LINKING SOCIAL AND BIOPHYSICAL VARIABLES OF WATER GOVERNANCE: An application of the model
by
Angela Grace Toledo-Bruno
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry Syracuse, New York April 2009
Approved: Department of Forest and Natural Resources Management
______VALERIE A. LUZADIS, PhD CHRISTOPHER WHIPPS, PhD Major Professor Chair, Examining Committee
______DAVID H. NEWMAN, PhD S. SCOTT SHANNON Department Chairperson Dean, Instruction and Graduate Studies Acknowledgements
This achievement in my academic, professional and personal endeavor is dedicated to all those who unconditionally walk with me in this journey:
TO GOD and my whole family (Eric and Elijah; Mama Nene and Papa Vidal; Zeny and Mike; Ann, Obeth, Jami and Emil; Boyet, Des, Karen, Francis and Nathalie) – the reason for my existence.
To Prof. Valerie A. Luzadis, a mentor and a friend, who broadened my understanding of how the world works, who offered her wisdom and hugs so I continue to hang on in my academic journey;
To Prof. Sharon D. Moran, Dr. John G. Ferrante, Prof. John S. Stella for the ideas in the conceptualization of this study; to Prof. Richard Smardon, Prof. Robin Kimmerer, Prof. Chris Whipps, Prof. Laura Lautz and all ESF faculty who mold my intellectual abilities;
To my research partners : RWSA (Engr. Maryjane; Kuya Bert Okit); DWSA (Roroy, Ate Norma, Ate Ling); MCGWSS (Ms. Gina Bionson); Malaybalay LGU (Ms. Dadang, Ms. Aileen); DCWD (Sir Nilo Garcia; Roger, Ms. Lea Flores); NAPOCOR (Engr. Alfred Macamay, Roy Aguanta; Allan Nallano; Engr. Eric); NIA (Engr. Kris Orqui, Ate Rose Pastrano, LIA BODs), Ate Ging Morales, Ayi Amor, Thea Rivera, Jonathan Rizalda and all my respondents who shared their time, views and sentiments so I will better understand the many facets of water governance;
To my “advisors”: Pedro Walpole, S.J., Engr. Ray Rodriguez, Eric Bruno, Andres Ignacio, Prof. Raul Orongan for their valuable ideas to improve my research;
To my support group: (Philippines) Emily, Ruby, Nara, my CMU-CF colleagues, Ting, Wing, Rommel, Reza, Sayong, Veron, Alice, IFP Cohort 2005; (Syracuse): Tita Lhee, Aileen, Yaying, Dennis, Marvin, Arnold, Renato, Nilo, Chellie, Melissa, Carla, Andrew, Michaela, Suzzane, Julie, Amanda; Jess, Zeny, Auntie Delen, Kate, Kris and Jessica; for the encouragement, prayers, laughter, advise and free food!
To the International Fellowship Program of the Ford Foundation (Ms. Tammy), the Philippine Social Science Council (Ma’am Luisa Lucas-Fernan and Ma’am Dada Doble), International Social Forestry Fund (Prof. Allan Drew) and the taxpayers of New York for providing me the opportunity for professional growth.
To all water users, the governance actors and the water resources for the inspiration to work on this study. Madakel/Daghang/Maraming salamat po!
TO GOD BE THE GLORY!
ii Table of Contents
Cover page ……….………. i
Acknowledgements ……….………. ii
Table of Contents ……….………. iii
List of Tables ……….………. v
List of Figures ……….………. vi
List of Appendices ……….………. ix
Abstract ……….………. x
CHAPTER 1. Introduction ……….………. 1 1.1. Research overview ……….………. 1 1.2. Water governance in the Philippine context ……….………. 3 Historical background of water resource governance ……….………. 3 The evolution of Philippine environmental policies ……….………. 6 Philippine water institutions and politics ……….………. 9
CHAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING WATER GOVERNANCE: ………. 14 AN ANALYTICAL MODEL LINKING SOCIAL AND BIOPHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OF GOVERNANCE
Abstract ……….………. 14
2.1. Introduction ……….………. 14
2.2. A review on concepts and theories on governance ……….………. 18
2.3. The social dimension of water resource governance ……….………. 20 Understanding value ……….………. 20 Institutions and the institutional mechanisms ……….………. 23 Management of complex systems ……….………. 26
2.4. The biophysical dimension of water resource governance ……….………. 30
2.5. An alternative model to understand water governance ……….………. 31
2.6. Suggested methods when applying the governance framework ……….………. 36
2.7. Application and Contribution of the Framework to Understanding ……….…… 38 water resource governance
iii
2.8. Challenges, limitations and caveats ……….………. 40
CHAPTER 3. LINKING SOCIAL AND BIOPHYSICAL VARIABLES……… 42 OF GOVERNANCE: Cases of water governance in Bukidnon, Philippines
Abstract ……….………. 42
3.1. Background of the study ……….………. 42 The research problem ……….………. 42 Rationale of the study ……….………. 45
3.2. Theoretical and conceptual framework of the study ……….………. 46
3.3. Objectives and methodology of the study ……….………. 50 Location of research sites ……….………. 50 Objectives of the study ……….………. 50 Research methods ……….………. 52 Limitations of the study ……….………. 57
3.4. Results and Discussion ……….………. 58 The social and biophysical variables of governance ……….………. 58 Water users’ values ……….………. 60 Institutions and institutional mechanisms ……….………. 62 Management goals and interventions ……….………. 66 Quantity and quality of water resources ……….………. 68
Linkages and gaps in governance ……….………. 79
3.5. Water governance gap analysis model: insights and learnings ……….………. 87
3.6. Conclusion and recommendations ……….………. 89
CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS ……….………. 94
LITERATURE CITED ……….………. 97
APPENDICES ……….………. 105
RESUME ……….………. 196
iv LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Philippine environmental laws ……….………. 8
Table 1. 2. Water Institutions and Organizations in the Philippines and Bukidnon … 11
Table 2.1. Key questions and methods ……….………. 37
Table 3.1. Case profile ……….………. 53
Table 3.2. Criteria for gap analysis ……….………. 56
Table 3.3. Interview data results ……….………. 59
Table 3.4. Physical characteristics of study sites/cases ……….………. 69
Table 3.5. Summary of biophysical results ……….………. 71
Table 3.6. Instantaneous contaminant load (ICL) ……….………. 73
Table A.1. Profile of respondents ……….………. 108
Table A.2. Organizations/agencies operating in the research sites ……….………. 109
Table A.3. Area per land cover type in Manggipanaw catchment ……….………. 119
Table A. 4. Area per land cover type in Agutayan catchment ……….………. 129
Table A. 5. Area per land cover type in Kibalabag catchment ……….………. 141
Table A.6. Area per land cover type in Pinamaloy Lake catchment ……….………. 155
Table A. 7. Area per land cover type in Laligan catchment ……….………. 169
Table A. 8. Area per land cover type in Pulangi Lake catchment ……….……… 181
Table A.9. Summary of governance dynamics across all levels (based on interviews).. 186
Table A.10. Implications of national institutions to the different levels of governance … 190
Table A.11. Water system levels applied in the Philippine potable water system …… 192
v LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Timeline of environmental institutions vis-à-vis political ……….………. 7 events in the Philippines
Figure 2.1. Norgaard's coevolutionary thinking ……….………. 16
Figure 2.2. The total economic value framework ……….………. 21
Figure 2. 3. Water institution: illustrative inter-linkages ……….………. 25
Figure 2. 4. Water sector: institution-performance linkages ……….………. 25
