master Plan

FINAL MASTER PLAN, ACTION PLAN + INVESTMENT REPORT ANNEX 8 MBSDMP PROCESS AND ACTIVITIES REPORT

December 2020

MBSDMP PROCESS AND ACTIVITIES

Table of Contents Inception Stage ...... 1 Situation Analysis Stage ...... 2 Results Discussion ...... 2 Stakeholder Involvement Process “Listening”...... 4 Situation Analysis Study ...... 5 Develop Evaluation and Assessment Framework ...... 5 Agree with Stakeholders on Situation Analysis (Validation) ...... 6 Inclusive Growth and Upgrading Informal Settlements Presentation ...... 6 DRR and CCA, and Water Quality Improvement Presentation ...... 6 Ecosystem Protection Presentation...... 6 Presentation of 5 Focal Theme Reports to the LGUs of Manila Bay Region ...... 6 Plenary Meeting with the Technical Committee ...... 6 Presentation of the Salient Findings in the SAR to NEDA Infra Com Technical Board ... 7 Finalization and Submission of Situation Analysis Report ...... 7 Results Discussion ...... 7 Strategy Building Stage ...... 9 Develop Alternative Strategies ...... 9 Select a Preferred Strategy (Cost-Benefit Analysis) ...... 10 Finalization and Submission of Strategy Building Report ...... 10 Results Discussion ...... 10 Draft Final Master Plan ...... 11 Formulation of Masterplan with Stakeholders ...... 11 Preparation and Submission of Final Draft Master Plan Report ...... 11 Preparation and Presentation of the Master Plan ...... 12 Results Discussion ...... 12 Setting-up of Institutional Arrangements, Capacity-Building, and Information System ...... 13 Development of MBSDMP Database ...... 13 Institutional Set-up ...... 13 Preparation and Submission of Capacity-Building Plan ...... 13 Development of MBSDMP Monitoring System ...... 13 Final Master Plan ...... 14 Finalization and Submission of Master Plan ...... 14 Participation in Partners’ Stakeholder Engagement Activity ...... 14 Action/Investment Planning and Fine-tuning of Master Plan Stage ...... 15

Action Plan ...... 16 Visiting Vulnerable Communities in the Coastal LGUs of Bulacan ...... 18 Prepare Investment Plan with Budget Requirements ...... 19 Packaging and Submission of Action Plan/Investment Report ...... 19 Prepare and Implement a Communication Plan and Awareness Raising ...... 19 Updated Master Plan ...... 21 Re-assess Potential Measures ...... 21 Agree with Stakeholders on Updated Master Plan ...... 21 Finalization and Submission of Updated Master Plan ...... 22 Results Discussion ...... 22 Updated Action Plan and Investment Plan ...... 24 Agree with Stakeholders on Updated Action Plan and Investment Plan ...... 24 Results Discussion ...... 24 Finalization and Submission of Updated Action Plan and Investment Plan ...... 25

Inception Stage

On 8 March 2018, the MBSDMP Team was invited to attend a meeting of the Alyansa ng mga Baybaying Bayan ng Bulacan at Pampanga (ABB-BP) in Malolos, Bulacan. The eight (8) member coastal cities and municipalities that are part of the ABB-BP are Bulakan, Calumpit, Hagonoy, Macabebe, Malolos, Masantol, Obando, and Paombong.

Unfortunately, representatives from Paombong did not make it to the meeting, which was attended by individuals from the Local Government Units (LGUs) of the member cities/municipalities. The meeting was also attended by Marion Derecx, the Ambassador to the Philippines of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

On 11 April 2018, the Study Team met to discuss and plan the stakeholder engagement process and expected from it, including the Manila Bay Situation ATLAS and the Manila Bay Forum. A list of stakeholders to be consulted and invited for key informant interviews, focus group discussions and consultation meetings were drawn. An initial grouping for stakeholder focus group discussions (FGDs) was created to make discussions more issue-based and relevant to each stakeholder. Concerns regarding potential effects of the upcoming barangay elections were raised.

On the 17th of April 2018, another meeting was held to focus on strategic communications that will be employed for the project. More details on the audio-visual presentation (AVP) were ironed out, including recommended action shots, branding, and timeline. The target completion of the AVP was in May.

On April 18, 2018, further discussion on the AVP were made together with one of the prospective group that could produce the AVP. The Communication Strategists/ Experts and other members of the Study Team floated their ideas and concepts for the AVP whilst it should depict serious problems in Manila Bay area and promote collaboration of various stakeholders to act and address these issues. Ideas on the slogan for the MBSDMP Project were also drafted.

1 Situation Analysis Stage

The FGDs on different topics were held during the following dates:

Date Topic Agencies who have attended 22 May 2018 Geography DENR-MGB, NPDC, PRA, NPDC 23 May 2018 Geology DOST-PHIVOLCS, UP-NIGS, DENR-MGB 24 May 2018 Hydrology DPWH, MBCO, RBCO, NAMRIA, NEDA III 25 May 2018 Environment DENR-EMB IV-A, RBCO-POCO, MBCO-PDO, PNP MG, NEDA III, NEDA IV-A, ERDB-DENR, PRA, MMDA, NAMRIA, DENR-BMB 29 May 2018 Economy NEDA Region III, NEDA Region IV-A, PPP Center, PRA, DFI-BOI, DOT-Intramuros Administration 30 May 2018 Buildings DOST-PHIVOLCS, PRA, PPA, PIEP, HUDCC, OSHDP 31 May 2018 Transport PRA, DPWH, PRRC, MARINA 31 May 2018 Climate DPWH, DENR-FMB, MMDA, BFAR 1 June 2018 Power Supply NGCP, NPC, PEMC, TRANSCO, NHA, DOE 4 June 2018 Waterworks PRA, DPWH, LWUA 5 June 2018 Water Supply and DPWH, LLDA, EMB-NCR, PPA, DPWH, MMDA Sanitation 7 June 2018 Social MBCO, DOH, NAPC, TESDA 7 June 2018 Culture DOT-Intramuros Administration, DepEd, NCHP, NPDC 18 June 2018 Workshop with National ABB-BP, DAR, MBCO, LLDA, NEDA IV-A, PNP-MG, Government Agencies NAMRIA, PSALM, PEMC-WESM (NGAs) 20 June 2018 Workshop with NCR & Representatives from local government units (LGU) of Region IV-A Caloocan, Malabon, Las Piñas, Taguig, Navotas; Provincial Government (PG) of Cavite, and MMDA 21 June 2018 FGD with People’s Homeless Peoples’ Federation Philippines, Inc. (HPFPI), Organizations Philippine Action for Community-led Shelter Initiatives, Inc. (PACSII), Technical Assistance Movement for People and Environment (TAMPEI) 21 June 2018 FGD with International World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Philippines, CARE Philippines Non-Government Organizations (INGOs) 22 June 2018 Workshop for Region III PG units of Bataan, Pampanga, Tarlac, and Bulacan; LGU of Calumpit, Guiguinto, Malolos, and Ubando 27 June 2018 FGD with Non- Community Development Multiversity (CO Multiversity), Government Society for the Conservation of Philippine Wetlands, Inc. Organizations (NGOs) (SCPW), Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development, Inc. (Accord), Alternative Planning Initiatives (AlSTERPLAN), Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Kalikasan), and Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) 27 June 2018 FGD with Urban Poor Urban Poor Associates, SMSS, Peso in IPB, KABALIKAT

Preparations for the FGDs and workshops were done throughout the month and an LCF meeting was conducted on 13 June 2018 to evaluate what has been done and plan for the remaining workshops and FGDs.

Results Discussion The FGDs and Workshops conducted for the months of May to June 2018 raised crucial points that were utilized for the development of SAR, SAR Atlas, and Focal Theme Reports. Other comments and recommendations were instrumental in the development of other

2 reports beyond the SAR phase of the Project, such as the ICZM Planning Framework, Final Master Plan (FMP) and the Action Plan (AP).

• As agreed, available data and information on on-going projects of the local and national agencies who participated were submitted to MBSDMP. Most of these data are no included in the data repository of the Project. Those data that have been used to develop the maps for SAR Atlas are updated during the Action Planning Stage. • Institutional issues raised include the lack of regulatory power, altercation with LGU regarding their policies, overlapping of functions and responsibilities, temporary staffing, absence of an overseeing body (e.g. water department), issues of jurisdiction, and limited scope of work were considered in the development of the Institutional Set-up Report. • The emphasis given to Climate Change as a crucial factor in the current and very old guidelines (e.g. National Building Code), and government programs was a very important consideration to the DRR-CCA part of the MBSDMP reports. • The issue on reclamation projects and their effects to housing security as well as preservation of protected areas have been raised in several FGDs. In the course of the Project, the EO 74 has been pushed to issuance. This EO underlines the implementation of programmatic EIA for reclamation projects, and consideration of all environmental impacts for both horizontal and vertical developments. The ICZM Planning Framework was also developed to be used as guideline for developers, planners, government agencies, and local governments in placing development projects away from areas where protected ecosystems and areas are situated, and/or implement appropriate mitigating and prevention measures. • Inter-LGU collaboration and enforcement and capacity building down to the barangay-level were mentioned in the PAPs for different measures. • Lack of baseline data is recognized, hence the inclusion of development of technology and systems that will assist in testing and monitoring of given parameters (see PAPs in AP), database build-up and management, and utilization of these systems for future studies, and development of policies and programs. • Stakeholder engagement is both recognized and practiced all throughout the MBSDMP Project. All deliverables submitted are presented in the Technical Committee meetings, where NGAs, LGUs, Private sectors, CSOs, Academe, NGOs and POs were invited, and their comments/recommendations heard and well noted. These comments/recommendations were evaluated by focal experts from the LCF- DET and integrated in the revised version of the reports. Engagement activities at the grass-roots level (e.g. barangays) were instrumental in the finalizing of PAPs in the Action Plan.

3 Stakeholder Involvement Process “Listening” The FGDs and workshops were held during the following dates:

Date Activity/Topic Participants 10 July 2018 FGD – Private Sector Philippine Business for Social Progress, Manila Water, Maynilad, UP College of Architecture, NCCA, MCM, SBDI, Federation of Fil-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, OSHDP, Ali-Planning Group, WeGen, PCIC, PCA 18 July 2018 KII – Solar City Manila Goldcoast 20 July 2018 KII – Technical Committee National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), National Civil Society Organizations Council on Disability Affairs (NCDA) 23 July 2018 KII – Horizon Manila JBros. Construction Corp. 2 August 2018 Topics relating to Land National Economic and Development Authority and Reclamation in Manila Bay Save our Shores (SOS) 6 August 2018 Project Brainstorming on LCF and the Association of Dutch Municipalities Capacitating and (VNGI) Empowering LGU Stakeholders 7 August 2018 Acquainting Activity and The Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNGI) and Project Briefer The Alyansa ng mga Baybaying Bayan ng Bulacan at Pampanga 10 August 2018 Formal Creation of the The Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNGI) and Alyansa ng mga Baybaying The Alyansa ng mga Baybaying Bayan ng Bulacan at Bayan ng Bulacan at Pampanga Pampanga (ABBBP) 14 August 2018 MBSDMP Kick-Off Activity CMER /NCEA (Netherlands Commission on Environmental Assessment) and NEDA 14 August 2018 MBSDMP Briefer and DENR Project Scoping Clarifications 16 August 2018 3rd version of the Manila Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) and Bay Environmental Atlas National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA 17 August 2018 Environmental Manila Bay Coordinating Office (MBCO) Management Bureau (EMB) and National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA 03 September 2018 Meeting with the Provincial Provincial and Local Government of Bataan and and Local Government of MBSDMP team Bataan 04 September 2018 Meeting with the Provincial Provincial and Local Government of Pampanga and and Local Government of MBSDMP team Pampanga 17 September 2018 Kinming reclamation UAA Kinming Group Development Corporation and Project meeting MBSDMP team 20 September 2018 Technical Working Group UPLBFI, DOT, NEDA, Tractebel, LGU- Macabebe, presentation: Inclusive MMDA, DOF, UPA, Marco Polo Ortigas Growth and Upgrading Ateneo IPC, HCC 1600 Meralco Ave, Informal Settlements San Antonio, Pasig, 1600 Metro Manila 21 September 2018 Technical Working Group DOF, Accord, NEDA, CARE presentation: DRR and International, Tractebel, LWA, DTI, PRRC, PBSP, Sequoia Hotel, CCA and UPLBFI, WWF, Mother Ignacia Water Quality improvement Wetlands International, PNP-MG, Maynilad, EMB- Avenue, Diliman, DENR Quezon City, Metro Manila 24 September 2018 Technical Working Group LWUA, NEDA, Delatares, Wetland International, presentation: Ecosystem Netherlands Government, MBCO, UPLBFI, DENR- Hotel Rembrandt, protection FMB, PBSP, CENRO-Taguig, Tomas Morato

4 Date Activity/Topic Participants Avenue Diliman, Presentation of 5 Focal CENRO- Pasay, LGU Navotas, CENRO – Las Pinas, Quezon City theme reports to the LGUs ABB-BP, of Manila Bay Region. Tractebel, LGU Valenzuela, Netherlands Embassy, LGU Macabee 26 September 2018 Plenary meeting with the NEDA, MBCO, DTI, NRO III, PRA, Technical committee DA-BSWM, Netherlands Embassy, NAMRIA, LGU- Hotel Rembrandt, Navotas, PSA, PHIVOLCS, LGU-Macabebe, Tomas Morato Maynilad, Wetlands International, LWUA, NAPC, Avenue Diliman, DOLE, LGU-Malolos, LGU- Hagonoy, ABB-BP, SJC- Quezon City CENRO, DICT, PBSP, DOT, CDRRMO, LGU SPC, PPDO, DPWH, DBM, DENR-RBCO, PG-ENRO Tarlac, CENRO, CCC, UPA, LGU-San Pablo, OSHDP

Situation Analysis Study For the month of August in 2018, majority of the team’s activities focused on writing the Situational Analysis Report and focal theme reports based on the data collected from previous months. Key activities conducted are briefly discussed below:

▪ The meeting between National Economic and Development Authority and Save our Shores (SOS) in 2 August 2018 was requested by SOS to discuss concerns regarding the unsolicited reclamation projects in the Manila Bay area. SOS is a non-profit marine conservation organization of private and concerned individuals with the goal to promote and advocate marine conservation through awareness promotion and action. ▪ Meeting between LCF and the Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNGI) were conducted where both parties mutually agreed to work together on forming an alliances/ association of LGUs to promote the welfare of the Manila Bay among others. Other options identified as well was to identify existing alliances and strengthen their current capacity by offering technical assistance and knowledge sharing. ▪ On the following day, VNGI met with the Alyansa ng mga Baybaying Bayan ng Bulacan at Pampanga (ABBBP). The VNGi presented their company background and previous projects made, they assured to offer technical assistance and knowledge sharing on the formation of the alliance of LGUs. ▪ Meeting between MBSDMP Study Team (with DET-CMER/NCEA) and DENR and its attached agencies. The MBSDMP project was presented to the participants in 14 August 2018, numerous clarifications were highlighted concerning MBSDMP scope. ▪ Meeting between MBSDMP Institutional/Governance Expert with DENR-MBCO. ▪ Meeting between DET-PUM, LCF-SWM with MMDA. The PUM Consultants (Senior experts solid waste, waste water, water, policy process), Mr. Erik Eggers (Wastewater Specialist) and Mr. Henk Klosters (Solid Waste Management Specialist) met with several stakeholders of the Manila Bay SDMP during their first mission in the Philippines. ▪ Meeting between DET-PUM, LCF-SWM with Maynilad. On 31 August 2018, the PUM Consultants visited the Veterans Village Water Reclamation Facility

Develop Evaluation and Assessment Framework The framework for identification and selection of PAPs, which is the policy framework, was drafted July 2018 by the Policy Analysis Experts with the Deputy Team Leader and DET.

On August 9 to 10 2018, in Los Banos, Laguna, the consultants had a team write shop aiming to identify the scope and content of the focal theme report.

Agree with Stakeholders on Situation Analysis (Validation) Inclusive Growth and Upgrading Informal Settlements Presentation Last 20 September 2018, Focal theme reports concerning Inclusive Growth and Upgrading Informal Settlements were presented by the concerned consultants to validate findings and elicit response from stakeholders.

Presentation was attended by various sectors and department: UPLBFI, DOT, NEDA, Tractebel, LGU-Macabebe, MMDA, DOF, UPA, Ateneo IPC, HCC. Comments and suggestions during the presentations will be considered in enhancing the current version of SAR.

DRR and CCA, and Water Quality Improvement Presentation Focal theme presentations on DRR and CCA and Water Quality Improvement were held in 21 September 2018, the event was attended by various stakeholders including DOF, Accord, NEDA, CARE International, Tractebel, LWA, DTI, PRRC, PBSP, UPLBFI, WWF, Wetlands International, PNP-MG, Maynilad and EMB-DENR among others.

Salient comments of stakeholders focused on data updating, and additional analysis needed among others. These comments will be incorporated in the enhancement of the SAR.

Ecosystem Protection Presentation Presentation of results and finding of Ecosystem protection were presented in September 24, 2018. The event was attended by various stakeholders around Manila Bay region such as LWUA, NEDA, Deltares, Wetland International, Netherlands Government, DENR-FMB, PBSP, CENRO-Taguig, CENRO- Pasay, CENRO – Las Pinas, ABB-BP, Netherlands Embassy, and MBCO among others .Key comments on the presentation centered on further analysis on the effect of climate change and reclamation projects in the Manila Bay Ecosystem which will be considered in the enhancement of the current version of the SAR.

Presentation of 5 Focal Theme Reports to the LGUs of Manila Bay Region Presentation of the Five focal theme reports to the LGUs of Manila Bay region was held on the afternoon of the same day at Rembrandt Hotel in Quezon City attended by the focal persons of each LGUs and concerned stakeholders. All lead focal theme presented the highlights of each thematic report to the LGU representatives in attendance. Plenary Meeting with the Technical Committee On the 26th of September 2018, the MBSDMP consultants presented their findings to the technical committee of the project. The event was attended by various stakeholders including MBCO, LGU representatives, NGOs, HUDCC, DENR, PRA, representatives of ISFs, CCC, and MMDA among others.