Figure 2.5. Flow chart of integrated water resource management ……….………. 28
Figure 2.6. Three dimensions of water governance in the Philippines ….……… 32
Figure 2.7. 3 Pillars and 1 beam, the basis for quality river basin evaluations ……. 32
Figure 2.8. The water governance model ……….………. 35
Figure 3.1. The water governance gap analysis model ……….………. 47
Figure 3.2. Land cover of Bukidnon indicating location of research sites ……….. 51
Figure 3.3. Estimated stream discharge ……….………. 75
Figure 3.4. Discharge ratio ……….………. 75
Figure 3.5. Monthly total rainfall in Malaybalay, Bukidnon ……….………. 76
Figure 3.6. Monthly total rainfall per municipality in Bukidnon ……….………. 76
Figure 3.7. Total suspended solids (TSS) in study sites ……….………. 77
Figure 3.8. Nitrate concentration in study sites ……….………. 77
Figure 3.9. Bacterial contamination in study sites ……….………. 78
Figure 3.10. Percentage of tree/woodland and cropland per catchment.…….………. 78
Figure 3.11. Water governance gap analysis: case 1 ……….………. 80
Figure 3.12. Water governance gap analysis: case 2 ……….………. 80
vi Figure 3.13. Water governance gap analysis: case 3 ……….………. 80
Figure 3.14. Water governance gap analysis: case 4 ……….………. 80
Figure 3.15. Water governance gap analysis: case 5 ……….………. 81
Figure 3.16. Water governance gap analysis: case 6 ……….………. 81
Figure A. 1. Land cover map of Manggipanaw catchment ……….………. 118
Figure A.2. Manggipanaw Stream estimated discharge ……….………. 120
Figure A.3. Manggipanaw Stream bacterial analysis ……….………. 120
Figure A.4. Manggipanaw Stream total suspended solids (TSS) ……….………. 120
Figure A.5. Manggipanaw Stream nitrate concentration ……….………. 120
Figure A.6. Land cover map of Agutayan catchment ……….………. 128
Figure A.7. Agutayan Stream estimated discharge ……….………. 130
Figure A.8. Agutayan Stream bacterial analysis ……….………. 130
Figure A.9. Agutayan Stream total suspended solids (TSS) ……….………. 131
Figure A.10. Agutayan Stream nitrate concentration ……….………. 131
Figure A.11. Land cover map of Kibalabag catchment ……….………. 140
Figure A.12. Kibalabag River total suspended solids (TSS) ……….………. 142
Figure A.13. Kibalabag River nitrate concentration ……….………. 142
Figure A.14. Kibalabag River estimated discharge ……….………. 143
Figure A.15. Kibalabag River bacterial analysis ……….………. 144
Figure A.16. Land cover map of Pinamaloy catchment ……….………. 154
Figure A.17. Pinamaloy Lake bacterial analysis ……….………. 156
Figure A.18. Pinamaloy Lake total suspended solids (TSS) ……….………. 157
Figure A.19. Pinamaloy Lake nitrate concentration ……….………. 157
vii Figure A.20. Laligan River estimated discharge ……….………. 167
Figure A.21. Land cover map of Laligan catchment ……….………. 168
Figure A.22. Laligan River total suspended solids (TSS) ……….………. 171
Figure A.23. Laligan River nitrate concentration ……….………. 171
Figure A.24. Land cover map of Pulangi Lake ……….………. 180
Figure A.25. Pulangi Lake total suspended solids (TSS) ……….………. 182
Figure A.26. Pulangi Lake nitrate concentration ……….………. 182
LIST OF BOXES
Box 3.1. DENR DAO 90-34 ……….………. 66
Box 3.2. NWRB IRR (March 21, 2005) ……….………. 66
Box A. 1. The legend of Lake Pinamaloy ……….………. 146
viii LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. Semi-structured questionnaire ……….………. 106
APPENDIX 2: Table A.1. Profile of respondents ……….………. 108
APPENDIX 3: Table A.2. Organizations/agencies operating in the research sites … 109
APPENDIX 4: Case studies ……….………. 111
APPENDIX 5: Table A.9. Summary of governance dynamics across all levels ….. 186
APPENDIX 6: Table A.10. Implications of national institutions ……….……… 190 to the different levels of governance
APPENDIX 7: Table A.11. Water system levels applied in the ……….………. 192 Philippine potable water system
APPENDIX 8: Department of Environment and Natural Resources ………………. 193 (DENR) Administrative Order No. 34 Series of 1990
APPENDIX 9: NWRB Amended IRR 2005 ……….…..……. 194
ix ABSTRACT
Toledo-Bruno, Angela Grace I. Linking social and biophysical variables of water governance: An application of the model. Wordprocessed and bound dissertation, 208 pages, 20 tables, 51 figures. 2009.
Globally and locally, water is a critical resource not only due to natural events and anthropogenic factors but also because of how water is governed. Several literatures and models have been proposed to look at the many facets of water – physical, biological, social, economic and political. The dynamic, complex and co-evolving nature of water resource system requires a model that integrates the social and biophysical dimensions of governance. This paper presents an analytical model to understand water governance through the linkage between the social variables – values, institutions and management – and the biophysical variables – water quantity, water quality and land cover. The theoretical underpinning behind the concepts and linkages of the variables was drawn out from several literatures. Linkages of variables illustrated the non-linear, non predictive nature of the model to reflect the complex dynamics of water resource system. The model was tested in the six cases of water governance in Bukidnon, Philippines to represent different governance levels and water uses. The study combined social and biophysical data gathering and analysis methods to provide the data to establish the linkages. An analysis of the linkages/gaps of the study showed that each governance case differed from each other regardless of level of governance and water uses. Each case presented congruence (linkages) or incongruence (gaps) of the values, institutions, management and biophysical condition of water resource. Gaps formed the basis for institutional and management recommendation to improve water condition and the governance to sustain the values of the users. Output of the study provided empirical data on the relevance of integrating social and biophysical variables to have a deeper and comprehensive understanding of governance.
Keywords: transdisciplinary, coevolutionary, complex systems, governance, values, institutions, management, water quality, water quantity
Author: Angela Grace Toledo-Bruno Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Date: April 2009 Major Professor: Prof. Valerie A. Luzadis, Phd Department: Forest and Natural Resources Management State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry Syracuse, New York
______PROF. VALERIE A. LUZADIS, PhD
x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Overview
Scholars commonly refer governance as an act of authority, decisions and actions, which
involves institutions and organizations. UNDP (1997) defines governance as the “exercise of
authority over the political, economic and administrative affairs” which involves “complex
mechanisms, processes, relationships and institutions”. However, the understanding of
governance should go beyond the traditional institutional approach and be able to explore deeper
into other social as well as biophysical factors. Decisions and actions should account for the
social-biophysical interactions of a complex, dynamic system.