Presentation of the Salient Findings in the SAR to NEDA Infra Com Technical Board The study team led by JJ Brinkman presented the key results of the Situational Analysis to the Technical Baord of the NEDA Infra Com on September 27, 2018 at NEDA Board Room. Selected local and DET experts who are part of the study team were present during the presentation. The key issues discussed during the presentation include the need to conduct comprehensive environmental impact assessment of all land reclamation proposals to determine where it can and cannot be allowed, and to ensure that impacts on water supply, waste management, ecosystems, and population dynamics are well accounted for and considered in the evaluation of full land reclamation and development project proposals. It was also suggested that the study team draft policy instrument to implement priority measures to stop groundwater extraction in Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan to halt worsening land subsidence in these areas. address as soon as possible problems needing immediate attention such as land subsidence. Additionally, the study team was requested to consider other policy measures that can already be implemented even before the MBSDMP is completed.

Finalization and Submission of Situation Analysis Report The Situational Analysis and focal theme reports were submitted to NEDA on the 11th September 2018, it should be noted that the presentation of the above-mentioned reports to concerned stakeholders happened after a week of submission. During report presentations, it was acknowledged that the reports are living documents that should continue to be improved. Recommendations and feedbacks during presentation will be considered on reports enhancements.

Results Discussion The Consultations and Workshops conducted for the months of July to September 2018 raised crucial points that were utilized for the finalization of SAR, and initial build-up of what will be the SBR.

• All inputs (comments, issues, recommendations) gathered during the stakeholder activities for the months of July to September were reposited to the Project’s database and utilized in the revision and updating of SAR and Focal Theme Reports. These inputs were also instrumental to the Team’s initial activities in development of the SBR. • The existing programs, issues and recommendations gathered during the Water Quality Focal Theme meeting provided the groundwork for the development of the measures: Improve Solid Waste Management and Reduce Pollution Load • Findings in inclusive growth and ISF were fleshed out in the SBR and DFMP. • Findings in workshop with LGUs and PLGUs, especially in areas of ecosystem, disasters, ISF, and Livelihood were crucial information used in the development of DFMP. For instance, issues on flooding and the practices of the LGUs for prevention

7 and mitigation were used as basis for developing the actions under the DRR-CCA measure. • Data on sediment loading and results on BSWM study on agricultural runoff were requested to be included in the DFMP, but these were not acquired since the study is not yet finished. • The measure for Addressing ISF concerns in SBR and DFMP emphasizes the priority given to on-site upgrading or in-city relocation, as well as provision of access to basic services and utilities. Despite the changes in FMP and APIR wherein relocation will only be a voluntary choice for LGUs with constituents living in areas with high risk to flooding, the same provisions (suitable housing, basic services) remain unchanged.

8 Strategy Building Stage

Develop Alternative Strategies The TC meeting held last 7 December 2018 at Heritage Manila Hotel was attended by various stakeholders of the project. The main event started with the Project Briefer by Deltares Team Leader JJ Brinkman followed by the presentation of the Project’s Latest Indicators by LCF Team Leader Dr. Rex Cruz. The Project’s stakeholders were also updated on the SAR atlas and Focal theme reports revisions based on the comments raised by the Technical Committee as consolidated by NEDA. At the latter part of the event, Bobbi Schijf from CMER/Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment introduced the integration of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to MBSDMP.

Three major activities transpired in the reporting period that contributes to the Development of Alternative Strategies: First is the 2nd Strategy Building Workshop last 6-8 February 2019 held at Hotel Dominique in Tagaytay City; Second, the series of Stakeholder Engagements around the Manila Bay Area; and lastly is the 3rd Strategy Building Workshop last 21-23 February 2019 which condensed the output of the aforementioned activities.

The 2nd Strategy Building Workshop involving the LCF and DET experts was held at Hotel Dominique in Tagaytay City. The workshop, which was facilitated by Mr. Raymund Go, intended to further develop the previous team output relating to strategy building. The workshop covered various sessions that includes: Objectives, indicators, Base Case, Scenarios, Target Gaps Reference Case, Measures, and Strategies.

The results of the 2nd Strategy Building workshop was presented to the concerned stakeholders on the 12,13, and 20th of February.

The 3rd Strategy Building Workshop held at Hotel Dominique main objective was to finalize data and assumptions of the 2nd Strategy Building Workshop and inputs of the Stakeholders during the consultation process to produce the first draft of the Strategy Building Report.

9 Select a Preferred Strategy (Cost-Benefit Analysis) The MBSDMP team had a series of Stakeholder Engagement activities that involve the LGUs of the Manila Bay Area, Concerned NGAs, CSOs, Academes and Private Sectors. The Stakeholder engagements intend to present the initial indicators, measures, and strategies of the recently concluded 2nd Strategy Building Workshop.

The first from the series of engagement involved the LGUs of Region III which was held at Quest Hotel in Clark last 12 February followed by the Coastal LGUs of NCR and Concerned NGAs at World Trade Center on the following day. The latest engagement process which was participated by the LGUs of Region IV-A was held last 20 February at Hotel Dominique in Tagaytay City.

Finalization and Submission of Strategy Building Report Last 28 February 2019, the MBSDM team had a workshop to determine the preferred strategy that will be adapted for the Master Plan. The workshop which was held at MBSDMP Office was attended by the LCF and Deltares consultants.

Results Discussion The Team Meetings and Workshops conducted for the months of October 2018 to February 2019 raised crucial points that were utilized for the development of SBR and the Draft FMP.

• The Team meetings conducted shortlisted the key indicators from the long list of indicators that will be the basis for strategy building. Experts have agreed on the preferred strategy that will be the focus of the SBR. • Answers to survey questionnaire disseminated to coastal LGUs in October 2018 were used in the strategizing process for SBR. Comments/recommendations from SAR were also used. • MBSDMP targets creating framework that will give sustainable impacts that will balance development without jeopardizing the livelihood of fisherfolk. For instance, in the ICZM, should there be development projects that will be too costly to stop, the alternative is to sit down with proponents and agree on a strategy that will make the proponent do something in exchange for the protected ecosystems it will destroy, as well as the stakeholders it will affect. • SEA is mentioned in SBR and DFMP. • Reviewing the impacts of the reclamation projects on Manila Bay as a whole is part of the programmatic EIA enforced by EO 74. • The recommendation raised that there should be one entity overseeing the programs, policies and fulfillment of mandates of relevant agencies is already enclosed in the Institutional Set-up Report. • The suggestion to consult locals has been a part of the MBSDMP Process all throughout the Project’s progress until completion. • Flood water is one of the alternative sources of water mentioned in the PAP of REF (Reduce Exposure to Flooding). This has been mentioned in DFMP, FMP, and APIR. • A percentage of land in development projects allotted for socialized housing was mentioned and to be applied DHSUD. This has been integrated in the Addressing ISF concerns of SBR and DFMP. • Considering projects outside the basin that can affect MBA as well was done in the SAR, for instance NGPs in the upland areas. Another example is sanitary landfill construction in Batangas and Quezon, provinces with only few of their LGUs encompassed by MBR, will still help meet the targets for Solid Waste Management of MBSDMP, in particular the management of residuals and prevention of opening of dumpsites. More about this can be reviewed in the PAPs developed for FMP and APIR.

10 Draft Final Master Plan

Formulation of Masterplan with Stakeholders The core of the Draft Final Master Plan is the result of the Strategy Building Phase of the project. Upon submission of the Strategy Building report last 10th March 2019, the MBSDMP team organized Regional Stakeholders Consultations and Technical Committee Meeting to present the measures and the preferred strategy of the Master Plan.

▪ 25 March 2019 – Regional Stakeholders for Region IV and Region III ▪ 26 March 2019 - Regional Stakeholders for NCR ▪ 28 March 2019 – Technical Committee Meeting A series of MBSDMP meetings and small stakeholder workshops were held leading to the formulation of the Final Masterplan during the reporting period. First of which, was the MBSDMP team meeting last 3 April 2019 at Antel office that discussed the salient points raised during the 28 March Technical Committee meeting and action plan on how to proceed with the MBSDMP masterplan. This was followed by a 24th April meeting which was presided by Dr. Rex Cruz focusing on the proposed outline of the Final Masterplan. The meeting was attended by the various LCF and DET experts together with partners for resilience experts. After plenary discussion the group broke out into small group meetings per measure to further firmed up the Programs, Projects and Activities (PAPs) of the master plan - some of which that’s within the reporting period were the Enforcing Sustainable Fisheries meeting on Los Banos last 26th April and Addressing ISFs concerns last 30th April.

Preparation and Submission of Final Draft Master Plan Report The Draft Final Master Plan report which was submitted last 10 April 2019 together with the Institutional Set Up and Capacity Building report were presented last 02 May 2019 to the Technical Committee held at C2 Restaurant in Greenhills, San Juan City. The review which was attended by the MBSDMP team commenced with the Introduction of the project as presented by JJ Brinkman followed by the presentation of the Draft master plan by Dr. Rex Cruz. The latter half of the event was started with the presentation of the Institutional Set Up and Capacity Building by Ms. Rutth Gerochi, MBSDMP Institutional Expert, and concluded with a plenary discussion where stakeholders raised their comments and recommendations for further fine tuning of the presented outputs.

11 Preparation and Presentation of the Master Plan Comments and recommendations from the draft Master Plan report was considered, thus the enhanced report was presented to the Technical Committee on May 27, 2019 at Rembrandt Hotel in Quezon City. The presentation started with the review of the project timeline and followed by the main presentation of the updated master plan.

Results Discussion The Consultations and Workshops conducted for the months of January to May 2019 raised crucial points that were utilized for the development of the Draft FMP. Each Focal theme had series of meetings to refine its shortlisted indicators, proposed measures, and identify its initial programs, activities and projects (PAPs).

• Visits to the Coastal LGUs of Pampanga (Macabebe, Masantol, Lubao, and Sasmuan), Bataan (Mariveles, Abucay, Limay, Samal, Orani, Pilar, and Balanga), Bulacan (Malolos, Paombong, Hagonoy, Bulakan, and Obando), and Metro Manila (Navotas and Las Pinas) were conducted from January 21-25, 2019 to collect pertinent information that includes various development plans, LGU ordinances, Hazard, and Thematic maps related to the scope of the study. Information gathered were used in the development of measures and strategies for the Master plan. • The institutional arrangements of the new project (Manila Bay Clean-up and Rehab by DENR) will be observed, since this will be a transitional arrangement for the three- year project duration. If this mode of coordination and management will be effective, the MBSDMP can adopt this with additional inputs on its structure design to ensure that it will be sustainable in the long term. This transition was included in the Institutional Set-up Report. • Comprehensive impact assessment required for all reclamation; No change to the environment as much as possible, including water level. Not all questions can be answered by the masterplan, although proposal on how to do such shall be provided. • Reversing the movement of people in the MBay Basin was included/taken into consideration in the Decongestion of Metro Manila measure of DFMP. • All the LGUs should be updating the CLUPs. Water use is included in that. Therefore they must be in-sync with the MBSDMP. Manila Bay clean up should also be in-sync to the masterplan. • Policies specifically RA 9003 is sufficient by itself. Such policies are not weak, but we need to focus on is the need to improve capacity to enforce such policies. Enforcement of the law is part of the PAP of ISWM in FMP. • It’s difficult for identifying lands because of its different uses in terms of protection. Public land that hasn’t been in use for last decade for its purpose. State will exercise its power to use this land for socialized housing. This has been included in the PAP for Addressing ISF concerns in the DFMP. • Clear guidelines for sending and receiving LGUs is needed. The DFMP and FMP mentioned this. • One of the PAPs is banning plastics and decrease waste generation. There should be a policy in WTE and how this would be strategy. In the DFMP and FMP, WTEs are considered as another PAP for Residuals Management. • The basecase adopted is for 2015 or year when last census plus Climate Change Projections were made. The MBSDMP Team tried to synchronize values of indicators with values of major factors that influence these indicators. New estimates were incorporated in the Action Planning Phase. • Every LGU must be visited for in-depth coordination and communication with e.g. officials (governors, mayors, etc.), especially with regards to PAPs. This recommendation was followed by MBSDMP from development of FMP to APIR. • National-wide IEC important; reshaping values at schools. PAPs of all measures has IECs as part of soft measures. 12 • Change paradigm when thinking of what is ISFs. The term encroachment for ISFs was removed in DFMP. • Half-way homes ineffective. Vertical developments (40 storey) better alternative, with mixed use (residential, commercial, etc.). • There are enhancements/protection in the uplands included in the FMP. • Air quality was considered in SAR with data coming from 3 EMB regional offices; air quality is not that significant compared to water quality; Airshed discussed in SAR. • Difficulty by concessionaires to reach 100% sewerage coverage by 2026 was well noted. The reasons listed by the concessionaires were mentioned in FMP. • A competition between human settlements and increasing area of critical habitats was pointed out. There are only a few settlements in intertidal flats. In terms of diversity and cover, the MBSDMP Team has gone through a detailed survey of the area. • Phasing is required to avoid disruption of water security in homes that extract water from the ground. This would entail alternative sources of water, which is included in the PAPs for Reducing Exposure to Flooding measure. • The lack of data in pollution from ships was mentioned in the DFMP. Consultation with relevant agencies will need to follow through. • Each option presented in the Institutional Set-up can be a transition structure. • The MBSDMP must look also into people, institutions, education and not just technical issues. The Masterplan aims to change behavior and culture and not just implement sustainable development.

Setting-up of Institutional Arrangements, Capacity- Building, and Information System

Development of MBSDMP Database MBSDMP Database of stakeholders were organized by the Study Team which includes Name, Designation, Stakeholder Type, Contact Details, and Gender. The database consists of all the stakeholders who participated in all the activities conducted for the formulation of MBSDMP.

Institutional Set-up Two meetings were held to further build the institutional set-up of the Master plan, first of which was the 4 June followed by the 19 June meeting 2019, both were initiated by Ms. Ruth Gerochi, Institutional Development Specialist/ Governance Expert, and attended by the Manila Bay Coordinating Office as represented by Ms. Donna Gordove, Vice-Chairperson of the MBSDMP Technical Committee.

Preparation and Submission of Capacity-Building Plan Recommendations from the different concerned Agencies regarding the proposed Institutional Set-up and Capacity Building Plan for the MBSDMP was considered. Updated and enhanced Capacity-Building Plan was submitted together with the Updated Master Plan.

Development of MBSDMP Monitoring System Setting-up values of targets per measure were conducted during the strategy building stage. Monitoring system on the achievement of targets was developed. 13 Final Master Plan

Finalization and Submission of Master Plan For the initial week of May, the team’s activities focused on the packaging and submission of the Final Master Plan that was due on the 5th of May. The recommendations identified by the Technical Committee on 10 April 2019 were reflected on the Final master plan revised version together with the refined discussion of Programs, Projects and Activities for each Measure of the Plan. Activities relating to the development of the above-mentioned report were described in the last reporting period.

Participation in Partners’ Stakeholder Engagement Activity On the 15th of May 2019, the MBSDMP Project Team was invited by Partners for Resilience to attend and witness the photography workshop prepared by the residents of Brgy. Binacod in Paombong, Bulacan. The said workshop was aligned with a Participatory Disaster Risk Assessment and themed-- Kamalayan: Pagtuklas, Pagmulat, Pagbangon (Awareness: Discovery, Enlightenment, Resiliency). The community members used photos they took to communicate their perspectives on the hazards and its impacts on them, thus putting across their own risk assessments. Led by DTL Dr. Rex Cruz and the LCF Experts for DRR-CCA (Hydrologist Engr. Helen Ramirez, Coastal Engineer Manny Santos, Cost Expert Engr. Dani Balmori), the participants from MBSDMP Team shared their perspectives, and asked the community members of their expectations from the government in terms of mitigating and preventing disaster and socio-economic risks they face. Major points of assessment are:

• Flooding caused by high tides, slow river circulation as well as blockage due to trapped solid wastes. • Warning signs include lunar calendar to determine tides. • Some EWS based on movement on ecosystems e.g. crabs (traditional beliefs and practices). • Houses under medium-risk due to slope protection structure. Prior to its construction, flood was waist-level. • High-risk houses made of pawid, wood/bamboo, light materials. • Solid wastes just circulate in the area, which is a major problem. Binacod residents want the government to: 14 • Resolve the solid waste problem in their rivers; • Provide them slope protection for their houses; and • Give livelihood projects/assistance. The points raised and gathered during the discussion/forum after the presentation of the photo exhibit were noted. These are considered relevant inputs in the strategizing process of MBSDMP.

Action/Investment Planning and Fine-tuning of Master Plan Stage

The MBSDMP consultants had their meeting last 5 June 2019 to plan for the next phase of the project. The meeting commenced by reviewing the project timeline followed by presenting the initial Communication Strategy that would complement the master plan. The second half of the meeting focused on conceptualizing the activities that would fine tune the Plan’s measures and further enhancing the Program, Activities, and Project’s template that would be used across all measures. The meeting concluded with the agreed schedule and group breakdown of the stakeholder’s engagement for the upcoming months.

On 2 August, Mr. Vic Ticzon (Fisheries Expert) called for a consultative meeting with DENR - Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB) to verify Manila Bay’s existing zoning and developments, and its recent vulnerability assessment report. The meeting, which was held at UPLB, concluded with the assurance from DENR-ERDB that they will provide the MBSDMP team a copy of the latest vulnerability assessment report of Manila Bay after it’s submitted to MBCO on the 3rd week of the September.

After engaging the coastal LGUs of Bataan, Bulacan, and Pampanga last July 2019, the Manila Bay Sustainable Development Master Plan (MBSDMP) team proceeded with the Coastal LGUs of Metro Manila, Cavite, and concerning National Government Agencies (NGAs) to further review the Master Plan. The first consultation workshop for this month, engaged the Coastal LGUs of Metro Manila held at Century Park Hotel last 6 August followed by the workshop at Tanza Hotel last 16 August with the Coastal LGUs of Cavite. The main objective of both workshops 15 was to reinforce the awareness of partner stakeholders about the Master Plan, and review the Programs, Activities and Projects (PAPs) of all measures.

Aside from the primary objective of previous provincial consultations, the recent stakeholder engagement attended by the NGAs last 23 August at Hotel Rembrandt, focused on the policy gaps that need to be bridged to reinforce the respective measures. Refer to Annex 2 for the Complete list of Attendees, Activity Design, Workshop Guide Questions, and Highlights of the Workshop.

Last 13 September, the MBSDMP team led by Dr. Rex Cruz conducted a Disaster Risk Reduction Management (DRRM) Workshop participated by the Coastal Local Government Units (LGUs) of Bulacan Province. The workshop which was also attended by Daniel Balmori (Cost Engineer), Manuel Santos (Coastal Engineering Expert), Helen Ramirez (Flood Management Expert), and Annadel Cabanban of Wetlands International aimed to elicit inputs on how to mitigate identified hazards in the coastal areas of the province and verify the current listing of PAPs under the thematic packages of Implementing DRRM Programs and Projects.

Action Plan Last 20 January 2020, The MBSDMP team led by Dr. Rex Cruz (Deputy Team Leader), Mr. Raymund Go (M&E and Database Specialist), and Ms. Caridad Nasol (Communication and Public Participation Specialist) together with the Project Management Team of the MBSDMP developed a two-prong activity to present the Program, Activities, and Projects (PAPs) of the Final Master Plan report to the Manila Bay Communities, and organize a data collection activity to bridge the data gaps in drafting the Action Planning and Investment report due March 2020.

The Community engagement, which run from the last week of January up to the second week of February, targets the Coastal Communities of Cavite, Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga Province and the Coastal Cities of Metro Manila. It aims to present and validate the proposed PAPs of the Final Master Plan report and gauge the relevance of such to the actual needs of the communities.

During its first week, the team engaged the following communities listed below, and followed by the stakeholders in Bataan, Cavite, Pampanga and Metro Manila for the upcoming weeks.

Date Barangay Local Government Unit 27 January 2020 Babatnin and Panasahan Malolos, Bulacan 28 January 2020 Mercado and Sto Nino Hagonoy, Bulacan 29 January 2020 Santa Cruz and Masucol Paombong, Bulacan 30 January 2020 Tibig Bulakan, Bulacan 16 Date Barangay Local Government Unit Pugad Hagonoy, Bulacan 31 January 2020 Salambao and Tawiran Obando, Bulacan

For the last week of January, the team visited the Coastal LGUs of Malolos, Paombong, Hagonoy, Bulakan, and Obando to request pertinent information that includes various local development plans, and current investments related to the proposed thematic packages of the Final Master plan report.

The Community engagement continued up to the third week of February to present and validate the proposed PAPs of the Final Master Plan report and gauge the relevance of such to the actual needs of the communities. During the reporting period, the MBSDMP team engaged the (1) Coastal Communities of Cavite, Bataan, Pampanga Province and Metro Manila, and (2) Selected Catchment Communities in Rizal, Nueva Ecija, and Bulacan as listed below:

Date Barangay Local Government Unit 3 February 2020 Brgy. 20, 128 and 105 City of Manila 4 February 2020 Landing Pilar, Bataan Camachile Orion, Bataan Munting Batangas Balanga, Bataan 5 February 2020 Kabalutan Orani, Bataan Almacen Hermosa, Bataan San Juan Samal, Bataan Wawa and Capitangan Abucay, Bataan 6 February 2020 Bancal Lubao, Pampanga Alangan Limay, Bataan Maligaya Mariveles, Bataan 7 February 2020 Sapang Kawayan Masantol, Pampanga Malusac and Batang 2nd Sasmuan, Pampanga Dalayap and Consuelo Macabebe, Pampanga 10 February 2020 San Dionisio Paranaque City 186 Pasay City Pulang Lupa Uno Las Pinas City 11 February 2020 Malainen Bago Naic, Cavite Sapang I Ternate, Cavite Pinagsanhan B Maragongon, Cavite 12 February 2020 11 (Lawin) Cavite City San Juan II Noveleta, Cavite Wakas II Kawit, Cavite 13 February 2020 Ligtong Rosario, Cavite Amaya 5 Tanza, Cavite Sineguelasan Bacoor, Cavite Tanza Navotas City 17 February 2020 Sumakab Norte Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija Tabing Ilog Marilao, Bulacan Tagpos Binangonan, Rizal

During the reporting period, the team visited the following LGUs listed below to request pertinent information that includes various local development plans, and current investments related to the proposed thematic packages of the Final Master plan report.

17 Date Province Local Government Unit 3 February 2020 Metro Manila City of Manila 4 February 2020 Bataan Pilar Orion Balanga 5 February 2020 Orani Hermosa Samal Abucay Limay Marivels 7 February 2020 Pampanga Lubao Masantol Sasmuan Macabebe 10 February 2020 Metro Manila Paranaque City Pasay City Las Pinas City 11 February 2020 Cavite Naic Ternate Maragondon 12 February 2020 Cavite City Noveleta Kawit 13 February 2020 Rosario Tanza Bacoor Metro Manila Navotas City 17 February 2020 Nueva Ecija Cabanatuan City Bulacan Marilao Rizal Binangonan

Visiting Vulnerable Communities in the Coastal LGUs of Bulacan On 1 February 2020, part of the MBSDMP-LCF led by Dr. Rex Cruz (Deputy Team Leader), Mr. Raymund Go (M&E and Database Specialist), and Ms. Caridad Nasol (Communication and Public Participation Specialist), together with PMO staff and a representative of NEDA Infracom, has conducted a boat tour to visit and interview barangay officials and local residents in coastal barangays. The barangays visited were island barangays of Babatnin and Panasahan in Malolos City, Pugad in Hagonoy, and Sta. Cruz in Paombong. During the visit, the barangay officials discussed that their barangays experience high tides that flood their streets and some houses, and how this event has become a daily part of their lives. Pictures taken of houses show lowered houses, with original windows now at the level of the ground, and newly built houses constructed on top of old ones – all evidence of the worsening land subsidence in the barangays. Water for drinking is still extracted from the ground, and septage management is still a strange or impossible program in the barangay. Most coastal barangays wish to have trashboats and ambulance boats that will quickly transport wastes and patients, respectively. The request for trashboats was one of the considerations in the development of PAP for improved waste collection under the ISWM Priority Measure. The construction of a seawall is another request of the coastal barangays visited, with one seawall construction project ongoing in Sta. Cruz, Paombong. These barangays are devastated by high waves brought by storm surge during strong winds and storms. Brgy. 18 Pugad, for instance, has half of its land eaten by the bay during a strong typhoon that devastated said land with strong storm surges. Despite these difficulties, the officials and some residents interviewed refuse to leave their barangays and prefer to continue living there.

A windowsill of a house in Pugad, Hagonoy that is now at a ground level due to land subsidence

Prepare Investment Plan with Budget Requirements The Deltares team led by Mr. JanJaap Brinkman (Team Leader) initiated the Investment and Financial Planning Week from 22-24 July 2019 with a general objective of firming up the investment and financing strategy of the Final Master Plan report. The 3-Day event started with an internal team preparation from 22 – 23 July with the Local Consulting Firm led by Ms. Amy Dela Rosa (PPP Expert) and culminated with a meeting on the 24th attended by NEDA, concerned National Government Agencies, Local financing institutions, the Ministry of Infrastructure of the Netherlands as represented by Mr. Jan van Schoonhoven.

The MBSDMP led by Mr. Janjaap Brinkman attended the Alyansa ng mga Baybaying Bayan ng Bulacan at Pampanga (ABB-BP) Meeting last 20 November 2019 to present the key updates and findings of the Final Master Plan report. The meeting held at Bulwagan ni San Juan at Hagonoy, Bulacan, focused on the following subjects: MBSDMP Timeline, ICZM Planning Framework, PAPs under the Thematic Package, and other brief issues facing the locality. The meeting ended with an agreed separate consultation to further discussed subjects on Manila Bay Resiliency Fund and Proposed DRR Line of Defense

Last 20 November 2019, The MBSDMP led by Engr. Helen Ramirez (Flood Management Specialist), Engr. Manuel M. Santos Jr. (Coastal Engineering Specialist), and Mr. Danny Balmori (Cost Engineer), and Hans de Vroeg of Deltares team had a consultative meeting with the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Unified Project Management Office – Flood Control Management Cluster at NHCS Compound, Pasig City regarding the Thematic Package on Implementing Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Programs and Projects.

Packaging and Submission of Action Plan/Investment Report Last 25-26 February 2020, the MBSDMP team had a 2-Day Meeting at Microtel Hotel, Baguio to discuss the list of Programs, Activities, and Projects (PAPs) under the Master plan. The activity aimed to refine the PAPs based on the information gathered during the community focus group discussions and data collation activities which will be operationalized in the Action Plan / Investment report due on 10 March 2020.

Prepare and Implement a Communication Plan and Awareness Raising Last 24th July, the UP Padayon had a meeting with MBSDMP team led by Dr. Rex Cruz, Dr. Leonardo Florece (Ecological Expert), and Mr. Ricardo Sandalo (ICZM Expert) to talked

19 about the Master plan and explore on possible ways on how the former could engage to complement the Master plan’s activities.

On 14 August, the MBSDMP AVP team was accompanied by the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission (PRRC) to visit the key project areas where PRRC are working with. The itinerary ended with a brief overview of the Pasig River Integrated and Strategic Master Plan (PRISM) by the head of Public, Information, Advocacy and Tourism Division of the said commission.

20 Updated Master Plan

Re-assess Potential Measures The MBSDMP team conducted consultative workshops and meetings targeting various stakeholders of the project to re-assess and review the relevance of the identified Programs, Activities, and Projects (PAPs) to their locality or discipline for the updating of the Masterplan and formulation of its Action Plan. For the month of September, each thematic theme conducted their own assessment on how the engagement’s findings will affect the current interventions that the master plan has.

Agree with Stakeholders on Updated Master Plan The MBSDMP team continued to engage both the Coastal and Catchment Provincial LGUs of the study area to further coordinate and synchronize their ongoing projects concerning solid waste management, pollution load, and exposure to flooding to the Master Plan report. The engagement proceeded by presenting the Master Plan report and its thematic packages followed by an open discussion, highlighting both parties’ recommendations on how to strengthen the Programs, Activities, Projects (PAPs) under the Master Plan.

Below is the list of engagements held during the reporting period:

Date Provincial Local Government Unit 4 March 2020 Pampanga 6 March 2020 Bulacan 9 March 2020 Bataan 10 March 2020 Nueva Ecija 11 March 2020 Tarlac 12 March 2020 Rizal

For the first half of March, the MBSDMP team conducted a Rapid Resource Assessment of North Manila Bay and Corregidor Island with the primary objective of updating the habitat map and resource assessment report of the major critical habitats in the identified study areas. The activity was designed to run for two-months including report writing but the field work was done in just two weeks because of the Enhanced Community Quarantine implemented for the whole Island of Luzon commencing 17th March 2020 and scheduled to last until advised by the Government to contain Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19).

Below is the list of activities held during the reporting period:

Date Activities 5-12 March 2020 Focal Group Discussions (Fisheries Sector Soft Bottom Assessment Mangrove Assessment 5-7 and 9 March 2020 Coral Reef Assessment

21 Finalization and Submission of Updated Master Plan The Updated Master Plan is the enhanced version the draft Master Plan, which includes Manila Bay 2040 projections when all proposed measures and PAPs are implemented. The Updated Master Plan was submitted on September 30, 2020.

Results Discussion The Consultations and Workshops conducted for the months of June 2019 to March 2020 raised crucial points that were utilized for the fine-tuning of FMP and development of Draft APIR.

• Findings in the series of FGDs conducted per measure were used to fine-tune PAPs, clustering them into PAP packages with sub-level PAPs. The goal is that each PAP package must directly impact or resolve the gaps made by the key indicators per measure. • The communities are strong knitted; their community spirit and neighborhood support system cause hesitation among many community members to realize their aspirations of relocating to a new place. This was considered in the REF measure, which has a PAP for relocation of people in high-risk areas. • The communities are proactive and dynamic. They aspire to play an active role for the development of their area. The community also recognizes the hindrances in implementing projects in their area and hopes that other viable financing and funding mechanisms be made available to support their LGUs and/or community’s initiatives. The needs that they have specified (equipment, funding, trainings, facilities, LGU enforcement support) were considered in the finetuning of the PAPs for the Action Plan. • The communities also admit their shortcoming in strictly adhering to certain laws and programs (i.e., solid waste segregation and disposal, zero open defecation, ecosystem protection, approved fishing practices) and believes enforcement is necessary. They recommended that vigorous IEC on these programs and laws be undertaken and should be included in the basic education curricula. IECs especially in solid waste management PAPs were recommended to reach the barangay-level. • LGUs may pass river and sea-zoning that includes securing protection of mangroves and natural habitats (Recommendation: Use the ICZM Framework as general framework) • If big projects by Private Companies are already in the agenda of the government, a venue where the Study Team and other involved agencies such as the Provincial LGUs can be created to discuss in such a way that the efforts and funding of the government in saving the Manila Bay not being wasted or compromised by said projects shall be ensured. Consulting all stakeholders until a consensus is reached must be initiated by these companies. • Proposed partnership with NGOs to strengthen collection/diversion of recyclables. This is part of the PAPs of ISWM measure. • Integrated DRR, Habitat Restoration and Zoning – Pampanga and Bataan Border = Mangroves will be the first line of defense at least against storm surges • Coastal Line of Defense needs an in-depth study to strengthen the correctness of the delineation of the defense line, and provide recommendations on kind of interventions, especially structures, and where to put them • Community-Based Relocation - Short-term protection as well as adaptation measures while coastal protection is not yet established • Recommended: No more settlements when relocation is done. Only fishing ground but no settlements. • Reclassify the area out the coastal defense line into water body and not land to avoid the land development

22 • Buy back titles of the fishponds to secure the area for government ownership and protection, and discourage any type of developments • Proposed: Bayabas Dam Project at Doña Remedios Trinidad as Flood Control and Alternative Source of Water. Mentioned in REF measure of AP/IR. • Stronger IEC is needed for current measure of raising roads and houses which is a costly, band-aid solution. • Diversifying sources of water may be challenging due to cost and possible resistance of constituents of the Province who enjoy cheaper water bills: o Some Water Districts are already being privatized, e.g. Primewater yet source is still groundwater o Negative effects of groundwater extraction may convince people of need for alternative sources of water, but IEC as early as now must be provided, especially for areas with free-flowing water • Provision of additional equipment needed for processing of wastes were included in the PAPs presented in AP/IR. • The construction of Provincial SLF in Bataan and the wish for WTE facility for Bulacan were well noted and considered in the fine-tuning of PAPs of the ISWM measure. • Issues on aquaculture pollution and possible interventions shall be raised during the convening of FARMCs of Region 3 Coastal Provinces (Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga) in DA-BFAR Regional Office, where a plan for creating Regional IFARMC shall be discussed. The findings of this meeting shall be requested to include in the BFB and RNH measures. • Provincial Governments cannot just introduce projects in protected areas, despite their congruence to the goals of the PPAs of the watershed protection boards/Protected Area Management Boards • Water Quality Testing equipment and capacity should be provided to the Provincial Government to handle the testing and monitoring of their waterways. This recommendation has been considered in the creation of new PAP for RPL (Construction of Water Quality Testing Laboratories at provincial-level) • Tarlac City Water District has its own STP, but not yet 100% sewerage coverage for the city. As a non-coastal key city, Tarlac City is one of the LGUs identified to e covered by the PAP Sewerage Coverage in Non-Coastal Key City/Municipality. This PAP can be reviewed in detail in the AP/IR. • Large-scale composting better to be constructed by clusters (Clustering by geographical basis) – oversight by the Provincial Government of Rizal o Can be under the YES Program o There are farms here that can be small markets for compost

23 Updated Action Plan and Investment Plan

The fine tuning and updating of the draft Action Plan and Investment Plan which was initially submitted last 10 March 2020 continued during the initial week of June 2020. The MBSDMP Technical Committee Secretariat, upon the re-submission of the aforementioned report, communicated with the MBSDMP Technical Committee for review, comments, recommendations concerning the subject as part of the deliverables for Component 2 (Operational/Action Planning Phase) of the master planning exercise.

Last 19 June, the MSBDMP LCF Team had an online meeting to discuss the future movement of the team after the submission of the draft Action and Investment Plan report. The meeting commenced with Project updates, followed by synchronization of the team’s timeline because of the project’s movement brought by the pandemic, and ended with the discussion and agreement on the planned activities for the final submission of the final reports.

Agree with Stakeholders on Updated Action Plan and Investment Plan PAPs validation activities started in September 2020 and shall be until the end of October 2020. The validation aims to align and update the PAPs in the Final Action Plan and Investment Plan due in December 2020.

The draft Action Plan and Investment Report was presented to the stakeholders. It was a 7- day Stakeholder FGD Series with the following schedule:

Date Topic 5 October 2020 ICZM Planning Framework 6 October 2020 Institutional Setup 7 October 2020 Promote Responsible and Sustainable Tourism 8 October 2020 Restore Natural Habitats and Boost Fish Biomass 9 October 2020 Reduce Exposure to Flooding 12 October 2020 Reduce Pollution Load 14 October 2020 Improve Solid Waste Management

Results Discussion The Consultations conducted for the months of June to October 2020 raised crucial points that were utilized for the development of updating of AP/IR.

• Finding a sponsor at the lower house and Senate is the move for the institutional setup to go forward, although this is not included in the study that will end this December. Part of this is creating a draft bill to have points for initial discussions. • Historical report on how the MBSDMP Team come up with the final Institutional set- up shall be done. Different alternatives will be part of the write-up, which can be considered in the future. • Institutional issues raised include the lack of regulatory power, altercation with LGU regarding their policies, overlapping of functions and responsibilities, temporary staffing, absence of an overseeing body (e.g. water department), issues of jurisdiction, and limited scope of work were considered in the development of the Institutional Set-up Report.