Governance of water catches attention among researchers, practitioners and decision
makers because of the different issues confronting this important but threatened resource at the
local and global scales. Issues revolve around the deterioration of water quality, insufficiency of
water supply, conflicting uses and interests, water-related health concerns, water pollution,
policy conflicts, and the degradation of water resource systems. Added to these complex issues
are other issues that have indirect effect on water like land ownership, tenurial rights, poverty,
lack of basic services, among others. Various efforts have aimed at understanding how governance responds to water issues. But these efforts are constantly being challenged because of the dynamic and coevolving nature of water resource systems, including the actors of governance. Emerging approaches aim to capture the complex interactions of the elements in the realm of governance. Governance extends beyond the domain of institutions but also into broader social and biophysical dimensions. Thus, the study of governance requires a transdisciplinary approach.
1 The aim of this study is to provide an alternative model of understanding water resource governance that weaves social and biophysical variables. The development of this model starts with a review of concepts, theories and conceptual frameworks that have been applied and tested in different settings. Research outputs and learnings of past research provide both insights and inspiration to refine what have been done in the hope that the suggested governance model can provide a broader understanding of governance from the social and biophysical perspectives. The social-biophysical approach is emphasized to assess the outcome of social dimension to the biophysical dimension of governance, particularly on the quality and quantity of water resource.
The resulting biophysical condition then serves as essential data to refine institutions and management to be able to sustain and/or improve water that satisfies the need of users and the goal of management. The first article provides a review of key concepts – value, institution, management and the biophysical aspect of the water resource, specifically presenting a conceptual model linking social and biophysical variables. The second article deals with the application of the suggested governance model in the six cases of governance in Bukidnon,
Philippines. Cases represent governance at the barangay, city/municipal and national government. These cases provide the empirical application of understanding water resource governance through the link between values, institutions, management and biophysical variables and identify where the gaps are in these linkages. Gaps are the bases for recommendations as well as provide information, particularly to governance actors, on where the attention is needed to improve governance.
A review of governance studies (Rogers and Hall, 2003; Malayang, 2004; Elazegui,
2004; Swynngedouw, 2006; Antunes et al, 2009; Pereira and Quintana, 2009) have been largely focused on institutions and organizations. Institutions are the bases as well as the standard for
2 decisions and actions, particularly on the mechanisms of the use, appropriation, classification
and management of water resources. Institutions are operationalized by organizations that define
the governance configuration. How institutions are crafted can be traced to the evolution of the
political environment, which brought about changes in governance configuration and actors.
Thus, understanding governance requires a background of the institution-organization dynamics.
1.2. Water governance in the Philippine context
Historical background of water resource governance. Water governance in the Philippines is rooted in institutions as a legal basis for the decision-making on the management of water resources. How these institutions are crafted and eventually implemented also relate to a wider political events happening in the country (Figure 1.1). Juxtaposing environmental institutions with political events show an interesting scenario that explains the decisions, actions and mechanisms of how water resources are governed in the country. It should be emphasized, however, that the timeline presented in Figure 1.1 does not provide the complete picture of political scenario in the Philippines but only focuses on institutions and political events that are relevant to this research.
Philippines has been subjected to three colonial invasions – Spanish for almost 400 years,
Japanese for about 3 years during the event of the World War 2, and the Americans for about 46 years. The latter, however, still continue to greatly influence the politics and economy of the
Philippines to this date. The Spanish government imposed the Regalian Doctrine, which subjects non-private properties as public domain and thus, under the control of the Spanish government.
Up to this time, this doctrine has become the basis of government’s claim over its ownership and control, particularly on the natural resources. The American colonial government maintains this
3 doctrine but entirely changed the system of education and politics in the Philippines, such that
even after the declared independence in 1946, Americans continue to influence the dynamics of
decision-making in the country. When Philippines restores its sovereignty and “independence”
from foreign rule, much of the effort is on the organization and structuring of the political system. In fact, the now Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), which is the lead agency in environmental concerns, has undergone a series of administrative changes since its creation in 1916 as Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources until it is reconstituted into DENR in 1987.
The Marcos regime which started in 1965 has been criticized for its unpopular declaration of Martial Law that allowed him to stay in power for 20 years, thereby establishing a dictatorship. During this regime, the authoritarianism and centralization of decision-making rests on the central government and its created agencies. However, it is in this regime when a number of environmental laws were implemented (whether global events triggered this is beyond the scope of this study), which categorically stipulate the ownership and control of the central government. In effect, the central government created agencies to cater to specific needs as stipulated in the national laws. For instance, the Water Code of the Philippines of 1976 categorically stipulates government ownership of all water resources so that any use requires the permission of an established agency – the National Water Resources Council (now the National
Water Resources Board or NWRB). In terms of water distribution, the Provincial Water Utilities
Act of 1973 created the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and the water districts in
cities or municipalities. The Philippine Environment Code specifies pollution control and
establishes the environmental impact assessment (EIA). EIA implementation is detailed in a
4 separate law, PD 1586 entitled “Establishing an environmental impact statement system
including other environmental management related measures and for other purposes” in 1978.
When the Marcos rule was toppled by the civil society-initiated and military-backed EDSA revolution in 1986, the shift of power also provided a venue for participation of civil society in governance. Under the Aquino government, the political structure was changed to allow greater society and sectoral participation in governance. This also marked the mushrooming of non- governmental (NGO) and people’s organizations (PO) as partners of government in implementing its various programs. One notable law created was the 1991 Local Government
Code of the Philippines which establishes decentralization and greater power to local governments at the barangay, city/municipality and provincial levels. For instance, local governments are responsible for basic social services like health and sanitation, solid waste management, community-based forestry projects, land use zoning, among others. The code also promotes the participation and linkaging with NGOs and POs. Succeeding laws implemented after 1991 emphasize the establishment of multi-sectoral committees or councils to ensure participation of the various sectors and government agencies. Participation of communities and the indigenous groups in management are also stipulated in the National Integrated Protected
Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1995 and the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) in 1997.
Provisions of the Local Government Code also put emphasis on the sharing of benefits to local
government units, including the inhabitants in barangay where the tapped natural resource is
located. The DOE Act provides benefit to host communities of energy resource/facilities while
the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) of 2001 requires the establishment of an
environmental fund of P0.0025/ kWh for watershed management. IRR of the EPIRA stipulates
the allocation of P.01/kWh to provide financial benefit to host communities where the power is
5 sourced. The passage of the 2004 Clean Water Act requires the establishment of water quality management areas for water quality surveillance and monitoring. Although the DENR is the lead agency in the implementation of the Clean Water Act, this law also requires the participation of other sectors and the greater participation of local government units.
The evolution of Philippine environmental policies. Political events in the Philippines trigger how institutions are crafted. It shows an evolution of laws from a government-controlled to a stakeholders’ participation and from a centralized to a decentralized system. It can be noticed that after the 1986 EDSA revolution, laws implemented require participation of both government and non-government organizations and local groups, e.g. Local Government Code, Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act, Clean Water Act (Table 1.1) Although it calls for participation and collaboration among concerned agencies, organizations and groups, such system of governance become increasingly complex that puts the risk of responsibility and accountability.
The evolution of institutions also results to a complex governance system. In the
Philippines, the system of water governance is about the “allocation of powers and functions and consensus-building among stakeholders. Decisions and actions would have to depend on the powers and influence of institutions and the level of governance” at the local and national levels
(Elazegui, 2004). Power and influences of institutions and the local-national linkage can define the success or failure of water and watershed management policies.
6 Figure 1.1. TIMELINE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONS VIS-À-VIS POLITICAL EVENTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
1500’s to 1950’s Anti-dumping Law
1521 1542 1899 1900’s 1938 1941 1946 Spaniards Spaniards claim and name Spanish- American war US rule Japanese Phil exploration to Phil; implements cedes Phil to US over Phil invades independence the Philippines Regalian Doctrine (Treaty of Paris) Phils (WW2) from US
1960’s to 1980’s
NIA Pollution NAPOCOR LWUA & Creation of Water Code Phil Env’t Control Law Charter water Dept of Nat of the Phils; Code districts Res (DENR) NWRB
1963 1964 1965 1972 1973 1974 1976 1978 1981 1986 Marcos’ Martial Martial EDSA Revolution, rise rise to Law Law lifted of civil society power participation in governance 1990’s to 2007
Water classf. Local Gov’t Dept of Water Indigenous Peoples Fisheries Electric Clean IRR amend DOH National and quality Code; Energy; Crisis Rights Act; NCIP Code Power Water PD1067: Drinking standards LGU Natl Prot Act Agri & Fisheries Reform Act allocation Water Area Act Modernization Act appropriation Standards
1990 1991 1992 1995 1997 1998 2001 2004 2005 2007 Estrada Civil society assumes and military presidency topple Estrada NOTES: Information above the arrow are laws, below the arrow are political events : These institutions are discussed in the next section; refer to Table 1.1. 7 Table 1.1. Philippine environmental laws
YEAR LEGISLATION DESCRIPTION 1938 Commonwealth Act 338: Anti- Prohibits dumping of refuse, waste matter, or other Dumping Law substances into rivers
1964 RA 3931: Pollution Control Law Provides guidelines for the control of water pollution from industrial sources and sets penalties for violations; requires all polluters to secure permit
1976 PD 984: Revision of RA 3931 Creates inter-agency advisory council
1973 PD 198: Provincial Water Utilities Water District Law: Authorizes the creation of water Act of 1973 districts to operate and administer water supply and wastewater disposal system in the provincial areas LWUA Law: Creates the Local Water Utilities Administration as a government lending institution to promote, develop and finance local water utilities
1975 PD 856: Sanitation Code Requires cities and municipalities to provide an adequate and efficient system for sewage collection, transport and disposal in their areas of jurisdiction
1976 PD 1067: Water Code of the Consolidates legislations relating to ownership, Philippines development, exploitation, and conservation of water resources
1978 PD 1152: Philippine Provides guidelines to protect and improve the quality Environmental Code of water resources and defines responsibilities for surveillance and mitigation of pollution incidents
1987 Executive Order No. 224 Provides complete jurisdiction, control and regulation over watershed areas and reservations surrounding NAPOCOR power generating plants and properties of said corporation. 1990 DENR DAO No. 34 s. 1990 Amends water usage and classification and criteria for water quality per water classification 1990 Stipulates standards for industrial and wastewater DENR DAO No. 35 s. 1990- effluents
1991 RA 7160: Local Government Code Devolves enforcement of laws on sanitation to LGUs of the Philippines and the provision of basic services such as water supply, sanitation and flood control as well as management of community forestry projects and tree parks
1992 RA 7638: Department of Energy Creates the Department of Energy for self-sufficiency Act and productivity in power and energy and provides benefits to host communities in energy resource and/or energy facilities
1992 RA 7586: National Integrated Provides system for establishment of protected areas Protected Areas System Act
8
(NIPAS) Act
1995 RA 8041 - National Water Crisis Creates the Joint Executive-Legislative Water Crisis Act Commission to address water crisis including watershed protection and conservation and researches on policy option
1997 RA 8371: Indigenous People’s Upholds the rights of indigenous communities over Rights Act (IPRA) their ancestral domain
1997 RA 8435 - Agriculture and Provides the mechanisms to modernize agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act fishery sectors, including protection of watershed (AFMA) areas, to increase profit and promote social equity; promotes participation and empowerment of people’s organizations, cooperatives and NGOs.
1998 RA 8550 - Philippine Fisheries Codifies all fisheries laws and stipulates the Code development, management and conservation of fisheries and aquatic resources, including EIA, monitoring of waters, creation of fisherfolks organization
2001 RA 9136 - Electric Power Industry Provides the restructuring of power industry to Reform Act facilitate generation, transmission, supply and distribution and allocates P0.0025 /kwhour as environmental fund for watershed rehabilitation and management
2004 RA. 9275: Philippine Clean Water Provides management of water quality of all water Act bodies – freshwater, brackish and marine, involving sectoral participation
2005 NWRB IRR of PD 1067 Revised the IRR of PD 1067, particularly on the order of appropriation and allocation of the beneficial uses of water and their corresponding requirements
2007 DOH DAO No. 2007 – 0012 – Sets the standards of biological, physical and chemical Philippine National Standards for parameters of drinking water Drinking Water
Philippine water institutions and politics. From the colonial government to pre-EDSA revolution, governance is characterized by the control of a central government and its agencies.
For instance, Presidential Decree 1067 or the Water Code of the Philippines of 1976 stipulates that all waters of the Philippines belong to the State, whether above or below the ground, in the atmosphere or in the sea and even those within private lands. Water will be appropriated only upon the issuance of a water permit which provides water right issued by the National Water
9
Resources Council (now the NWRB). Further, Article 31 stipulates that “preference in the
development of water resources shall consider security of the State, multiple use, beneficial
effects, adverse effects and costs of development”. On the other hand, the Local Water Utilities
Administration (LWUA) is created under the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973 primarily to
authorize the establishment of local water districts for local operation and control of water
systems. LWUA provides loans to local water districts and hence, the latter are subject to its
rules and regulations on the operationalization of local water systems.
Decentralization and civil society involvement in governance is triggered by the EDSA
revolution such that laws and policies puts emphasis on the role of local governments, NGOs,
POs and other sectors (e.g. business, religious, labor, environment, etc) in decision making.