24 • The connectivity is really needed, to correlate such fisheries management with the on-going developments. Said studies will be incorporated in the specifics of the PAPs. • Another map may be generated to present the ARs in zoomed in perspective. • The PAPs that involve watershed activities will already reduce sediment load of waters draining to Manila Bay. Water quality must be improved first, or in tandem with restoration activities. • The carrying capacity that will determine the number of fish pens that can be sustained by a fishpond area is difficult but doable. The area that can be sustained by a fishpond area can be determined. Revision of strategy statement is not needed, because the term Boost Fish Biomass and Restore Natural Habitats actually encompass protection, conservation and rehabilitation. • Validation of PAPs in ISWM with EMB, PG-ENROs (Batangas, Quezon, Nueva Ecija, Bataan, Bulacan, Cavite, Pampanga), Metro Clark, and MMDA were considered in finetuning of the PAPs and their corresponding budget. • A new PAP for RPL (Construction of Water Quality Testing Laboratories at provincial- level) was added after validation with EMB. • Reducing Exposure may be misleading, it’s meant to be a comprehensive measure that should increase capacities and decrease vulnerabilities of affected LGUs and communities. This will be emphasized in the report. • Manila Bay Area Tourism Project will have an impact assessment. This will be included in the cost estimates for PRST. • A forum where the plans will be presented to the private sectors was conducted. Findings were incorporated to appropriate PAPs of PRST. •

Finalization and Submission of Updated Action Plan and Investment Plan Comments and recommendations during the Stakeholder FGD Series are recorded and will be included in the finalization and submission of the Final Action Plan and Investment Plan in December 2020.

ANNEX 1. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

ACTIVITES

26 Stakeholder Project Stakeholder Stakeholder Analysis Methodology Findings Incorporation to Report Engagement Stage Activity Characteristics Relevance to/ Description of local Interest in the communities Project

LCF Inception Inception LCF Local Filipino Members of the N/A Meeting General project The results and Planning Consultants of Project's Team with overview, approach, agreements of all Workshop - 7 the Project assigned project norms for meetings and planning Feb 2018 tasks/responsibilitie internal workshop among s and contribution to communications, NEDA, GoN, and the the Project and its standard operating consulting companies deliverables procedures, set the outline of administrative and Inception Report, and logistical matters, the timeline of activities scope and for the SAR delimitation of tasks, and the Inception Report outline were discussed

1 DET-LCF First Inception LCF-DET Local and Members of the N/A Meeting > DELTARES, the The results and Meeting at Foreign Project's Team with lead consultant in the agreements of all OIDCI, 12 & 14 Consultants assigned DET and their role in meetings and planning February 2018 (from Deltares in tasks/responsibilitie the development of workshop among Netherlands) of s and contribution to the MBSDMP, was NEDA, GoN, and the the Project the Project and its introduced consulting companies deliverables > Presentations and set the outline of program flow for the Inception Report, and Kick-Off Meeting with the timeline of activities NEDA were finalized for the SAR > Inception Report content and timeline > Project norms, internal communications and standard operating procedures were discussed, including scope of work and delineation of tasks for DET and LCF > Finalization of delineation of tasks for DET and LCF will be held on March 2018

2 Project Kick-Off Inception NEDA concerned Local and > Members of the N/A Meeting The following needs The results and Meeting, 13 staff; representatives Foreign Project's Team with were emphasized: agreements of all February 2018 from the Dutch Consultants assigned > Non-fragmented meetings and planning Embassy, (from Deltares in tasks/responsibilitie approach for workshop among representatives from Netherlands) of s and contribution to MBSDMP in NEDA, GoN, and the OIDCI, TRACT, and the Project; the Project and its addressing issues in consulting companies UPLBFI; the Dutch Representatives deliverables the Manila Bay; set the outline of Expert Team (DET), from the > Representatives > Quick delivery of Inception Report, and the LCF Team consulting from consulting strategic plan to the timeline of activities companies hired companies involved prevent stalling for the SAR for the Project; in the business and momentum for Representatives operational side of investment projects; of the Dutch the Project > Inclusive Embassy that > Representatives stakeholder process partnered with from NEDA and that will optimally use NEDA for the Dutch Embassy time and budget Project; NEDA who will monitor the constraints; and as the Client project and ensure > A working that agreed relationship between methodology and DET, NEDA and LCF targets/goals are that is transparent carried out and and open. achieved

3 NEDA-LCF Inception NEDA Infrastructure Team Leader of Members of the N/A Meeting Project norms for The results and Meeting, 23 Office team, LCF the Local Project's Team with progress reporting, agreements of all February 2018 Technical Staff Filipino assigned monthly meetings, meetings and planning Consultants of tasks/responsibilitie internal and external workshop among the Project, s and contribution to communications, NEDA, GoN, and the together with the Project and its standard operating consulting companies Research deliverables procedures and set the outline of Assosciates and assistance needed by Inception Report, and the Project Directly responsible the LCF from NEDA the timeline of activities Manager, for the formulation were discussed. for the SAR Representatives of the MBSDMP Other tools, such as from the division draft letter of data of NEDA tat requests and handles Infra invitations to Projects agencies, were presented. The team has also requested for a template of the Non- Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to be signed between OIDCI, who will represent the LCF, and NEDA

4 LCF Individual Inception LCF Local Filipino Members of the N/A Meeting > The individual work The results and Work Plan Consultants of Project's Team with plans were discussed agreements of all Meeting, 23 the Project assigned vis-à-vis the flow of meetings and planning February 2018 tasks/responsibilitie activities and the workshop among s and contribution to Inception Report NEDA, GoN, and the the Project and its Outline. consulting companies deliverables > Grouping of the set the outline of LCF consultants into Inception Report, and four (4) clusters: the timeline of activities Ecology and for the SAR Environment, Database Management, Infrastructure, and Socio-Political and Economic, to streamline planning and preparation for the Inception Report. > The working outline for the Inception Report and the timeline for preparing the report was discussed. financial aspects of the project were also discussed. > Project Guidelines relating to administrative and financial aspects of the project were also discussed.

FGD- SAR DENR-MGB, NPDC, Representatives The participants N/A FGD > Unclear functions Available data from the Geography, 22 PRA, NPDC from from the invited resulting to overlaps agencies who May 2018 Government agencies/organizati of tasks participated shall be Agencies with ons have data, > Limited human provided to the Technical information, ideas, resources and tools MBSDMP Team, with Background opinions, and > Issues of agreed confidentiality

5 regarding the projects that are jurisdiction, limited and accreditation if topic of the FGD connected to Manila scope of work necessary Bay and relevant to > Non-compliance of Information on existing the topic and the LGUs Projects, Activities, MBSDMP Project > Altercation with Programs (PAPs) of the LGU regarding their agencies shall be policies provided to the > No power to tell the MBSDMP Team people, No regulatory power These data and information were incorporated in the development of the Situational Analysis Report, SAR Atlas (especially maps), and Focal Theme Reports.

FGD-Geology, SAR DOST-PHIVOLCS, N/A FGD > Manila Bay is highly Available data from the 23 May 2018 UP-NIGS, DENR- susceptible to agencies who MGB liquefaction. participated shall be provided to the > Unclear functions MBSDMP Team, with resulting to overlaps agreed confidentiality of tasks and accreditation if > Limited human necessary resources and tools Information on existing > Issues of Projects, Activities, jurisdiction, limited Programs (PAPs) of the scope of work agencies shall be > Non-compliance of provided to the LGUs MBSDMP Team > Altercation with LGU regarding their These data and policies information were > No power to tell the incorporated in the people, no regulatory development of the power Situational Analysis > Lack of baseline Report, SAR Atlas data for Manila Bay,

6 or some of them (especially maps), and outdated Focal Theme Reports.

FGD- SAR DPWH, MBCO, N/A FGD > Available data from Available data from the Hydrology, 24 RBCO, NAMRIA, the agencies who agencies who May 2018 NEDA III participated shall be participated shall be provided to the provided to the MBSDMP Team, with MBSDMP Team, with agreed confidentiality agreed confidentiality and accreditation if and accreditation if necessary necessary > Information on Information on existing existing Projects, Projects, Activities, Activities, Programs Programs (PAPs) of the (PAPs) of the agencies shall be agencies shall be provided to the provided to the MBSDMP Team MBSDMP Team > Lack of baseline These data and data for Manila Bay, information were or some of them incorporated in the outdated development of the Situational Analysis > Impacts of sea level Report, SAR Atlas rise should be (especially maps), and considered for future Focal Theme Reports. developments FGD- SAR DENR-EMB IV-A, N/A FGD > Some studies in Available data from the Environment, RBCO-POCO, Manila Bay on-going agencies who 25 May 2018 MBCO-PDO, PNP (Vulnerability participated shall be MG, NEDA III, NEDA Assessment, provided to the IV-A, ERDB-DENR, Bathymetric Study) MBSDMP Team, with PRA, MMDA, >Temporary staff, so agreed confidentiality NAMRIA, DENR-BMB the institutionalization and accreditation if in the Mandamus necessary agencies is lessened Information on existing or weakened. Projects, Activities, > Lack of baseline Programs (PAPs) of the data for Manila Bay, agencies shall be provided to the

7 or some of them MBSDMP Team outdated These data and information were incorporated in the development of the Situational Analysis Report, SAR Atlas (especially maps), and Focal Theme Reports.

The issues regarding institutional set-up of agencies were noted and provided the baseline inputs for the development of the Institutional Set-up Report

FGD-Economy, SAR NEDA Region III, N/A FGD > Altercation with Available data from the 29 May 2018 NEDA Region IV-A, LGU regarding their agencies who PPP Center, PRA, policies participated shall be DFI-BOI, > No power to tell the provided to the people, No regulatory MBSDMP Team, with power agreed confidentiality > Lack of baseline and accreditation if data for Manila Bay, necessary or some of them Information on existing outdated Projects, Activities, Programs (PAPs) of the agencies shall be provided to the MBSDMP Team

These data and information were incorporated in the development of the

8 Situational Analysis Report, SAR Atlas (especially maps), and Focal Theme Reports.

The issues regarding institutional set-up of agencies were noted and provided the baseline inputs for the development of the Institutional Set-up Report

FGD-Buildings, SAR DOST-PHIVOLCS, N/A FGD > Repeal efforts of Available data from the 30 May 2018 PRA, PPA, PIEP, the National Building agencies who HUDCC, OSHDP Code. participated shall be > Infrastructure provided to the projects w/ NEDA MBSDMP Team, with design horizon agreed confidentiality projects to last 50 and accreditation if years but with climate necessary change and resiliency Information on existing measures needed to Projects, Activities, be put in place. Programs (PAPs) of the agencies shall be provided to the MBSDMP Team

These data and information were incorporated in the development of the Situational Analysis Report, SAR Atlas (especially maps), and Focal Theme Reports.

Recommendations during the FGDs were well noted as considerations for the development of Masterplan.

FGD-Transport, SAR PRA, DPWH, PRRC, N/A FGD > The health of Pasig The Laguna Lake is 31 May 2018 MARINA River depends on the included in the Manila health of Manila Bay Bay Region and is and Laguna Lake therefore encompassed because it’s a by the PAPs that are dynamic system developed from Masterplan phase to > It is difficult for the Action Plan phase MARINA to monitor and check the discharge of ballast water especially for The monitoring of vessels that ballast is included in discharge in the high the PAP for Reducing seas Pollution Load: Control of Off-shore Pollution

FGD-Climate, SAR DPWH, DENR-FMB, N/A FGD > BFAR recommends The comments 31 May 2018 MMDA, BFAR for a comprehensive regarding reclamation resource valuation to areas and their effects see trade-offs of to areas that are economic. supposed to be development vis- à- protected were the vis traditional and considerations in the environmental development of the services provided by ICZM Planning Manila bay. Framework

> Proposed reclamation projects in contradiction to

10 BFAR mandate to The issues regarding replenish and restock institutional set-up of Manila bay when agencies were noted identified larval areas and provided the are in those proposed baseline inputs for the to be reclaimed and development of the will affect the bay as Institutional Set-up a whole ecosystem. Report

> Construction works not considering the flow of water currents. Cavitex is a classic example blocking the water channel and creating more dead spaces.

> Solid waste management implementation is a challenge with poorer LGUs more compliant than richer LGUs whose funds are sufficient yet re- aligned for other projects

> The local government units within Manila bay are not included in the mandamus agencies. But it is the LGUs that have jurisdiction over their municipal waters.

11 FGD-Power SAR NGCP, NPC, PEMC, N/A FGD > Inclusive growth Inclusive growth is a Supply/Energy, TRANSCO, NHA, was also discussed, priority of the 1 June 2018 DOE and the National MBSDMP, hence its Power Corporation religious conduct of stated that it would public participation, take 27 years to consultations, and reach the target to community electrification. engagement in its activities for every > NPC stated that phase of the Project. corporations have watershed conservation programs such as Programs for Power reforestation and Energy, as well as activities, and that map of existing plants, efforts to adapt to were included in the Climate Change are SAR and Focal Theme encouraged and Reports. applied.

However, it has been clarified that the MBSDMP is not a Poverty or Resettlement Project, and it adheres to its aim of considering and integrating the ongoing plans and the mandates of agencies who are responsible for resettlement projects

FGD- SAR PRA, DPWH, LWUA N/A FGD > MMDA and DPWH The said agencies are Waterworks, 4 are working together members of the June 2018 to pursue flood Technical Committee control projects and are therefore asked for comments and recommendations

12 > LGU’s should be during TC Meetings, involved in the Manila and in the updating of Bay development submitted reports of MBSDMP. > Inter-agency coordination and assistance is necessary and helpful in flood control.

FGD-Water SAR DPWH, LLDA, EMB- N/A FGD > For 2018 the target Monitoring of Supply and NCR, PPA, DPWH, to be surveyed is establishments is part Sanitation, 5 MMDA approximately 7,500 of the PAP for June 2018 big establishments in Reducing Pollution compliance to Load (FMP and APIR) wastewater management. About 3,800 has been accomplished and for mapping.

> The proposed water quality management areas (WQMAs) are the Las Pinas – Paranaque river system with 35 monitoring stations; Malabon-Navotas- Tullahan-Tinejeros river system with 15 monitoring stations for approval with Secretary Cimatu but they are already conducting the water quality monitoring.

> Concerning LLDA they generate their own funds but also

13 raise funds from permits given for the establishment fish cages. MBSDMP team can point out institutional aspects for possible conflicts of interest.

> What about non- LLDA areas? They are EIS required under the ECC conditions for LGUs not to issue bldg. permits w/o ECC or area clearance from DENR.

> Manila Bay Atlas may be able to review the past 5 year of data and establish trend analysis.

> In terms of establishing pollution loading; it is difficult to determine industrial pollution load. Both LLDA and EMB NCR can give computations of wastewater discharge in terms of volume and BOD.

> LGUs application on water and sanitation projects

14 within Manila bay can be given priority.

FGD-Social, 7 SAR MBCO, DOH, NAPC, N/A FGD > Ask urban poor Inclusive growth is a June 2018 TESDA organizations for priority of the input and consultation MBSDMP, hence its religious conduct of > Think of the public participation, communities, do consultations, and social preparation, community ensure participation engagement in its of the communities. activities for every phase of the Project. > Removal of ISF will ensure that MB pollution will lessen

> TESDA we can provide assistance However, it has been and scholarships to clarified that the the affected people MBSDMP is not a within the MBA area. Poverty or Resettlement Project, > Develop a and it adheres to its curriculum just in aim of considering and case the training integrating the ongoing needs of the affected plans and the people are not within mandates of agencies the present courses who are responsible for offered by TESDA. resettlement projects

15 FGD-Culture, 7 SAR DOT-Intramuros N/A FGD > For the Department In the SAR and SAR June 2018 Administration, of Education, the Atlas, schools were DepEd, NCHP, implications of health mapped (data from NPDC hazards for schools DepEd), however, the near the riverbanks cross-mapping of and coastal areas of vulnerable schools in Manila bay. high-risk areas was not done. > For the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, Historical sites were institutions or included in the PAPs organizations and for Responsible and private individuals to Sustainable Tourism in support conservation APIR. of historical sites.

> For the National Parks Development Committee, the waste is pumped out to Manila bay and there is back flow during high tide

FGD-People’s SAR Homeless Peoples’ Homeless Activities of POs Roles of POs FGD with > The POs are The SBR and the Organizations, Federation Peoples’ who participated are in the Manila Guide concerned with the earlier versions of FMP 21 June 2018 Philippines, Inc. Federation focused on Bay Questions relocations that will has the measure for (HPFPI), Philippine Philippines, Inc. assisting and masterplan: be carried out, so the addressing ISF Action for (HPFPI) - helping ISFs (legal, full efforts should also concerns Community-led organize social financial, technical) participation of address the Shelter Initiatives, Inc. development to have homes the community (PACSII), Technical program for the communities. preparations. However, it has been Assistance Movement informal settlers In pursuit of clarified that the for People and in response to the “inclusive > LGU-led programs MBSDMP is not a Environment the demolition growth”, all on waste Poverty or (TAMPEI) threats; TAMPEI stakeholders management are not Resettlement Project, - technical should be part effective; the and it adheres to its support group of the implementation aim of considering and based in planning, should really start in

16 Tandang Sora, where the the household level, integrating the ongoing Quezon City that community while taking into plans and the are composed of can also consideration the mandates of agencies young participate—in giving of incentives to who are responsible for architecture, equal footing – the locals. resettlement projects. planning, and in developing engineering the plan, > The Manila Bay professionals. giving them masterplan should The relocation option in the chance to really involve the the latest version of Philippine Action see the whole community in FMP as well as the for Community- picture of improving the waste Action Plan is now led Shelter Manila Bay. management of local Initiatives, Inc. communities in order under the Reduce (PACSII) - to improve the Exposure to Flooding, serves as situation of Manila wherein relocation intermediary Bay. Managing the activities shall be support cleaning facility focused on population institution to should really be in areas with high-risk HPFPI owned by the to coastal flooding. The community relocation is also just a themselves, as recommendation illustrated by the especially for island systems done in other barangays who are cities such as in perennially flooded and Jakarta and Burias are also affected by Island. This land subsidence. framework will

eventually lead to harnessing an NGOs and POs are inclusive growth. invited in every TC meetings, where their > POs and NGOs comments and could play a vital role recommendations are in strategy building, heard and taken note sharing of database, of. establishing linkages, improving ISF database, maximizing the use of technology. Funding and

17 acquiring other resources are ultimately necessary for these projects to push through.