Section 3 (i) of the RA 7160 known as the Local Government Code of 1991 clearly stipulates
that “Local government units shall share with the national government the responsibility in the
management and maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial jurisdiction, subject
to the provisions of this Code and national policies”. Local government units (LGUs) are also
tasked to provide basic services and facilities which include, among others, water and soil
resource utilization and conservation projects, communal irrigation and small water
impounding projects and rainwater collectors and water supply systems. Further, Section 35
permits LGUs to:
“enter into joint ventures and such other cooperative arrangements with people's and non-governmental organizations to engage in the delivery of certain basic services, capability-building and livelihood projects, and to develop local enterprises designed to improve productivity and income, diversify agriculture, spur rural industrialization, promote ecological balance, and enhance the economic and social well-being of the people”.
Participation and partnership between government, NGOs, POs and other sectoral groups
are also evident in the NIPAS Act, IPRA, EPIRA, Fisheries Code, Agriculture and Fisheries
Modernization Act and the Clean Water Act. Sharing of benefits is also ordered, particularly
10
for communities within the resource base or protected areas. Consequently, water governance
results to a host of agencies and groups with mandate on water resource use and management
(Table 1.2).
Elazegui (2004) studied water governance in the Philippines through a hierarchical
structure of institutions involved in water resources management at the national level. Through
enabling laws that stipulate the institution’s mandate and functions, the management of water
use, watershed and water quality are directed in a top-to-bottom approach. However, this set-
up also allows “for dichotomy in terms of functions and jurisdiction in water resource
governance” (Elazegui, 2004) which allows for an interfacing between national agencies and
the local government. Albeit it allows participation at all levels, this set-up becomes ambiguous
due to overlapping of functions, the lack of financial capabilities and unclear management
jurisdiction.
TABLE 1. 2. Water Institutions and Organizations in the Philippines1 and Bukidnon
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION ENABLING LAW MANDATE/FUNCTION
National DENR: Department of Environment and EO 192 of 1987 To manage, conserve and develop forestlands Natural Resources – Forest Mngt Bureau and watersheds and maintain water quality and Environmental Mngt Bureau
DoE: Department of Energy RA 7638 of 1992 To allocate reforestation, watershed management, health and/or environment enhancement funds
DOH: Department of Health IRR of National To set water quality standards for water Economic Development testing, treatment, and surveillance and Authority (NEDA) sanitary practices Board Resolution No. 4 of 1994
DPWH: Department of Public Works IRR of NEDA Board To set technical standards for engineering and Highways Resolution No. 4 of surveys, design and construction of Level 1 1994 water systems.
Joint Executive-Legislative Water Crisis RA 8041 1995 To address the water crisis, including supply, Commission distribution, finance, privatization of state- run water facilities, protection and
11
conservation of watersheds and the waste and pilferage of water
NAPOCOR: National Power RA 6395 1972 To take water from any public stream, river, Corporation creek, lake or waterfall for power generation
EO 224 of 1987 To exercise complete jurisdiction, control over watersheds surrounding the reservoirs of plants and/or projects
NCIP: National Commission on RA 8371 of 1997 To formulate and implement policies for the Indigenous People protection of indigenous peoples, e.g. ancestral domain in critical watersheds
NEDA: National Economic EO 230 of 1987 To lead policymaking and infrastructure Development Authority development and coordination of activities to various sectors
NIA: National Irrigation Administration RA 3601 of 1963 Improvement, construction, and administration of all national irrigation systems in the country
NWRB: National Water Resources PD 1067 of 1976 To coordinate and regulate water resource Board management and development and water uses
PNOC: Philippine National Oil EO 223 of 1997 To exercise jurisdiction, control, Company management, protection, development and rehabilitation of watershed reserves
Local LGU: Local Government Units RA 7160 of 1991 To implement community-based forestry projects and management of communal forest with an area not exceeding 50 sq km, and enforcement of forestry laws, etc.
LWUA: Local Water Utilities PD 198 of 1973 To own and operate water supply and Administration 2 distribution systems for domestic, industrial, municipal and agricultural uses
Bukidnon BENRO: Bukidnon Environment and Presidential To operationalize the devolved functions to Natural Resources Office Memorandum No. 270 LGUs as based in RA 7160 like forest and on March 1995 watershed protection and management
BC: Barangay Councils Local Government Basic political unit tasked to implement Code of 1991 government policies, plans, programs, projects, and activities
1- Source: Elazegui, 2004 2- LWUA is actually a national agency although it supervises and monitors local water districts
The responsibility of natural resources governance rests so much on the DENR as the main implementing agency and its line bureaus. For instance, management of the water quality is
12
under the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB). DENR-EMB sets the guidelines and criteria for water classification as well as the standard of values for water quality parameters.
This is also the basis for all water quality assessments whether for municipal, commercial or industrial water uses. On the other hand, the Department of Health (DOH) sets the standard values for drinking water quality parameters. At the local level, the local governments, through the Local Government Code, have also power in the protection and management of natural resources located within their area of jurisdiction.
Watershed protection in Bukidnon was legally binding when then President Fidel V.
Ramos issued Presidential Memorandum No. 270 on March 1995 that compels Bukidnon
Provincial LGU to “protect and preserve the remaining forests in the Bukidnon watersheds and rehabilitate open areas within their headwaters.” This paved the way for the creation of the
Bukidnon Watershed Protection and Development Council (BWPDC) by virtue of Provincial
Legislative Council Resolution No. 97-107. The council is composed of the LGUs, relevant government agencies, a research institute, academe, and non-government organizations. The outputs of the council are watershed management plans at the city and municipal levels.
13
CHAPTER 2. UNDERSTANDING WATER GOVERNANCE: AN ANALYTICAL MODEL LINKING SOCIAL AND BIOPHYSICAL VARIABLES
Abstract. Understanding water resource governance is constantly challenged because of the diversity of water issues and the complexity of water resource systems. Several literatures have discussed and models have been proposed on water governance but they focus more on institutions, organizations and management. Models miss out other variables critical to the understanding of governance. The complexity of water resource systems has to be matched with a model that captures the social and biophysical dimensions for a deeper, comprehensive understanding of governance. Understanding governance requires a transdisciplinary approach emphasizing the complex, dynamic and coevolving nature of water resource systems. This paper presents an analytical model to understand water governance through the linkages between social variables - values, institutions and management - and biophysical variables – water quantity, water quality and catchment land cover. The theoretical underpinning behind the linkages of the variables is drawn out from several authors. Variable linkages are dovetailed to form a coherent understanding of governance as proposed in the model. The model combines both social and natural science research methods that allow flexibility and creativity of the researchers to gather social and biophysical data. However, there are limitations and caveats on the use of the model.
Key terms: governance, value, institution, water resource, transdisciplinary
2.1. Introduction
Freshwater is critical to life but this resource occupies only 2.5% of the overall pool of
reservoir of water in the world (Hornberger, et al, 1998). Although it is replenished via the
hydrologic cycle, the quantity and quality are affected by various scales of global problems –
climate change, acid rain, eutrophication, biodiversity loss as well as other forms of pollution.
The many facets of water problem are viewed from different perspectives – biophysical,
economic, social, cultural and political (see de Villiers, 2000). But the physico-chemical nature of water makes the problem difficult to contain at the spatial and temporal scales since water problems recognize neither geographical and political boundaries nor time and generation.