> Improving the database for a more thorough mapping and profiling is also one way to guide the masterplan as well as the government in formulating the appropriate solutions for the problems faced by the informal settlers.

> Different partnering organizations are mentioned, citing the opportunity to coordinate for planning and strategizing

FGD- SAR World Wildlife Fund CARE Has activities that FGD with > River basin level MBSDMP conducts International (WWF) Philippines, Philippines - coincide with the Guide engagement – might public participation, Non- CARE Philippines Humanitarian goals for PAPs of Questions have bigger impact in consultations, and Government organization MBSDMP, and doing assessment community Organizations working on some of them are and intervention at engagement in its (INGOs), 21 emergency within the Manila the sub-river or the activities for every June 2018 response and Bay Region higher level. phase of the Project development (detailed in Progress projects > There was a Reports). growing demand for DRR trainings in the communities. Worldwide Fund Community for Nature - engagement tackles

18 Focusing on > Community the Priority Measures Food, Water, engagement is which include DRR- Planet and always of the CCA Programs Energy, and essence; translating Species; funding the plans into action; from World dealing with The issues regarding Banks, ADB, bureaucratic institutional set-up of and structure; rationalizing agencies were noted transnational the plans. and provided the companies > Formal baseline inputs for the Designations are also development of the important in Institutional Set-up harnessing the Report support from

stakeholders. Water resources and > EMB as WAQMA, management is part of MBSCO to become the PAP of Reduce WAQMA and lodged Exposure to Flooding, under EMB. as can be reviewed in > Some bigger the AP. developers implement

their own water neutrality system. The Department of Water is considered in > Water in Sta. Rosa the Institutional Set-up may have inadequate Report. supply in the future, affecting plants, factories. Development of > MWSS to secure technological systems water for 2040, it for faster and more intends to create accurate monitoring is more dams part of the PAPs of the necessary for Priority Measures, as population growth. can be reviewed in the Projections for AP. population in NCR

19 and Central Luzon will account to half of population of the country, hence the need to have more water resources and water management.

> Households affected in the areas also include indigenous communities and those who were from inter-marriage communities

> WAQMA is under LLDA, but this agency cannot handle 24 sub-watersheds.

> LLDA is quite powerless regarding developing infrastructure such as in building a ring dike in Laguna.

> Major Problems include geopolitical boundaries.

> Dealing with city mayors has been a great challenge as well.

> Ecologic factor in developing water systems has been the least priority of most

20 developers, so WWF is putting it in the forefront of the discussions.

> MWSS & DENR hired forest ranges, but there is still shortage of manpower, Salary, and labor problems

> Establish an apex body for water to bring issues to a higher level and to compel water agencies to coordinate and implement appropriate measures, e.g., WRC – Water Regulatory Commission.

> LGUs of areas concerned should come together and allocate funds.

> WAQMA development projects should be worked on together, managed together.

> There should be a commitment from LGU to be part of WAQMA TWG.

21 > Early warning system in communities is still limited; Both PAG- ASA and Project Noah and a more efficient system should be used in communities especially in the Manila Bay Masterplan, especially with the mandate of the LGU.

> The Manila Bay Masterplan team and stakeholders should investigate developing the technology for the benefit of the Manila Bay.

FGD-Non- SAR Community Community Has activities that FGD with > A mandamus was The EO 74 has been Government Development Development coincide with the Guide sent out to at least 14 pushed to issuance Organizations Multiversity (CO Multiversity (CO goals for PAPs of Questions government agencies through a huge help of (NGOs), 27 Multiversity), Society Multiversity) – MBSDMP, and 10 years ago but has the MBSDMP. This EO June 2018 for the Conservation Community some of them are not yielded any has underlined the of Philippine organizing entity within the Manila impactful results implementation of Wetlands, Inc. Bay Region programmatic EIA for (SCPW), Assistance > Other PAPs are reclamation projects, and Cooperation for ongoing in Manila and consideration of all Society for the Community Bay and its environmental impacts Conservation of Resilience and catchment area for both horizontal and Philippine Development, Inc. vertical developments. Wetlands, Inc. > Existing isolated (Accord), Alternative (SCPW) - Works requests for land Planning Initiatives with DENR on reclamation in the (AlSTERPLAN), policy level for Manila Bay area The SAR presents the Kalikasan People’s conservation of different hazards that Network for the wetlands > Government might affect the MBR. Environment decisions on (Kalikasan), and proposed projects are Philippine Rural made mainly based Reconstruction Assistance and on profitability and All comments and Movement (PRRM) Cooperation for feasibility recommendations Community raised and sent as Resilience and > Need to retain follow-up after every TC Development, information on Meeting, FGD, and Inc. (Accord) - different NGOS and Consultation were Local agencies involved in answered by focal implementing their project, along experts from the partner of with their MBSDMP Team and CARE, as part methodologies. Cites incorporated to the of the Partners lack of visible results updating of reports. for Resilience in past projects as a The updated reports project reason for concern are posted for the public in the MBSDMP > Concern about website. economic priorities Alternative and political will of the Planning PH government and Initiatives other involved All data used are agencies officially requested from government agencies.

23 (ALTERPLAN) – > Concern about Other primary source Housing possible natural data extracted from the calamities along activities initiated by the Manila Bay and the MBSDMP shall be Master Plan’s submitted to NEDA. Kalikasan preparation for them People’s Network for the > Concern about the Environment involvement of people (Kalikasan) - residing in Manila Bay National area, as there is a environmental perceived lack of network founded consultation with that enact them campaigns on environmental > Concern about protection known lack of coordination between government agencies

Philippine Rural > Lack of awareness Reconstruction about and invitation to Movement join project (PRRM) - Rural discussions Development following an > NGO feedback on ecosystem existing projects is approach often received but with no follow-through on the integration of feedback to the projects

> Question on the existence of data/studies regarding projected urbanization in Manila Bay

> Raised clarification that the government

24 looks at economic and financial feasibility of projects, but there is a need for a more comprehensive environmental impact assessment system

> Compartmentalizing and lack of coordination between government agencies

> Difficulty in obtaining data regarding ongoing projects, such as the aerotropolis project and the proponent organizations and budget of MBSDMP

> Lack of follow- through and results on past sustainable development projects, such as the mandamus

FGD-Urban SAR Urban Poor UPA is a NGO Roles of POs in the The members FGD with > A new generation of MBSDMP conducts Poor, 27 June Associates, SMSS, that assists POs Manila Bay of the local Guide Community public participation, 2018 Peso in IPB, and advocating masterplan: full communities Questions Organizers dedicated consultations, and KABALIKAT for housing participation of the who to work on the visions community security and communities. In participated is becoming scarce; engagement in its rights to land pursuit of the are ISFs in highly attributed to activities for every especially for “inclusive growth”, BASECO, changing mentality phase of the Project the ISFs and all stakeholders Brgy. 20, and and perspectives. (detailed in Progress other members should be part of Isla Puting Reports). the planning, where Bato (Pier > Trainees have low the community can Area). The Isla regard for community

25 of the urban also participate—in Puting Bato exposures; several poor. equal footing – in communities others were only developing the plan, are advocating using the experience It has been clarified giving them the for onsite to build credentials. that the MBSDMP is chance to see the upgrading not a Poverty or Other whole picture of rather than > Working in NGOs Resettlement Project, participants are Manila Bay. relocation. lacks upward mobility, and it adheres to its members of ISF and the new aim of considering and communities workforce are integrating the ongoing from the City of becoming more plans and the Manila who As part of the practical. mandates of agencies advocate for inclusive growth of who are responsible for onsite slum MBSDMP, any > Several NGOs are resettlement projects. upgrading. plans that might switching to DRR or affect the urban issues that are poor is encouraged “trending” in other by the participants countries. This results The relocation option in to be acted upon. to lack of focus on the latest version of strengthening the FMP as well as the core of the Action Plan is now community and its under the Reduce own power to Exposure to Flooding, mobilize its members wherein relocation and pressure the activities shall be concerned agencies focused on population (NGAs, private in areas with high-risk companies) to to coastal flooding. The address their relocation is also just a concerns. recommendation especially for island > PO is urging the barangays who are government to perennially flooded and consider mixed use are also affected by approach: the area land subsidence. may provide land tenure for the locals, and they, in return,

could be stewards of the

26 environment/develop ment area.

> Community organizing is crucial for the welfare of a community. Strong organization/foundati on can harness a solid stand for the community in the midst of pressing issues and challenges.

NGA SAR ABB-BP, DAR, Workshop, 18 MBCO, LLDA, NEDA June 2018 IV-A, PNP-MG, NAMRIA, PSALM, PEMC-WESM

NCR and SAR Representatives from Region 4A local government Workshop, 20 units (LGU) of June 2018 Caloocan, Malabon, Las Piñas, Taguig, Navotas; Provincial Government (PG) of Cavite, and MMDA

Workshop - SAR PG units of Bataan, Region 3 LGUs, Pampanga, Tarlac, 22 June 2018 and Bulacan; LGU of Calumpit, Guiguinto, Malolos, and Obando

FGD – Private SAR Philippine Business Private Sectors Programs, N/A FGD with > Regeneration of the Rehabilitating Manila Sector, 10 July for Social Progress, and Activities, and Guide water quality and Bay to pass the SB 2018 Manila Water, Organizations Projects that will be Questions going back to natural standards is one of the Maynilad, UP College from the recommended by classification of water goals of MBSDMP of Architecture, Academe whose the MBSDMP and

27 NCCA, MCM, SBDI, operations, implemented by > Jurisdiction under Federation of Fil- businesses, and agencies in the the zonal value Chinese Chamber of projects are future may All stakeholder Commerce and within the Manila significantly impact > Understanding and engagement activities Industry, OSHDP, Ali- Bay Region the ways private education of the during the SAR Planning Group, sectors operate and public about MB and presents the MB and WeGen, PCIC, PCA do their business the catchment areas the catchment area (e.g. creation of > Support from the KPIs were developed new policies and LGUs in terms of during the SBR build-up of baseline process of permit, data) right of way and land acquisition Decongestion of Metro > Acceptance of the Manila was first project from everyone discussed in SBR and that STP is there and included in succeeding it is situated there and reports they should support

the project regardless if the waste originate LGUs are included in from different the recommended boundaries and Institutional Set-up that territories will ensure implementation of > CCC has no carbon MBSDMP PAPs avoidance guidelines yet and so WeGen still follows the Paris Agreement IEC and Capacity Building programs > Difficult to connect included in the soft to Manila Bay measures of PAPs shall be provided down to > Helping MB the barangay-level to requires a solar ensure implementation power infrastructure of programs, laws down > Sustainable to the grass-roots level, Settlements and participation of households.

28 > Development of facilities, ferries, port areas and harbours of Transportation Manila Bay including water transportation was > Formulation of KPI mentioned and mapped or the measure of in SAR and SAR Atlas success of the MBSDMP

> Clear delegation of tasks and responsibilities, involvement and accountability of everyone, especially with the LGUs who should have proper turnover of responsibility along with proper guidelines and proper information of MBSDMP

> Secure the documents of the MBSDMP so the next officials don’t need to establish new documents of the master plan

> Proper dissemination of the information to everyone including the lower ranks; MBSDMP should be public and everyone

29 should have access to it

> Proper turnover of the resigning officials; they should have a smooth transition of the on-going project to accomplish the end goals of the MBSDP

> There should be an agency to collect and archive the information and documents of MBSDP

> Recognize and consider the needs of the stakeholders

> Political jurisdictions and complexities, the political agreement with the authorities

> Listen to the younger generation and consider the youth as stakeholders

> Lack of education and information among LGUs and the general public

> Absence of program on communication and information dissemination among

30 LGUs and other LGAs on sustainable settlements

> No usual relocation in fishing communities

> National Housing Authority (NHA) has profiling research on fishing communities

> Water Quality Testing in Manila Bay is being done; still in the initial stage of research

> Effect of flooding in the physical building of the company of FFCCII

> Bad effect to health of the employees and general public working and living near Manila Bay

> Bad odor from the clogged esteros

> Water-borne diseases may affect employees and the general public

> There could be a high price for water treatment and in effect, a higher price

31 of water for consumers

> Lower land value if landscape near Manila Bay is not rehabilitated

> Food security is at stake

> Fish will be sourced out from other regions; cost will be higher due to more expensive transport

> Marginalization of fishing communities

> Decongestion of inland traffic when Pasig River is utilized for transportation

> Transportation from Manila ports to other ports in Cavite, Bataan will be possible

> Improvement of farm-to-market road programs

> Economic and business models where government will not overcharge private investor should be considered.

32 > There is a formula where work of private institution is regulated without putting the burden to either parties

> Application and Permit processing should be mainstreamed; idea of one-stop shop

> All government agencies must be ISO-certified to improve efficiency

Consultative SAR National Economic SOS is a non- As a marine N/A Consultative > Declare Manila bay The comments and Meeting-Topics and Development profit marine conservation Meeting as a fishery reserve recommendations relating to Land Authority and Save conservation organization, the and ensure that raised in this Reclamation in our Shores (SOS) organization of mission of SOS is to fisherfolks, urban consultative meeting Manila Bay, 2 private and protect marine poor, coastal were some of the August 2018 concerned protected areas, as communities, and all considerations for individuals with well as fisherfolk stakeholders are developing the the goal to communities and protected measures and detailed promote and coastal PAPs for DRR-CCA, advocate marine stakeholders. This > Discouragement the Restoring of Natural conservation coincides with the approval of Habitats through goals of MBSDMP reclamation proposals awareness and abolishment of promotion and Philippine The abolition of PRA is action. Reclamation Authority. not included in MBSDMP > The need to have the policies concerning urban The development of planning, CCA- PAPs of MBSDMP DRRM, and fishery consider evidence- management to be based and science-

33 reviewed and strictly based approach in implemented was developing policies emphasized.

> Recommendation: promoting an evidence-based and science-based approach in developing policies

> Concerned agencies need to provide more funding for research and monitoring concerning the subject and ensuring free access of data to all

Workshop- SAR LCF and the Association of The association, N/A Workshop > Mutual agreement ABB-BP is an alliance Project Association of Dutch Dutch methods, with Q&A, to work together on of LGUs whose Brainstorming Municipalities (VNGI) Municipalities framework of table forming an alliances/ participation, comments on Capacitating (VNGI) – operations and discussion association of LGUs and recommendations and alliance of sharing of powers to promote the are always expected in Empowering municipalities in and knowledge in welfare of the Manila consultation meetings LGU Netherlands implementation of Bay among others. of the MBSDMP Stakeholders, 6 programs and August 2018 development of > Identify existing policies can be a alliances and A similar alliance is model for inter-LGU strengthen their aimed for FARMCs of alliances in the current capacity by coastal LGUs of Manila Manila Bay Region offering technical assistance and Bay (see PAP for Boost knowledge sharing. Fish Biomass)

Meeting- SAR NAMRIA, EMB NAMRIA – The participating N/A Meeting > Issues and The issues regarding Environmental agency agencies have data concerns regarding institutional set-up of Management responsible for and programs that the implementation of agencies, were noted Bureau (EMB) mapping various agencies’ and provided the

34 and National features of the are crucial inclusion programs and baseline inputs for the Mapping and country, to MBSDMP activities, including development of the Resource topographic, their roles and Institutional Set-up Information hydrologic, etc responsibilities. Report. Authority (NAMRIA, 17 > Some of the issues August 2018 discussed were the EMB – bureau lack of regular of DENR employees, responsible for overlapping implementation mandates, non- of policies and compliance of local projects in government units, environmental lack of good management governance and resources, capacity and competencies

Consultative SAR Provincial and Local All invited All agencies invited N/A Workshop > Since it is a Meeting- Government of participants are have jurisdictions sustainable plan, Provincial and part of Bataan that are within the FGD focus should not only Local Bataan and MBSDMP Province whose Manila Bay Region, be the upstream Table Q&A Government of team jurisdiction is hence, programs areas since there are Bataan, 03 within the Manila and projects that so September Bay Region will be 2018 recommended by many disasters that the MBSDMP will are happening in the have a great impact downstream areas on them. > Proliferation of informal settlers along the coastal areas and river system – there are

immigrants coming mostly from the Visayas and also Badjaos

> Common issues in:

35 A. Disaster

• Flood hazard susceptibility

• Rain-induced landslide

• Storm surge

B. Livelihood

• Decreasing or depletion of marine resources due to damaged to marine life.

This is due to troll fishing, dynamite fishing and poisoning, cyanide.

• There are businesses located in the coastal areas prone to flooding like resorts, fish

processing, dependence on marine resources.

C. Air and Water Quality

• Pollution from land and sea based activities. As mentioned by one participant, disposal

36 system should be strictly enforced.

• Siltation and sedimentation

D. Ecosystem

• Illegal and destructive fishing method

• Habitat degradation – this is related to destructive method

• Multiple-resource use conflict - municipals waters is not clearly defined. Presence of fisher

folks and tourism in the area.

> One major concern though is municipalities involved have different fishing ordinance. This is the

reason why the province is coming up with a unified fishing ordinance. We already have the

integrated zoning plan and there are recommendations to

37 come up with an integrated approach

that would be applicable to all the municipalities in Bataan.

> Lack of technical capabilities

Consultative SAR Provincial and Local All invited All agencies invited N/A Workshop >Issues on the Meeting- Government of participants are have jurisdictions following: Provincial and part of that are within the FGD Local Pampanga and Pampanga Manila Bay Region, A. DRRM Table Q&A Government of MBSDMP team Province whose hence, programs • High susceptibility to Pampanga, 04 jurisdiction is and projects that flooding, storm September within the Manila will be surges and tsunamis 2018 Bay Region recommended by - For storm surges, the MBSDMP will Malabanan is have a great impact on them. highly at risk.

• Silted waterways

B. Ecosystem Protection

• Degradation of mangrove covers – since it is being used as artificial coral reefs. Also, others

coming from the area are cutting the mangroves.

• Illegal fish pens

38 C. Air and Water Quality

• Polluted rivers due to solid and liquid waste

• Saline/saltwater intrusion

• Over extraction of groundwater/underutil ization of surface water

D. ISF

• Outdated inventory/database of informal settlers on the provincial level - PPDO needs

updated data since if we prepare plans, we need data.

• Resistance from ISFs

• Lack of political will

• Lack of relocation house/units due to budgetary constraints

Consultative SAR UPLBFI, DOT, NGOs, CSOs, The participants N/A Consultative >Peoples’ point of Strategies are Meeting- NEDA, Tractebel, POs, NGAs, have projects, Meeting view and the contextualized in the Technical LGUs, Private operations, and economic point of SAR, but fleshing out Working Group LGU- Macabebe, Sectors, missions that are Q & A view, the informal was done in SBR. presentation: MMDA, DOF, UPA, Academe within Manila Bay settlers in Metro Priority for on-site Inclusive Region, hence it is upgrading and in-city Growth and important to know resettlement was

39 Upgrading Ateneo IPC, HCC their current issues Manila are the major emphasized, as well as Informal and labor force of the City. provision of basic Settlements, 20 recommendations services in the September for the betterment of >The upgrading resettlement area. 2018 Manila Bay and its concept is very constituents, which welcome because overall is the goal of evidence from the last There is the discussion MBSDMP 50 years of resettlements outside in the SAR the city shows large on the easy access for resettle instance on the people got poorer. services that is inclusive enough for So nearby relocations everyone. There are or on-site are really discussions on very important. inequality of access to

>Include basic development but services and security maybe not well for resettlement reflected on the presentation. There > Social was a

network is crucial to discussion there also the planning process that in some reclamation process > Synchronization of within the Manila Bay, plans in local and the provision for national agencies is instance for social way of addressing housing u nit is not fully inclusive growth enforced. There are > The importance of discussions there in involving the local accordance to the community in a principle of inclusive development growth.

Project is important The comments and recommendations were incorporated in the

40 revision of SAR and Focal Theme Reports

Consultative SAR DOF, Accord, NEDA, Representatives The participants > In the MM area, The Meeting- CARE from have projects, maybe much reduced comments/recommend Technical Government operations, but in the Pampanga ations for DRR-CCA Working Group International, Agencies, policies/mandates, area, agriculture is were used to develop presentation: Tractebel, LWA, DTI, NGOs, CSOs and missions that still the main the FMP (i.e. SLR and DRR and CCA and Private are within Manila Land Subsidence) PRRC, PBSP, and Water Sectors with Bay Region, hence source of livelihood UPLBFI, WWF, Quality Technical it is important to going on, they are still improvement, Background know their current doing a lot of Wetlands Findings from Water 21 September regarding the issues and pumping. And then, in International, PNP- Quality Focal Theme 2018 topic recommendations those areas where MG, were the basis for the for the betterment of they are converting to development of Maynilad, EMB- Manila Bay and its fishponds, they still measures ISWM and DENR constituents, which pump because they RPL from SBR overall is the goal of still need freshwater. onwards. MBSDMP This result to land subsidence

> In the Manila Bay area, the study area

that we are referring to was conducted by U P Diliman,

it’s really more of land subsidence that is actually twice as the

impact of climate change. If you want to know the mechanisms of what climate

change contribute to sea level rise is: 1) thermal expansion of

water you know as

41 sea surface temperature rises, the volume of water also

increases but at the same time, the melting of the glaciers is also contributing to the overall rise of sea level globally.

> EMB and LLDA don’t rely on Self- Monitoring Reports, they also have a budget for monitoring, but they

are undermanned. One way that was actually done in order to address the problem is to actually

accredit other laboratories to make that standard. The one who accredits is not DENR, but DOST.

Admittedly, there is a lack of people and budget to perform these activities

> All of the agencies do not put their data in one central database for the national water resources

42 board for them to grant water rights

> Nobody is looking at the operations of LGU-operated water districts which is one big gap that we must

address.

Consultative SAR LWUA, NEDA, Representatives The participants N/A Consultative > Very important for Hydrodynamics and the Meeting- Delatares, Wetland from have projects, Meeting us to have a spatial zoning for negotiable Technical Government operations, idea of the habitats in and non negotiable Working Group International, Agencies, policies/mandates, areas for development presentation: Netherlands NGOs, CSOs and missions that the area – This would in Manila Bay were Ecosystem and Private are within Manila be very helpful in considered and Government, MBCO, protection, Sectors with Bay Region, hence zoning areas that are instrumental to UPLBFI, DENRFMB, Presentation of Technical it is important to negotiable or non - development of the 5 Focal theme Background know their current ICZM Planning PBSP, CENRO- negotiable. reports to the Taguig, and/or stake on issues and Framework. LGUs of Manila the topic recommendations > There is a

Bay Region, 24 CENRO- Pasay, LGU for the betterment of simulation model September Navotas, Manila Bay and its made by those SEA was included in 2018 constituents, which proposing a CENRO – Las Pinas, the SBR and DFMP overall is the goal of reclamation because ABB-BP, MBSDMP that is a Tractebel, LGU requirement and they Valenzuela, have a simulation Netherlands model on what will Embassy, LGU happen to the water. Macabebe > There is one study that was published by Villanoy and Martin on Manila Bay simulation models.

> The Strategic Environmental

43 Assessment (SEA), a tool used in many

countries in the world which is a tool to look at into the combined effects of individual projects.

One month ago, it was agreed by DENR and NEDA that we would add SEA into our activities.

Forum-Plenary SAR NEDA, MBCO, DTI, Representatives The participants N/A Plenary > Upgrading of meeting with NRO III, PRA, from have projects, discussion informal settlements the Technical Government operations, to more formal status, committee, 26 DA-BSWM, Agencies, policies/mandates, that’s basically the September Netherlands LGUs, NGOs, and missions that end point. This 2018 Embassy, CSOs and are within Manila particular focal Private Sectors Bay Region, hence NAMRIA, LGU- with Technical it is important to theme is the provision Navotas, PSA, Background know their current of affordable housing that is formal with PHIVOLCS, LGU- and/or stake on issues and access to basic Macabebe, the topic recommendations for the betterment of services. That’s the Maynilad, Wetlands Manila Bay and its direction we would International, constituents, which like to go to. In overall is the goal of LWUA, NAPC, terms of land use MBSDMP DOLE, LGU-Malolos, participation and the LGU- Hagonoy, ABB- status of their land BP, SJCCENRO, banking particularly in terms of the content DICT, PBSP, DOT, and process of their shelter planning CDRRMO, LGU SPC, PPDO, DPWH, as part of their comprehensive land use planning

44 DBM, DENR-RBCO, activities, there are PG-ENRO over how many LGUs in the whole Manila Tarlac, CENRO, Bay catchment area. CCC, UPA, LGU San > Regarding sediment Pablo, OSHDP load, the BSWM of the DA would be coming up with the spatial assessment of

soil erosion rates and sediment yields from the basin of Manila Bay by the end of December 2018

> The second point is pollution contribution from agricultural runoff, BSWM submitted an initial report

to MBCO and Supreme on the estimate of nitrogen loading from uplands to Manila Bay in 2012.

> Upon reading the focal theme report, in the roles of LGUs, it states that there are hardly any data that

we have with regards to the wastewater treatment facilities and how LGUs

45 monitor the compliance of

privately owned and commercial establishments.

> Plastics are major problem in Manila Bay, especially microplastics since they find its

ways to the gills and intestines of the fish. However, there no study on microplastics and its impact on fishes in Manila

Bay and that is a big data gap.

Data Gathering SBR Coastal LGUs Coastal LGUs LGUs within MBR N/A Data The survey Answers to the survey Activities for (ENRO, Planning, will be both Gathering by questionnaire questionnaire were October 2018 Engineering, implementors as Survey discusses the LGUs’ used as basis for DRRMO, Agriculture) well as beneficiaries Questionnair current issues, strategizing, as well as of projects, e programs, and in developing the activities, and agencies involved in DFMP. programs that will DRR-CCA, Water be developed by the Quality Improvement, MBSDMP Ecosystem, Upgrading of ISF, and Funding. List of existing NGOs, POs, Coastal LGUs are and CSOs was also the most vulnerable included in the to disaster in the survey. LGUs take on MBR the adequacy/

46 inadequacy of government assistance in disaster risk reduction and management was also rated.

TC Meeting, 7 SBR PNP-MG, PEMSEA, Representatives The participants N/A Stakeholder > SEA is doable Included in impact December 2018 ADMU, PPA, MMDA, from have projects, Consultation within MBSDMP areas of Manila Bay OSHDP, Philippine Government operations, timeframe despite their exclusive Red Cross, NEDA- Agencies, policies/mandates, Q & A geographical location ANRES, League of LGUs, NGOs, and missions that > SEA is not the plan Cities, BFAR, NAPC, CSOs and are within Manila but rather a lending Office of the Private Sectors Bay Region, hence hand on the MBSDMP targets President, with Technical it is important to plan/support. BFAR creating framework that DHSUD,DOH, DOF- Background know their current would like to use will give sustainable IFG, MGB, Cordaid, and/or stake on issues and strategic impacts that will MWCI, DTI-CIAP, the topic recommendations environmental balance development UPA, EMB-4A, for the betterment of assessment on its without jeopardizing the MWSS, NLRC, DA, Manila Bay and its capacity building. livelihood of fisherfolk. MAP, Tractebel, constituents, which > Government should For instance, in the Dutch Embassy, overall is the goal of do as well the SEA as ICZM, should there be CARE Philippines, MBSDMP part of its decision- development projects PCG, DPWH, PRA, making process. You that will be too costly to PG-ENRO Bataan, can use SEA process stop, the alternative is LGUs-Obando, however to get to sit down with Malolos, San Juan influence to get things proponents and agree City, Tanza, done on the table. on a strategy that will Macabebe, make the proponent do Maragondon, Bacoor > Figure out what something in exchange City, Cavite CIty socio-environmental for the protected issues are important ecosystems it will to pro and anti-people destroy, as well as the in plans. Include them stakeholders it will into the process or affect. present the plans in

47 ways interesting to them. SEA is mentioned in > PRA should SBR and DFMP. evaluate these projects with respect to other projects in Reviewing the impacts MBA. of the reclamation > Urban areas are projects on Manila Bay being doubled, hence as a whole is part of the stagnation or programmatic EIA remaining unchanged enforced by EO 74. is impossible.

> Zoning of marine Zoning and identifying uses, realistic plans GO or NO Go zones required – with GO are enclosed in the and NO-GO zones ICZM Planning emphasized Framework. > Uniform/Consistent

(one solution) policy should be applied in Inclusivity emphasized Manila bay as which requires reaching governed by sole out to different sectors, entity to avoid especially in strategy overlapping of building (SBR). projects along Manila Bay.

> MBCO considers 3 conventions which 7279 and instruction Phils. is signatory in that no demolition protection of migratory unless there is species which will relocation. On require government determination of explanation to beneficiaries, LGUs convention secretaries local shelter plan is why choose used to ensure infrastructure compliance. development over

48 > MBSDMP protection of areas emphasizes spec. for migratory inclusiveness. species. These were mentioned in the FTR > Everything in and SAR. MBSDMP web shall be open for public (published docs, etc.) Protection and > Consider project restoration of outside the basin that ecosystem are both can affect MBA as included in the well, such as MWSS Measure: Restore projects Natural Habitats in DFMP, FMP, and APIR. > Observed lack in technical aspect. 407 hectares reclamation (Pearl of the Orient) A percentage of land in of Manila Bay for development projects instance will cause allotted for socialized flooding in BASECO. housing was mentioned The public roads and to be applied going to reclamation DHSUD. will hit/pass ISFs

area. MBSDMP conducts > If the MBSDMP will public participation, be approved without consultations, and consulting the locals, community these communities engagement in its won’t have a say. activities for every > For every phase of the Project reclamation put first a (detailed in Progress socialized housing Reports). Community- program level engagement was instrumental to the > Impounding might finalizing of the PAPs in be important to Action Plan. contribute to usage of

49 water especially during rainy season. Flood water is one of > Review IRA in order the alternative sources to create projects and of water mentioned in implement them by the PAP of REF. the LGUs

> No consensus in policy. This will not work in MBA if

isolation and non- consensus of implementations in agencies do not exist.

> Ecosystem talks about protection, but how about restoration.

Stakeholder SBR PG-ENRO-Bataan, LGUs from The participants N/A Stakeholder > Various LGUs Workshop, 12- DPWH-Bataan, Regions 3, 4A, have projects, Consultation raised the issue of 13, 20 February PPDO-Bulacan, PG and NCR, operations, and unavailable funds as 2019 Tarlac, LGUs of National missions that are Q & A a result of an Bulacan: Hagonoy, Government within Manila Bay executive order that Workshop City of Malolos, Agencies, Region, hence it is obliged them to clean Paombong, Calumpit, CSOs, NGOs, important to know their respective Bulakan, Obando, Private sectors their current issues shoreline on a weekly Guiguinto, LGUs of and basis. Bataan: Abucay, recommendations Samal, Orani, for the betterment of > Indicators for Mariveles, Orion, Manila Bay and its Ecosystem Pilar, City of Balanga, constituents, which Protection: Limay, Bagac, overall is the goal of Suggestion to include Morong LGUs of MBSDMP indicator for Pampanga: Aquaculture industry which could also relate to inclusive

50 Sasmuan, Bulacan growth as the State University mentioned industry could serve as LGUs of NCR: indicator for food Navotas, Paranaque, supply that will feed Taguig, Manila, Las the population Pinas, Malabon, assuming the area Pasay, Valenzuela, will double. Muntinlupa, Caloocan, San Juan > Clarifications on what specific PAPs ASSURE, UPA, could contribute to ADMU, ACCORD, the measure of nature PBSP, JBros, based coastal Kalikasan PNE, protection system DLSU, BSUI, OSHDP, NAPC, > PAPs KABALIKAT, CREBA, recommended: WWF, Wetlands Drainage combined International, Cavitex sewerage projects, Holdings traditional fishpond dikes, social PG-ENRO Laguna, marketing for plan LGUs of Laguna: implementation Mabitac, Binan, Cavinti, Calamba, > Indicators # 3 and # LGUs of Rizal: 4: Emission of Jalajala, Tanay, dissolved oxygen and Teresa, Pililla, PSS should be included in the EMB-CALABARZON, MBSDMP PENRO Cavite, LGUs of Cavite: Cavite City, > Indicator # 5: Can Carmona, Kawit, be specific to fecal Alfonso, Amadeo, coliform because that GEA, Imus, Mendez, is what DENR Ternate measures.

> Indicator # 1: Look at the poverty gap ratio, maybe better

51 than poverty threshold; there is local results indices

> Majority of the indicators are within the prerogatives of the LGUs

> Monitoring is part of the MBSDMP but no Agency yet

> Effects of reclamations to MBSDMP Indicators; effects of reclamations to the health of the Bay

> Synchronization of the RDPs (and other local plans) to MBSDMP

> Scenarios should include other factors aside from GDP

> GDP growth is influenced by big businesses not easily defined by lower sectors

> Number of dumpsites: Include the existing solid waste management facilities that are

52 working (i.e. Sanitary Landfill)

> Developer allotment of 20% of lot for socialized housing is not a law, but rather just a guideline of HLURB. Now it’s 15% for horizontal housing; 5% for condo; in Metro Manila the trend is medium and high rise

> Reduction of ground water abstraction – must be clear to prevent land subsidence.

> Recommendation: Inclusion of growth management strategies. Developers of establishments should have sewerage treatment.

> Development of zoning plan for the entire Manila Bay: It is not easy to have an approved CLUP. Suggestion is to focus on the four (4) general land uses (production, infrastructure,

53 settlements, protected)

> There are WQMA Plan (CAMANAVA and MANATUTI) that can be integrated to MBSDMP

> The identification of the radius of Manila Bay should be the starting point; it should be people oriented; focus attention on the people coming from that radius. 1) LGUs within the radius; 2) People within the radius. Teach them and give them budget. Involve the people.

> Go to communities and discuss their plans; make sure that social component and basic services are not lost; private sector role here is very important.

> Capacity Building should be a continuous role of LGUs.

54 > There should be the enforcement of DRRMP and LCCAP

Regional SBR DPWH, Senate LGUs from The participants N/A Stakeholder > Subsidence existent IEC is an important soft Stakeholder Committee for the Regions 3, 4A, have projects, Consultation due to overextraction component of each Workshop, 25- Environment under and NCR, operations, and of water; computation measure of the 26 March 2019 Sen. Cynthia Villar, National missions that are Q & A of recharge and masterplan. CCP, PRA, BFAR, Government within Manila Bay balance with th 4 Technical DHSUD, New Agencies, Region, hence it is groundwater The institutional set-up Committee Horizon Manila, CSOs, NGOs, important to know extraction crucial for milestones were Meeting, 28 MMDA, NAPC, Private sectors their current issues considered in creating March 2019 PRRC, LGU of and > 2015 data as the different options of Navotas, BASECO, recommendations basecase due to institutional Co Multiversity, for the betterment of census and Climate arrangements MBCO, NEDA, WWF, Manila Bay and its Change Projections Half-way homes shall EMB-R3, LGU of constituents, which made; Practical ways be removed from the Silang, ADMU, overall is the goal of in Sewer Systems but options of socialized Oceana Philippines, MBSDMP must consider health housing in Measure 4. Dutch Government, and environment UP-MSI, NEDA- > Institutional set-up The framework that ANRES, Balibago for milestones (2022, MBSDMP is working on Waterworks, LGU of 2030, 2040) to ensure includes inclusive Teresa, PPA, DENR continuity of growth and informal masterplan settlement, but strategies; political MBSDMP is neither a will in enforcing laws poverty project nor an informal settlement > National-wide IEC project. These are also important; reshaping not the main task. values at schools However, they are in the agenda. > Implementation of existing policies, use of ordinances to help alleviate LGUs burden in providing Socialized Housing, Focus on water

55 management to avoid shortage

> Change paradigm when thinking of what is ISF' Enacting laws to stop increase of ISFs, on-site or near- site upgrading instead of distance relocation; inclusion of affected communities in planning and constructing homes

Half-way homes to upgrade socio- economic status and not incentivize; high vertical developments as alternative to half- way homes

> Perhaps the issue is the quantity of sampling stations, i.e. the intensity of monitoring that we can capture

> Monitoring and documentation of existing sewage facilities in homes and establishments crucial; Following Sanitation codes; Design for Septic Tanks to be released by DOH Main

56 > Application of EO 74 to ALL reclamation projects, which might need re-doing of all proposals

> Regional plans and combined risk assessment needed

> Needs to know and evaluate the IRR of EO 74; All reclamation projects in our report are still waiting on the explanation of EO 74.