According to the UN’s Millenium Development Goals report, 1-2 billion people are affected by
water scarcity, 1.1 billion people lack access to improved water supply and 2.6 billion have no
access to improved sanitation. There have been countless measures of the amount of water and
the quantity required at the drainage or country level or on earth (Gleick, 1998; Jansson, et al,
1999; World Resources Institute, 2006). A majority of these studies agree that the declining
14
water available for human use and ecosystem services is due to the exponential amount of use of
an ever-growing population and expanding industrialization. Among developing countries, the
use of water for agricultural purposes accounts for 81%, industrial is 11% and only 8% for
domestic (World Resources Institute, 2006).
The sustainability of water resources to satisfy human needs entails a myriad of issues
dealing with quantity and quality (Allan, 2004); allocation and distribution (Dinar et al 1997;
Syme, et al, 1999, Franscisco, 2004) ; its economic and ecological values (Turner et al, 2004;
Farber et al, 2002; Limburg et al, 2002; Rogers et al, 2002) geographical vs. political boundaries
(de Villiers, 2000); behaviors and cultural practices of users (Allon and Sofoulis, 2006; Nowak et
al, 2006; Torres-Rouf, 2006); even issues of justice and gender (Morna, 2000). Add to these issues the competing uses of water not only to satisfy human needs but also to maintain the
ecological integrity of the water resource system itself. Human society uses water for domestic
(drinking, bathing, washing, recreation), agricultural (watering plants, irrigation, livestock) and
industrial (cleaning, coolants, hydropower) that impact the biophysical condition of the water
resource and the ecosystem services it provides. Depending on the size of the water resource,
these three major uses may co-exist, but if not monitored, may further degrade the water resource
system, thus affecting the quality and quantity of water and ultimately the quality of life of all
who depend on it. Sustaining the quality and quantity of water for various competing uses is
indeed challenging.
At various scales, water becomes a threatened resource. The study of water resources to
sustain various uses has applied tools such as water resource assessments and monitoring of
water quality, environmental impact assessments of water-based projects and watershed
management. At the global level, UNDP (2004) calls for Integrated Water Resources
15
Management (IWRM) to hopefully arrest water problems. IWRM is a strategy that stems from local communities to international bodies by integrating “natural resource systems, biophysical processes, and socio-economic systems and objectives” (UNDP, 2004). UNDP’s document on
“Water Resource Governance for Poverty Reduction” in 2004, specifies that:
Practicing IWRM means seeing watersheds, rivers, lakes, wetlands, coastal zones, and oceans as part of an interdependent system; recognizing the ways in which the hydrological cycle affects and is affected by land use; and aiming to create governance systems, policies, institutions and instruments that take these physical processes into account in planning, decision-making and implementation.
Yet across the globe, water continues to be a challenge among local and national governing bodies. Decisions and actions to sustain and/or improve the water resources require concrete but flexible strategies considering the multi-faceted characteristics of water, the dynamics of water resource systems and the values of its users. These decisions and actions start from an understanding of how a water resource is governed with a critical thinking to hopefully capture a dynamic water resource system.
Emerging transdisciplinary approaches to Figure 2.1. Norgaard's coevolutionary thinking studying systems provide alternative ways of looking at a dynamic system in the sense that it recognizes the plurality of disciplines that embraces “the different ways of knowing” (see Norgaard, 1994; Faber et al,
1996); Farley et al, 2005). Norgaard (1994) explains the concept of coevolution in the human society with the interactions of the five sub-systems of human development: knowledge, value, technology, organization and environment (Figure 2.1). This concept emphasizes the interdependency and link of the various subsystems such that whatever changes that occur at an individual element in the system will affect all other subsystems which
16
will radiate to the larger system. Understanding a dynamic water resource system requires dynamic thinking. Thus, analyzing decisions and actions to sustain and/or improve water resources requires a model that applies transdisciplinary and coevolutionay thinking in governing a dynamic and complex resource system such as water.
UNDP (2004) recognizes that water crisis is not only caused by natural limits, finances and technologies but also failure in governance, that is “the ways in which individuals and societies have assigned value to, made decisions about, and managed the water resources available to them”. In some cases, governance illustrates the “problem of fit” wherein there is a mismatch between governance attributes and the complex dynamics of ecosystems (see Galaz et al, 2007).
Decisions and actions of sustaining and/or improving water resource systems involve a myriad of interacting elements - stakeholders, decision makers, policies, organizations, economy, environment, among others. Critical to this are the actors who govern the resource. Governance actors need to establish the connection between people and the biophysical condition of the water resource itself. But how do these elements interact in relation to governance? What is the result of such interactions to the condition of the water resource? Below is a review of the concepts and theories of governance focusing on its key elements – values, institutions, management and biophysical condition of water resource. Values, institutions, management represent the social dimension of water resource governance. A broader understanding of governance explores the connection of the social into the biophysical dimension, applying a transdisciplinary approach
(see Faber et al, 1996).
17
2.2. A review of concepts and theories on governance
“To govern is to exercise power and authority over a territory, system or organization”
(Cariño, 1999). Currie-Alder, et al (2006) emphasize that governance involves “how decisions are made, who participates in decision making, and how to participate”, which essentially describes the interactions of the key actors of governance. But what is the goal of governing?
Schmitter (2002) defines governance as the method or mechanisms of actors “to arrive at mutually satisfactory and binding decisions”. But the above definitions raise the question of who exercises the power and authority in terms of decision making – is it the government, an organization, a community, an individual? In other words, who are “the actors” in the power and authority configuration?
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 1997) defined governance as:
the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs. It is the complex mechanisms, processes, relationships and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights and obligations and mediate their differences.
The domains of governance include the three key actors: the state, the private sector and the civil society (UNDP, 1997). The shift from a traditional government-dominated governance to a more participatory approach results to a new governance configuration creating “new institutions and empowered new actors, while disempowering others” as argued by Swyngedouw (2005). The emergence of this configuration may create marginalization of others and the conflict of interests of those who are and who are not involved in governance. In the context of a multi-stakeholder, participatory approach in the Philippines, there is a problem of overlapping of functions and the claim for accountability and responsibility of organizations, particularly between national agencies and local organizations (see Elazegui, 2004). Let us apply these general concepts of governance in terms of governing a resource system like water.
18
Malayang (2004) argues that water governance is more of the “shared decisions and
actions” of communities or societies to sustain the supply and quality of the water. These
communities or societies “shape the state and conditions of water resources and their availability
and services to the groups’ members and users” (Malayang, 2004). Global Water Partnership
(2002) defines water governance as “the range of political, social, economic and administrative
systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water
services, at different levels of society”. The definition expresses the purpose of governance but
also emphasizes a need “to design public policies and institutional frameworks that are socially
accepted and mobilise social resources” (Rogers and Hall, 2003). According to Rogers and Hall
(2003), one approach for effective water governance is one that is based on society’s ethical principles in which it functions and is based on the rule of law, particularly on the “issue of
justice, property rights for use, access, and ownership of water”. On the other hand, Currie-
Alder, et al (2006) define effective water governance based on three key characteristics - “must
encourage participation in the processes for deciding how water is used; promote innovation and
learning among stakeholders, and foster adaptation to changes in water availability”.