> We started with Masterplan and reclamation projects are already there as proposals.

> The smart thing to do is to wait for the masterplan but there is an interplay – the private sectors are willing to do this, and there are government processes as well. That’s why we wanted to get to this as far as possible, so we can give policy advices to our principals.

> A strategic environmental

57 assessment (SEA) must be done. SEA assistance to be provided by NCEA- Netherlands. Environmental assessment must be both strategic and programmatic. Plans on what will be done on the islands must be presented.

> Apply method that in Zamboanga, with 11% increase in fish stock within 3 years with just one management measure – use of fish closure. In Mbay, we’re considering several management strategies which include habitat protection. I think 1.71% after 21 years is possible under those scenarios.

> From the start, agreed processes is participatory as there are several consultations. We generated some ideas in making strategies and the MBSDMP Team harmonized them and

58 formulate into the measures.

> There’s no other way to do this but to consult everyone and to get everybody on board to avoid risks of failure.

> To reiterate we have almost one year to do the action plan within which we will also do the investment plan, including where the funding will come from. Our experts in financing, PPPs will look into this to determine the best way to fund these PAPs that will be identified.

> Our approach is balances i.e. the streams for water quality, waste loads, etc. and how much of them are managed. That is the starting point. For example, if we talk about solid waste, we talk also with the sector. First, we do reality check on the existing plans, and then we do a

59 reality check with different sectors.

5th Technical FMP DOT, PBSP, OP- LGUs from The participants N/A Consultation > The whole 110B Regulation of land Committee OCS, DOH-R4A, PfR, Regions 3, 4A, have projects, does not target the conversions is included Meeting, 02 PG-ENRO-Bataan, and NCR, operations, and Q & A 220,000 ISFs but only in the Masterplan May 2019 PNP-MG, Embassy of National missions that are those who live in legal

Netherlands, Government within Manila Bay easements The title for Measure 4 th 6 Technical ASSURE, DPWH, Agencies, Region, hence it is shall explicitly indicate Committee PEMSEA, LGU of CSOs, NGOs, important to know > The bottlenecks ISFs whose concerns Meeting, 27 Limay, OSHDP, Private sectors their current issues met by shall be addressed are May 2019 BFAR-R4A, PG- and concessionaires must those who are at high- ENRO-Cavite, DOTr, recommendations be resolved first risk areas and legal LGU of QC, LGU of for the betterment of before reaching 100% easements. Binangonan, DOLE, Manila Bay and its sewerage coverage Alternative sources of LGU of Pasay, UP- constituents, which > A detailed survey of water is indicated in the MSI, DENR-RBCO, overall is the goal of the area with mudflats measure for DRR-CCA. PPA, MMDA, FTB, MBSDMP has been conducted PRA, NAPC, NEDA- to account for data on The importance of LGU R4A, LGU of Taytay, diversity and cover contribution shall be Wetlands emphasized in the International, LGU of > LGUs must take the measure for restoring Valenzuela City, helm in most of critical habitats. PCUP, ADMU-IPC, projects supported by LCP, PPP Center, BFAR. Maintaining Discussion with PCG, UPA, DOTr- healthy fisheries concerned agencies to Intramuros, LGU of important to achieve further explore and Tanay, BSU-Malolos, ecological balance in hopefully resolve gaps BFAR, IESM-UPD, Manila Bay. shall be part of the PG-ENRO-Rizal, Action Planning phase. LGUs of Laguna,: > A phasing is Comments on Sta. Cruz, Santa required to avoid Institutional Set-up Maria, Calamba City, disruption of water shall be used to Nagcarlan, PG-ENRO security at a short improve the Institutional Tarlac, LGUs of time. This would Set-up report. Further Bulacan: Guiguinto, require alternative consultations shall be Malolos, LGUs of sources of water, done to come up with Bataan: Abucay small-scale water management, the best option for institutional

60 construction of arrangements for SWIPs and SWIs. MBSDMP.

> One of the data gaps is the lack of data of pollution from ships. There is no effort as of yet to find out exactly the level of contribution to pollution

> Each option presented in the Institutional Set-up can be regarded as transition structure because Water Department can be created. If that happens then that structure can immediately liquidate, unless there are new pronouncements.

> MBSDMP hopes not to just implement sustainable development but also behavioral and cultural change. Hence, it looks at people, education and institutions, and not just technical issues.

61 Small Meetings FMP NSWMC, PPCP, ABI, Recyclers The participants N/A Consultation > Responsibility of The results of on Measure 2 PARMS, PPIA, IPM- Association, have projects, manufacturers: Life discussion and and 3, 4, 13, BEST, MENRO Operators of operations, and Q & A Cycle Analysis per agreements in the and 24 June Kalayaan, SWMO- Sanitary missions that are material and re- meeting with recyclers

2019 MMDA, Metro Clark Landfills within Manila Bay designing strategies, association built the Waste Management operating in Region, hence it is if needed; and PAPs for adoption of Corporation, Manila Bay important to know resolving tendency for EPR and ban of single PHILECO, National Area, Agencies their current issues over-packaging use, non- Organic Agriculture involved in and biodegradable, non- Board (NOAB), DA- monitoring of recommendations, > Term “single use recyclable plastics BAFS, EMB-SWMD, relevant laws particularly in plastics” too under the measure of Fertilizer and and standards in improvement of encompassing; define improving solid waste Pesticide Authority, production of solid waste such as “single use management. LWUA, DILG-MBay fertilizers and management and recyclable” and PMO, EMB-Region 3, compost, reduction of “single use LMP, EMB-R4A Agencies pollution load in disposable” involved in waters, for the > Refilling stations wastewater betterment of good alternative but management Manila Bay and its will need FDA due to and effluent constituents, which contact to skin and monitoring overall is the goal of ingestion for personal MBSDMP care products and condiments, respectively.

> Outright ban of plastics not advised, but rather restrictions/regulation s in select institutions/sectors (e.g. NO STRAW in restaurants)

> Integration of informal recycling entities (e.g. junkers and un-accredited

62 collectors) to the System

> Composting not sustainable and large-scale facility for such not feasible for most SLFs due to either lack of raw materials for processing of compost or no market for the compost product

> FS for a large-scale composting facility within a regional transfer station or SLF may be an opportunity if the need for such is emphasized in a national basis.

> Philippine Standards for Organic Agriculture and other relevant regulations (Organic Soil Amendments, etc.) are being complied to with regards to processing and making of organic fertilizers that are sold.

> Importance of large- scale composting that will likely process and

63 sell organic fertilizers must take into consideration the use of substrates that are not contaminated by heavy metals, E.coli, GMO crops, synthetics/chemicals.

> Guidelines for Composting by NSWMC, with Resolution released last year. Not yet lifted to DAO, but can be a Memorandum. This contains methodologies/techni ques for both small- scale and large-scale.

> Existing dumpsites may be converted into transfer stations.

> Clustering may be done in LGUs outside of Metro Manila.

> Secondary sorting in transfer facility is an ideal option to separate biodegradables.

> Combined sewer and interceptor system that will catch all those in drainage system and directing to a common

64 sewerage treatment facility, rather than building new sewers which is costly and impractical.

> The State should invest in the facility, in the same way that it funds and construct roads from taxes.

> DILG issued Memorandum in 2016 that requires LGU to coordinate with their WDs for Septage/Sewerage Management projects. This was turned into MC2019- 62 April this year. Model ordinances also provided, which also include how to integrate with NSSMP.

> Priority monitoring on commercial and industrial.

> Take advantage of a Combined Sewerage System that will incur costing/billing to all covered areas, regardless if the people within are customers or not. As

65 long as they drain on the system, they shall be billed.

> Focusing on urban centers, for example Cavite.

> LWUA’s project will fund Water Districts under Mandamus (outside GMMA) to construct concept designs for sanitation projects (septage and sewerage), as well as initial funds to construct such projects after the FS (request to DPWH under unified financing network).

> Current drainage set-up or lack/absence thereof is an issue.

> Drainage can be included in the investment, LGU just have to communicate with LWUA.

> Sewering of all coastal areas must be part of consideration (priority).

66 Series of FMP Water Districts and National The participants N/A Consultation > Most number of The results of the Consultative MENROs in Regions agencies, projects, operations, affected people are consultation activities Meetings with 3 and 4A, Private CSOs, Private and missions that because of flooding were used to further Agencies, July- Water Service sectors are within Manila compared to other refine the framework of August 2019 Providers, EMB-R3, Bay Region, hence coastal hazards measure. Gaps EMB-R4A, LWUA, it is important to (flooding in coastal identified were used as PfR, PCG, PPA, know their current areas includes tidal basis to improve the MARINA, MWSS, issues and flooding and PAPs and create new MWCI, MWSI recommendation for increasing land sub-components of the betterment of subsidence) said PAPs. Manila Bay and its Recommendations for constituents, which > There’s a lot of policies and soft overall is the goal of professionals measures were also MBSDMP studying the Big One developed from the earthquake but not findings of the flooding consultations. > When overlain with different hazards, flooding is considered exacerbated by sea level rise, climate change

> Coastal LGUs in Bulacan and Pampanga wants us to address flooding since they are running out of land

> With regards to sea level rise, we should also consider the amount of rainfall, how much of this area have this amount of rainfall, how much is soil erosion and dumping of solid waste contributes to

67 the risks, the structures that are being built in the coastal area

> Improve the estimates of people at risk

> Investigate the sources of risk drivers, not just climate change but also ecosystem connection

> Fishponds and communities illegally settling along easements must be removed

> Policy on easements should be crafted

> All structures and occupants on illegal easements will be move to legal easement not affected by flooding and this have to be synchronized with Measure 4 (ISFs)

> Collaborate with Red Cross since they have on-going recovery activities in MB

68 > Early warning systems in a more landscape and river basin wide

> Zoning Plan of the MP is a tool that will provide baseline for LGUs

> The roles of LGUs will be defined in relation to MP

> Look for activities how other measure will be protected from risks and how they will not contribute to exacerbate the risks

> LGUs and NHA must be mobilized and not just MWSS in terms of cleaning the MBay

> MWSS is aware that there are Program Capex or infrastructures aimed to cover the whole metropolis in terms of Sewerage and Sanitation Management, however all of these cannot be fast- tracked due to heavy traffic, lack of lands for STP facilities, and

69 implication to water tariffs, of which the fees for operations and management of such facilities are paid and shouldered by the consumers, and not subsidized by the government.

> The government should extend the 25- year cooperation period with concessionaires to 40 years to ensure that the impact to customers will not be excessive.

> Sewerage: 90% by 2031, 99% by 2035 – MWSI, Full coverage by 2031 – MWCI

> Maynilad: 68% coverage by 2026 (including 6 cities/municipalities in Cavite) based on our business plan

> Manila Water: 65% by 2026 that translates to 75% of Metro Manila-covered areas directly contributing to MBay.

> Target of 100% coverage covers the

70 total water-served population, hence those that are not connected to concessionaires’ sewer lines shall not be included.

> Concessionaires can implement other projects that are programmed e.g. 2018-2022 business plans approved. Projects 2023-2027, 2028-2032 which can be implemented in advance just to accommodate the request for fast- tracking of concessionaires’ projects, but not to accommodate the 2026 target set by Sec. Cimatu.

> Working financial plans submitted, projects that can be fast-tracked incorporated by concessionaires (42 million combined budget of two concessionaires)

> One of the difficulties concessionaires facing is consolidation

71 of drainage masterplan, maybe a department-level overall drainage masterplan that is binding for a very long-term can be formulated so we can use it for our facility planning and designs

> Septage Management is a short-term solution when resources can now be utilized to just constructing early on a Sewerage Management System instead, including drainage/sewers, to optimize costs.

> Different modalities especially involving private institutions such as private Water Service Providers (WSPs) shall be included in the Institutional Arrangement section of the Masterplan.

> Establish WD and LGU collaboration in materializing Sewerage Treatment System.

72 > LWUA Study is mainly for LGUs but because WDs are under LWUA, hence, they are heavily involved, and they are the entities to be funded by the said agency. Crucial part is the existing system, hence private sectors are part of the Study. Different modalities that can be applied.

> Subdivisions are required to put up their own treatment plant although compliance is difficult because of the lack of capacity especially of HOAs.

> Piloting of a community or LGU where institutional arrangement, septage management on subdivisions, and inclusion of HOA as active player in septage management is needed. This will also be an opportunity for private entities such as private WSPs and Sewerage treatment industries may enter.

73 > Shared facility with LWUA a good alternative for economies of scale

> Developers may be helped by DENR for sewer lines construction and other relevant costing

> Government can probably buy land within the jurisdiction of private developers were sewer lines can be constructed, with which they shall be refunded after a certain period.

> Private entities may ask assistance from DENR for affordable technologies for STP in subdivisions.

> Policies must be reviewed to mandatorily implement the construction of sewer lines

> LGUs must implement stringently the installation of proper septic systems in each household.

> Low-cost housing funds should allocate

74 for Sanitation Plan (SSTP)

> Lack of funding for sewerage management is the main problem occurrent for all LGUs and WDs in the session

> There are LGUs without drainage/sewers, therefore discharging directly to natural drainage and waterways

> Clustering is accepted as best solution to lack of funding for Sewerage Management, particularly construction of STP Facility as well as coverage of LGUs without WDs.

> Policy must be implemented and enforced by the LGU (Enabler of correct policy)

> Many areas becoming resettlement sites. If WD is supplying water to them, this is

75 a venue where sewerage projects can be prioritized, since these relocation areas are just being started

> Guidelines from the National Government must also be shared/disseminated to private developers

> No records received from ships about sewage, only garbage

> Issuance of Berthing permit by ships require Waste on board generation form wherein quantity/volume of wastes are indicated to prepare number of mobile collectors

> There is no validation if the wastes being received by PPA is correct because they only depend on the information in Waste on Board Vessel Sheet, and what the vessel has declared. Only PCG has access with MARPOL logbook, and the

76 authority to check the vessel

> No manifest system from ship to ports and disposal receptacles, no way to check if the loaded waste coming to PPA as declared by vessels are valid, no authority to board the vessels for checking

Meeting with FMP BFAR, LCF BFAR has projects, N/A Meeting > As per the Fisheries DA-BFAR, 16 operations, and Code of 1998, 15% of December 2019 missions that are municipal waters of within Manila Bay coastal LGUs should Region, hence it is be declared as important to know protected area their current issues and > There are no recommendation for Fisheries Lease the betterment of Agreement (FLA) in Manila Bay and its Manila Bay, constituents, which abandoned fishponds overall is the goal of in Manila Bay are all MBSDMP private lands > Creation and provision of artificial reefs is currently being implemented by the BFAR Regionals. This helps improve both quantity and diversity.

> Suggested by BFAR: create Unified Body (Bay wide) of

77 Coastal Municipalities/Cities in Manila Bay

> Underwater images to see fishes

> Annual monitoring/sampling in Manila Bay with 15 identified stations – results of sampling will be provided to the MBSDMP study team

> LPPCHEA is under the NIPAS

Community FMP Refer to Annex 7 of AP/IR FGDs, February 2020

PAP Validation AP/IR PLGUs in MBR, LGUs from The participants N/A Questionnair Zoom meetings with The updating of current Activities, Metro Clark, MMDA, Regions 3, 4A, have projects, e agencies resulted on status as well as September- EMB Region 3, 4A, and NCR, operations, and the following: information in future October 2020 NCR, DPWH-ESSD, National missions that are Phone projects (e.g. DPWH, DOT, DOT Government within Manila Bay interview 1. Update on the expansion, sustaining, Intramuros, LGUs in Agencies, Region, hence it is status of PAPs in etc.) of agencies were Zoom the MBR, LWUA, Private sectors important to know agencies. For used to revise the meetings Water Districts, their current issues instance, SLF PAPs and add new Operators were Private WSPs, BFAR, and ones. For instance, NFRDI, MBCO, recommendations asked on current agencies with plans NSWMC, LLDA for the betterment of capacity and if there and prepared budget Manila Bay and its are plans for for expansion of a constituents, which expansion. certain PAP that is overall is the goal of related to MBSDMP 2. Validation with MBSDMP PAP can be omitted or agencies if the reduced from the MBSDMP PAPs is proposed budget and agreeable, and what timeline of implementation.