The term water governance encompasses the political, economic and social processes and UNDP’s (2004) concept of governance is the “political, economic and social processes
and institutions” on the decisions involving the use, development and management of water
resources. In response to its Millennium Development Goals focusing on water and sanitation,
UNDP (2004) promoted the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) strategy that recognizes the interlinkages of water with multiple uses and other resources (land and other resources) and to issues such as poverty, environmental health and sustainability and women empowerment. IWRM emphasizes on the “integration within and among human socioeconomic systems, natural resource systems, and physical processes”. The challenge is how to
19
operationalize UNDP’s concept of water governance and the IWRM in relation to actual field setting.
Based on the concepts presented above, the following variables are involved in water resource governance – actors, values, decisions, actions, institutions, organizations, water issues, management, natural resource systems and physical processes – which encompass the governance domain. Understanding water governance is to be able to integrate these variables and determine their linkages. In water governance, water management to achieve goals and objectives has to be understood in the light of its interaction with values, institutions, organizations and the water resource itself. For instance, water management activities have to be linked to values of users, the policies of organizations and the condition of the water resource. To further clarify this sense of integration, the discussion below integrates these variables that lead to a broader understanding of water resource governance in the context of the link between the social and biophysical dimensions.
2.3. The social dimension of water resource governance
Understanding value
Value is a very general term which occupies different domains of disciplines: philosophy, ethics, sociology, social psychology, political science and even in economics (see Hitlin and
Piliavin, 2004; Dietz et al, 2005). One of the interesting and controversial discussions on value as applied to environment is in terms of environmental valuation. Environmental economics’ approach to valuing environmental resources is using the Total Economic Value framework shown in Figure 2 (see Pearce and Turner, 1990; ADB, 1996; Breedlove, 1999; Turner, et al
2004) which determines the total economic value as the sum of use and non-use values of a
20
resource. These values are translated into monetary terms using cost-based tools such as contingent valuation method, hedonic pricing, travel cost method, etc that become the basis for valuing environmental impacts using tools such as cost benefit analysis.
Figure 2.2. The Total Economic Value Framework (ADB, 1996)
Total Economic Value
Use Value Non Use Value
Direct Indirect Option Option Existence Source: World Bank, 1990
Vatn and Bromley (1994) challenge valuation discourses to focus on “what is worth valuing by individuals – and why that is so”. It is impossible to value an environmental good or service without referring it to other elements of the system because the “value of many environmental goods and services is derived from the very act of keeping them working in their existing functional relation” (Vatn and Bromley, 1994). Applying this to knowing the value of water, the use and nonuse values can be understood from the relationship of users to the water resource which could be affected by several factors – use, beliefs, knowledge, concerns, access, rules, policies and participation in resource management. These factors are deemed crucial in the society’s choice of alternatives or preferences to utilize and manage a resource. The environmental economics’ sense of value is the basis to explore a broader understanding of value beyond the anthropocentric and monetary-based value.
Value is the “contribution of an action or object to user-defined goals, objectives or conditions” (Costanza, 2000). Users of the resource not only express the value of that resource but also define what and how this resource should be used to meet these “goals, objectives or conditions”. In resource allocation, Brown (1984) equates value with preference and the human
21
individual as “the originator of preference … and of value”. But preference can be seen in two
perspectives as discussed by Sen (1977) who emphasizes the difference between ethical and
subjective preferences - the former based on impersonal social considerations and the latter on
one’s personal interests or basis. This has broadened into discussions about valuing environment
beyond the anthropocentric sense, that is, between intrinsic and instrumental values (see
Costanza, 2000; Limburg et al, 2002; Farber et al, 2002). In everyday interactions of humans
with the environment, value of an environmental resource can be taken for granted without
realizing its intrinsic and instrumental values. In addition, the value people attached to nature
may not always be directly related to the market but also in relation to his/her cultural identity,
knowledge and utility of the resource, institutions, de facto access and ownership of the resource,
among others.
Discussing the concept of value as applied to environmental protection discourses, Dietz,
et al (2005) emphasize the role of value that “influence individual decisions and that individual
decisions are consequential in shaping individual, and ultimately group, behavior with regard to
the environment”. Despite the influence of value on decisions and actions on governance, the
broad concept and interpretations of value from the different disciplines (see Dietz et al, 2005) make it difficult for value to be included in the study of water resource governance. But why society should be concerned on value? This is because “values matter” especially in assessing uncertainties, deciding alternatives as well as expressing ethical responsibility to the next generations (Farley et al, 2005). Although we tend to focus on institutions, markets, governments and organizations individual values and actions are the “ultimate determinants of environmental quality and the possibility of sustainability” (Costanza et al, 1997). How the society utilizes and manages a natural resource such as water is a reflection how it values that resource. Key actors in
22
governance and stakeholders should bear in mind that “value determines a person’s actions and
goals in life, including the intention and motivation to perform” (de Vries and Petersen, 2009).
Strengthening society’s value over water encourages involvement and commitment to protect
water resources.
Institutions and the institutional mechanisms
Values alone do not influence decisions and actions in governance. Following
Malayang’s (2004) argument, decisions and actions are also embedded in policy. Gibson and
Koontz (1998) argued that communities “must possess institutions to translate their values into
rules that members follow” to “preserve their values” and protect their natural resources. Their
study revealed how institutions shaped preferences of community members that led to
“community stability, conflict management, and natural resource condition” (Gibson and
Koontz, 1998).
North (1990) refers to institution as “rules of the game in a society…humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction” whether political, social or economic. Institutions
guide as well as limit human interactions. In cases where the common pool resources (CPR),
such as water, are involved, Ostrom (1990) treats institutions as:
sets of working rules that are used to determine who is eligible to make decisions in some area, what actions are allowed or constrained, what aggregation rules will be used, what procedures must be followed, what information must or must not be provided and what payoffs will be assigned to individuals dependent on their actions.
Three levels of rules – constitutional choice, collective choice and operational rules - operate
under a CPR setting, which are defined as:
Operational rules – day to day decision on appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement Collective choice rules – rules used by appropriators, officials, external authorities in making policies (policy-making, adjudication, management) Constitutional choice rules – determines specific rules in crafting collective-choice rules (formulation, governance, adjudication, modification)
23
Institutions are crucial in allocating resources, especially with competing uses like water.
Thus, Ostrom (1990) argues that “without a fair, orderly and efficient method of allocating
resource units, local appropriators have little motivation to contribute to the continued provision
of the resource system” unless there is an impending crisis that individuals will be” willing to
adopt rules that will restrict their appropriation activities”. The formulation and implementation
of the three levels of rules are crucial in how people and organizations define their actions and
decisions. It is interesting to know how these three levels of rules are operationalized to define
the institutional mechanisms among governance actors and users of CPR in a specific water
resource system.