78 can they add or Agencies who validated change. the inclusion of MBSDMP PAP in their Questionnaire include future projects were the following items identified as specific that shall be implementing agencies answered by the (e.g. Province of Rizal, agency/company: Pampanga, and Quezon all validated 1. Data on PAP that construction of indicators (e.g. large composting number of IEC facility can be included programs conducted in their future plans) yearly, including cost) Data on indicators in 2. Identification of the the PAP questionnaire MBSDMP PAP is an submitted by agencies ongoing project of the were also used to agency, or a similar modify the costing and project related to determine the gap that MBSDMP is either can be closed by the ongoing or planned, agencies, if they or if the PAP or validated that the PAP related PAP is not shall be included in existent, will there be their plans from 2023- a consideration to 2040. include (if not, what are the reasons)

Focused Group AP/IR Hagonoy LGU, LGUs from The participants N/A Zoom 1. ICZM Planning The Consultations, Bulacan LGU, DOE, Regions 3, 4A, have projects, meeting Framework comments/recommend 5-14 October NAMRIA, DENR and NCR, operations, and ations raised during the 2020 NCR, NEDA Regional National missions that are > It is important that Zoom Meetings were Office 3, MWSS, Government within Manila Bay the ICZM be incorporated in the WWF, BFAR-R3, Agencies, Region, hence it is applied/used by its Final AP/IR. MMDA, BFAR, CSOs, NGOs, important to know intended users. Furthermore, results of DENR-RBCO, Private sectors their current issues Informing, educating additional studies Provincial and and developing the conducted by the Government of recommendations skills of the LGUs on MBSDMP, such as Bulacan, NFRDI, for the betterment of how to use the ICZM Water Quality Testing, Save the Children Manila Bay and its will be needed, with Land Subsidence

79 Philippines, UPLBFI, constituents, which which the LCP and Survey, Amenity Study, IBS-UPLB, Housing, overall is the goal of LMP will have a and Aquaculture Study Community MBSDMP crucial role, as these were also integrated. Development and agencies are in touch Some of the queries Resettlement with the LGUs. regarding capacity Department/ QC- assessment for LGU, NEDA, League > Areas with high risk instance of the bay for of Cities of the in coastal flooding are production purposes Philippines, Tourism in strict protection were satisfied by the Infrastructure and zone, but some of results of the Enterprise Zone them are in aquaculture study, in Authority (TIEZA), production zones, which areas that are Manila Water especially the suitable for aquaculture Company, Inc., fishponds. For non- are identified and Maynilad Water conforming activities mapped. Services Inc., NGCP, in reference to ICZM, DOH – they can be The ICZMPF was CALABARZON, completely taken out revised to present Board of Investments if possible. If not, exclusivity of the (BIOI), UPLB College mitigating measures following zones: Strict of Human Ecology, can be implemented Protection, Special DPWH-NCR, LGU to ensure the impacts Use, and Production Balanga City, will be minimized. Use Zones. Deltares, PCG, > Establishment of MMDA, QC LGU, coastal defense line PNP-MG, DENR- is a proposed activity. MBCO, WWF- This defines difficult Philippines, DPWH- to manage areas. NCR, Maritime Using available Industry Authority measures, impacts in (MARINA), these areas can be Netherlands minimized. LGUs who Embassy, PPA, decide to integrate it DOST-PCIEERD, in their plans can use DOTr, MGB, PHILEco this as a tool to identify areas that are difficult to protect, and seriously consider

80 other options such as relocation.

> Survey was done late 2018 to ensure which LGUs have updated CLUPs meaning they have adopted HLURB Guidelines. At that time, there are only 7 of the 31 coastal LGUs have updated CLUPs. This means a lot of work in terms of helping out these LGUs in incorporating the uses of municipal waters.

> NGCP has a submarine power cable plan in our Transmission Development Plan that will traverse from Mariveles or Limay Bataan going to Cavite or Pasay. The team has not acquired any data on this.

> Future projections applied to estimation of future exposure to coastal flooding based on the projections of level of water by 2040. As to urbanization, tourist

81 influx, etc. this is a matter of decision for those who will implement the planning framework. For development of the planning framework, most considerations are limited to existing use and natural, physical and biological features of Manila Bay. Future projections of urbanization, tourist influx, etc., will be a factor on utilization of the zones in ICZM.

> CLUP was used as framework for guiding land allocation for various uses both current and future. For ICZM, the main purpose is the maintenance and preservation of the natural and ecological function of Manila Bay. Hence, this can be a determinant of boundary functions of where developments should be confined.

> When we identified potential areas under the protection zone,

82 we only considered mudflats to be included but not necessarily the sediment conditions.

> There are ongoing activities already before the ICZM. We can use the ICZM to sit down with the implementors, and design appropriate measures to ensure that the impacts in the zone that they are not supposed to be will be minimized or mitigated. Stopping ongoing developments is highly costly.

> The ICZM is not guided by the carrying capacity per se. The intensity of utilization of zone will depend on the implementing agencies or agencies who have jurisdiction. For instance, BFAR can dictate the number of fishpens in a given zone.

> Implementation of the Masterplan will initially be under the MBTF. Whether it will

83 be changed in form or in constitution, in the future, that would take its own course. More about this can be discussed in the FGD for Institutional Set-up.

> The main uses in the defining of different zones is ecological and special uses. In terms of prospective use, not included. If the Bulacan Airport pushes thru, this should be guided by ICZM as well.

> The team does not know the timeline for Marine Spatial Planning Activity. The intent for the MBSDMP process is to end soon. Once finalized, this will be presented to MBTF, and then carried higher to the Cabinet for higher officials’ consideration.

2. Institutional Set-up

> The quasi-judicial functions were a topic of long consultation before pandemic. It is

84 important to not duplicate functions of agencies that might create further confusion especially among LGUs. There are agencies in charge of implementation of policies. The Commission's job is to point out gaps in implementation, call the attention of agencies that must implement policies, as well as agencies that enforce them, and take care network of agencies (similar to IATF).

> The recommended Manila Bay Commission shall have technical, administrative, and financial backroom support. If created by law, it will be proposing budget under GAA. The LGUs must be included in the Mandamus by the Supreme Court. The current taskforce includes the LGUs as well as other stakeholders such as

85 private sectors and the Academe. The recommendation on NEDA being the transition structure is well noted.

> The first recommendation, the Manila Bay Authority, have implementing, enforcing functions as well as its own funding. Aside from potential duplication of functions, focus on the science might be lost in this recommendation. Sustainable development should be enforced by scientific evidence. In the Commission, the focus is on the integrating role to determine gaps and crucial needs in the Manila Bay. Another is consistency of science evidence and emerging analyses, managing different stakeholders and aligning their plans, and sharing of resources.

> Finding a sponsor at the lower house

86 and Senate is the move for the institutional setup to go forward, although this is not included in the study that will end this December. Part of this is creating a draft bill to have points for initial discussions.

> Efforts towards formally the creation of institution for Manila Bay is hoped to be done as soon as possible, maybe 2021. Rehabilitation as presented by R. Cruz has a timeline, yet it is highly improbable to accomplish this until 2022.

> A semblance of staffing pattern will be created to which indicative costs may be based. The recommendation to describe how institutions will translate perhaps in tax amounts that will be paid for additional personnel, bureaus that may be transferred, personnel

87 that may be removed or added, was duly noted.

> The proposal is MBCO will be part of the Commission. MBCO is an important unit with historical perspective and applicable competencies. This can be included in the law creating the Commission. EO can provide a faster appreciation, and technically allow more people/personnel.

> During consultation, MBCO is cognizant of the fact that they do not have oversight function. Even the LGUs are under DILG’s oversight and supervision.

> TWGs can be created or disbanded at any point in time and be under bureaucracies of the agency where they are involved. Sustainability is important. We are hoping to minimize different routes and bureaucratic

88 limitations to ensure an agile institution that can respond and with power that will pull different actors to collaborate and implement what they have to implement.

> Different alternatives will be part of the write-up, which can be considered in the future. Bureaus can be created within the DENR, and it will focus in Manila Bay. But this faced countering reactions during the consultation.

> Based on consultations with LGUs, they are committed to pursue what's best in sustainable development of Manila Bay because they benefit from Manila Bay. The Commission has to understand performance factors, especially in terms of non-compliance, and address these issues through coordinated

89 efforts that the Commission must undertake.

3. Promote Responsible and Sustainable Tourism

> The beach enrichment is part of the concern of City of Manila’s Tourism Development Plan. As this is already implemented by the DENR, the City of Manila has therefore recognized and approved the project. It does not reflect yet the overall tourism development plan of Metro Manila. That’s why the first plan of MBSDMP is for each city to look into their tourism development plans and coordinate all their planned and future projects for sustainability.

> The beach project seems to be short- term solution to recreational challenges of the city, yet it may not be sustainable. Hence, it has to be revisited.

90 > The plans for PRST are now in process of validation with different divisions of DOT. The National Tourism Development Plan has been integrated in the MBSDMP since the Situational Analysis.

> As part of Tourism Development Plan for each PLGUs/LGUs, in identifying different attractions to achieve their visions, they have to put in tourism development plans their identified carrying capacities of the attraction they want to promote and develop. The technical way should be that all carrying capacities should have a starting point already so they can monitor if the attractions are going into saturation or if interventions and policies should be implemented.

• A forum where the plans will be presented to the private sectors shall

91 be conducted. The same invitation is extended to other private agencies.

> A process, template as well as training for Tourism Development Plans is current ongoing under the DOT. There are still LGUs who haven’t had this training. The MBSDMP can put up a template but it will depend on LGUs creation of their plans. Said template will have items needed to create a tourism development plan.

> The installation of STP along Baywalk is part of improving tourism modalities of Manila Bay. It is not specifically included in the project but it is in alignment with the overall objectives of the MBSDMP.

> Manila Bay Area Tourism Project will have an impact assessment. This will be included in the

92 cost estimates for PRST.

> The routes of tourism boats must be integrated in the tourism development plans. Tourism Development Plans of LGUs and PLGUs must identify all people and economic sectors who will be involved, and the livelihood that will be affected by the tourism plans. The MBSDMP suggestion is for LGUs/PLGUs must look into their tourism visions. For instance, if the LGU wishes to be a water- based attraction, then projects should identify people that will improve attractions relevant to said vision.

> DOT and DILG must be mediators for conflicting development plans between or among LGUs.

> Groundwater or aquifer levels in the MBA will be tackled of different measure.

93 Lack of data on groundwater levels has been encountered since Situational Analysis. A study is recommended as part of PAP for REF.

4. Restore Natural Habitats/Boost Fish Biomass

> Climate Change is only factored with regards to coastal habitats but not directly on boosting fish stocks.

> For implementation and institutional arrangement, DENR, DILG and BFAR are suggested to have a joint implementation in the protection and management of marine protected areas. In fact, an initiative to have a joint memorandum circular among said agencies is ongoing and spearheaded by DENR-BMB. Additionally, BMB and BFAR has issued a memorandum agreement that delineates the

94 function of said agencies especially in implementation of Fisheries Code and Expanded NIPAS.

> Ecological connectivity and carrying capacity assessments must be studied and findings be integrated in the general protection and preservations of Manila Bay as these are important in supporting ecosystem management of the bay, and improve the management of effectiveness of the marine protected areas and guide the creation of the network of marine protected areas based on the life cycle of fish and other species. The connectivity is really needed, to correlate such fisheries management with the on-going developments. Said studies will be incorporated in the specifics of the PAPs.

95 > Based on exercises conducted by the Team, habitats are patchy and need to improve in their coverage.

> In terms of CLUPs and monitoring of documents, these will fall under fishery monitoring and enforcement system that is part of Monitoring Plan that is to be drafted. Rapid Resource Assessment was conducted and ARs deployed by BFAR are still there according to the boatmen. These ARs and fish corrals along the bay cannot be viewed in the map due to its very small size. Another map may be generated to present the ARs in zoomed in perspective.

> PAPs similar to PAPs of BFAR are being validated in the ongoing validation practices of the MBSDMP. These are crucial to doing the

96 investment planning and action planning.

> Allocation of budget fish law enforcement and creation of inter agency task force that will watch and protect the Manila Bay are included in MBSDMP PAPs. Enforcement is crucial to revival of fishes in Manila Bay.

> Implementation of fishery laws in municipal waters would be in the LGUs part. In support, the PNP-MG, Navy and PCG are currently procuring assets for stricter implementation of laws outside municipal waters.

> Establishment of monitoring posts in the coastal waters of Manila Bay was recommended by Bantay Dagat during consultations, which will allow faster coordination of issues and cases of violations to maritime agencies.

97 > Implementation of LLMPA Project aims to increase the number and size of protected areas in Manila Bay. Areas established and those that need protection will be identified, then the actual establishment of additional LLMPAs will follow. This will comprise technical assistance and research studies, capacity building for the establishment of pilot LLMPAs.

> To complement the intended 3-5 year monitoring to be conducted by ERDB, the use innovative technology for greater accuracy of data gathering, specifically the deployment of autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS), was suggested.

> Costing is based on hectarage of protected areas that will be established per municipality. Each municipality will have

98 a share of the fund. Technology developed by DOST, remote sensing, modern equipment for rapid assessment will be utilized and this can be done at the LGU level with capacity building. Linkages with Academe can be established.

> Laws in protection of fisheries and natural habitats are more than enough yet coordination needs improvement, as well as development of unified rules and regulations for the Manila Bay, to harmonize rehabilitation, restoration and management of protected habitats.

> The updating will be done every 5 years, to see what happens to fish biomass and ecosystems. This simultaneously with updating of zones (ICZM).

> The goal is to create a holistic

99 implementation guide for LGUs to develop management strategies on preservation and protection of natural habitats. Looking into different plans and rules of LGUs to identify conflicts and come up with resolution and more harmonized plan in managing and protecting critical habitats. This needs to be incorporated in the CRM plans that will be developed by the LGUs.

> NFRDI has experimental fish stock assessment with results based on number of stations. There should be consistent, frequent, and regular conduct of experimental fish stock assessment to see difference in fish stocks, especially fish biomass is impacted by different seasons.

> Conduct of carrying capacity study for the fisheries zone for sustainable

100 aquaculture was suggested to determine how much can be developed and how much can be used.

> Including mitigation/prevention of soil erosion that contributes to sedimentation and degradation of ecosystems was suggested to be included in the RNH measure. Revision of the strategy statement to instead of “rehabilitate” to “protection, conservation and rehabilitation of habitats”, and for the biomass “improve fisheries productivity and biomass”, was also suggested.

> The PAPs that involve watershed activities will already reduce sediment load of waters draining to Manila Bay. Water quality must be improved first, or in tandem with restoration activities.

101 > The carrying capacity that will determine the number of fish pens that can be sustained by a fishpond area is difficult but doable. The area that can be sustained by a fishpond area can be determined. Revision of strategy statement is not needed, because the term Boost Fish Biomass and Restore Natural Habitats actually encompass protection, conservation and rehabilitation.

> Recommendation to use more updated references noted, e.g. RA 8550 already amended by RA 10654.

5. Reduce Exposure to Flooding

> The relocation sites are not identified. This has to be part of determination of communities due to many issues including lack of participation by people. People will be guided in

102 identification of relocation sites with regards to non- negotiable parameters, e.g. accessibility and security from geohazards.

> The CLD may be considered defining where the new coastal line be. This is just for people and LGUs to be aware of areas that will be heavily affected by flooding and where mitigation measures may not be feasible or practical, and constraints to developments exist. It is not a legal defining line but rather a guide for decision-makers.

> The PSF’s intention is to provide funding to local communities and LGUs in implementing CCA measures. LCCAP and DRRMP are prepared as justification for the project to be proposed to PSF to address vulnerability to CC. Qualification

103 may also be supported by well- substantiated documentation of effects of climate change and disasters, despite lack of LCCAP and DRRMP.

> The DHSUD will play a leading role in the implementation of the PAP related to relocation. The said agency, as well as NGOs, has been consulted in the development of said PAP.

> All existing and proposed land reclamation projects have been considered. During the development of the masterplan, MBSDMP has played an important role in issuance of EO 74 which enhance assessments through programmatic EIA for reclamation projects, and submission of both horizontal and vertical developments.

> MMDA will be included in clearing of

104 waterways/PAP in NCR.

> Reducing Exposure may be misleading, it’s meant to be a comprehensive measure that should increase capacities and decrease vulnerabilities of affected LGUs and communities. This will be emphasized in the report. PSF is indeed under utilized. Proposals that have been received by PSF are below the acceptable. Requirements have been relaxed to increase access of LGUs. Proposals to PSF can be integrated/done by multiple LGUs (e.g. coastal LGUs).

> The flood management decision support system has to be lodged to MBTF if it will be the seat of command initially, however this must be accessible to LGUs for utilization in their programs.

105 > Development of systems that can be managed locally by LGUs is recommended. This can be part of developing the quality of their LCCAP and DRRMP, and their access to funds.

> Only ISFs exposed to coastal flooding is included in this measure.

> Policy brief on Bulacan Airport was drafted by MBSDMP where several provisions in which Bulacan Airport can avoid worsening flood events, and all natural habitats that will be built on shall be compensated/replace d in other areas, are enumerated.

6. Reduce Pollution Load

> During consultation, the point of sewerage must be constructed by the national government, and not just drainage systems, was raised. Combined sewerage

106 relies on drainage system, at least in Metro Manila.

> In the PAPs, 125 million is not enough, hence the indicative costing is 36B, to at least reach 25% sewerage coverage.

> Rolling out of support for MSMEs in constructing a wastewater treatment, a project partnership between DOST and MBCO, is recommended in the PAPs using the same modality. Indicative cost of 800M was set for said PAP.

> The outcome of concession review is not yet released. The presentation in the MBSDMP PAPs is based on the assumption that the concession agreement will continue.

> Septage and its funding is doable according to consultations with WDs and LGUs.

107 Sewerage is another story.

> There are other programs that focus on septage management of ISF such as ZOD of DOH, PAPs to be implemented by LGUs (septage and sewerage) and the sewerage projects of concessionaires.

> Unveiling of central Manila network will be on October 15, 2020. 140 MLD was delayed due to issue of the lot where the STP will be constructed.

7. Improve Solid Waste Management

> The large composting facilities in the PAPs will be in identified four (4) provinces. One is Pampanga, potentially another is Rizal which will cater to waste of NCR.

> Sustainable supply of waste to be processed in industries such as

108 Republic Cement is a concern. Recycler Industries have been consulted last year. WTE projects in MBSDMP PAPs are large ones with access to huge volumes for sustainability of supply. One considered is the QC WTE, another is in Rizal (if former will not push thru). Another is Metro Clark.

> The QC WTE is currently under review due to change of officials.

> The diversion rate is not contingent to all PAPs, but rather on those that focuses on segregation and recycling and recovery. The 2022 diversion rate of 80% is not possible to achieve, hence it is set to 2040.

> Industrial composting facility for biodegradable plastics is not specifically included in the PAPs.

109 However, the large- scale composting facilities recommended may have a designated section for that later on. Even PAPs for landfills will have dedicated cells for industrial wastes.

> PPP Center is developing guidelines on identifying and developing Municipal SWM PPP Projects.

> MMDA’s concept paper of integrated solid waste disposal facility will have MRF and composting facility.

> WTE identified will process municipal solid waste.

> EPR is advocated at national level.

> Bulacan WTE underway as PPP with private firm.

> Despite regular clean-ups in the coastal areas and river systems, the pollution in solid wastes from the upstream deem the

110 clean-up efforts as useless. Neighboring cities/municipalities do not see eye to eye.

> Circular economy is a concept that plays a big role in the PAPs but no exact policy on it has been included.

111