Saleth and Dinar (1999) view water institution as an inter-linkage of water law, water policy and water administration, which they referred to as “institutional components” of the water institution. They recognize two factors of the institution-performance linkage: “specific role of institution and the intervening influence of factors that are strictly outside the realm of both water institution and water sector” (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). The models show that the institutional mechanism is a result not only of the interactions of elements within the institution itself but also of the elements outside the realm of institution. The success of the performance of the water institution has to consider also the influence of other elements, including resources/environment.
24
Figure 2. 3. Water Institution: Illustrative Inter-linkages (Saleth and Dinar, 1999)
Water Law Water Policy • Inter-Source Links • Use Priority • Inter-Resource Links • Project Selection • Water Rights • Cost Recovery • Conflict Resolution • Water Transfer • Accountability • Decentralization/ • Scope for Private Participation Privatization • Responsibility • Technology Policy
Water Administration • Government Layers • Structure of Water Administration • Finance/Staff Patterns • Pricing/Fee Collection • Regulation/Accountability • Information Capability • Technical Capacity
Figure 2. 4. Water Sector: Institution-Performance Linkages (Saleth, and Dinar, 1999)
Political System
Water Law Water Policy
Legal System Water Institution
Water Administration Demography
Economic Development and Policies Water Sector Performance
Resources/Environment
25
Although Saleth and Dinar (1999) recognize the influence of elements outside the
institutional realm, Riker (1980) posits the “influence of some person’s values and tastes on
social decisions” in formulating institutions. People, whose values and tastes are influential, formed conventions that, in turn, are condensed into institutions (Riker, 1980). Dietz, et al (2005) hinted that goals of treaties, agreements and policies could be interpreted as statements of value.
Following these arguments, value influences how institutions are crafted and implemented. The same holds true when it comes to the formulation of Ostrom’s (1990) three levels of rules.
Although not explicit in Saleth and Dinar’s model in Figure 4, value influences the decisions on
political and legal systems and economic and development policies. Considering there are
various actors of governance as well as users of the water resource, this then raises the questions
on whose value and whose institutions will prevail? What is the influence of the values and
institutions of governance actors who are outside the physical boundary of the water resource?
How will this dynamics affect the decisions and actions in managing the water resource?
Management of complex systems
Management is a product of an “experimental process” and a scientific management
involves series of tests “to gain sufficient knowledge to reduce the range of potential surprise”
(Landau and Stout, 1979). In a dynamic water resource system, the “element of surprise” is
inevitable that requires the need for an adaptive management that enhances the resilience of the
system (see Holling, 1986; Holling 2001). The concept of a complex adaptive system applies the
concept of resilience of systems to local surprise and disturbance (see Holling, 1986). The degree
of resilience or recovery of a system will depend on the extent of change, the damage that the
disturbance creates to the system and the frequency of disturbance. To understand the complexity
of economic, ecological and social systems, Holling (2001) suggests an adequate integrative
26
theory satisfying the criteria of dynamic and prescriptive monitoring that “connects to policies
and actions and to the evaluation of different futures”; and to acknowledge uncertainty and
unpredictability of the system. This then means that management is not fixed but an
“experimental process” (Landau and Stout, 1979) in response to the changes of the system. Folke
et al (2002) offered structured scenarios and active adaptive management as tools for resilience
building in social-ecological systems. Such tools “require and facilitate social context with
flexible and open institutions and multi-level governance systems“(Folke et al, 2002). This social
context goes back to the concept of effective water governance which require participation of
stakeholders.
Management involves a collaborative decision-making process not only to reduce surprise but also to achieve a goal. In the context of a critical resource like water, management is crucial to be able to efficiently allocate and satisfy the needs of all users and the whole ecosystem as well. The 1992 Dublin Principle on water provided a foundation of how water is to be treated and the approach towards management, as based on its four guiding principles:
Freshwater is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment; Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels; Women play a central part in the provision, management, and safeguarding of water; Water has an economic value in all its competing uses, and should be recognised as an economic good.
Since water is crucial to “life, development and environment”, management involves complex
interactions of variables. Radif (1999) develops a framework that includes variables of an
integrated water resource management (IWRM) based on the perception that water is “a natural
and social and economic good” (Figure 2.5). The author also emphasizes the importance of community experience and views that needs to be communicated to policy and decision makers.
27
Figure 2.5. Flow chart of integrated water resource management (Radif, 1999)
Financial sustainability Integrated water resource management
Sustainability of Water policy and integrated management Management of resource water resources
Multi-sectoral approach Local user groups Stakeholders
Integration
Technological means Socio-economic Environmental concerns Health considerations aspects
The complex interactions of variables in water Box 2.1. Desirable characteristics of ecosystem management goals and objectives based on the theory resources management require a venue for and practice of ecosystem approaches and management participation, collaboration and integration 1. imply and reflect specific values and limits (normative) 2. reflect “higher” values and ethical principles among actors of governance, users and other and rules (principled) 3. reflect the wide range of interests, goals and stakeholders. Ecosystem-based management is objectives that exist (integrative) 4. work with, not artificially reduce, complexity (complex) a “dispersed and collaborative activity” that 5. accept and recognize the inevitability of change (dynamic) 6. synthesize a wide range of information and focuses on the “local, biophysical and cultural knowledge (transdisciplinary) 7. be applicable to a wide range of ecosystem terms, and on development of an integrative types and conditions (applicable) 8. involves actors, stakeholders, public (participatory) process for planning and management” of the 9. be explainable and implementable in a consistent way to different people and groups (understandable) whole ecosystem (Slocombe, 1998). According 10. be inherently tentative and evolving as conditions and knowledge change (adaptive). .After Grumbine (1994), Kay and Schneider (1994) and Slocombe to Slocombe (1998), “goals and objectives, (1993a, 1998) Source: Slocombe, 1998
28
reflecting individual, organizational and/or societal values and philosophies are critical to any
planning or management process”. But there are barriers to the ecosystem-based management
which includes institutional territoriality and complacency/weak goals. Management should
encompass substantive and procedural goals. Substantive goals reflect the desired states or
characteristics of the ecosystem while procedural goals identify the ways to achieve or
implement the substantive goals (Slocombe, 1998). The desirable characteristics provide the
checklist to develop the ecosystem management goals and objectives (Box 2.1). The first two
characteristics of Slocombe’s (1998) checklist relate back to the importance of value in
management. As discussed earlier, value influences decisions and actions; values give
motivation for individuals to perform. But the decisions, action and motivation for management
start from recognizing the intrinsic and instrumental values of the resource itself. Based on
Slocombe’s characteristics, the sense of value reflects ethical principle which suggests highlighting the intrinsic value as well.
In the context of a water resource, the wide range of value can come from users’ use of the resource to other social and environmental concerns like health, cultural practice, tradition, sustainability, ecological integrity, etc that will form the basis for users desire to manage the water resource. In a study conducted by Johnson and Baltodano (2004) on community watershed management in Nicaragua, ownership is a significant variable to assess motivation of users to protect their water sources. Security of access to the water source is an incentive to participate in the protection of water sources. Water sources that belong to households are likely to be protected than when these are public. But then again, value is not the only driving motivation for management.
29
Blomquist et al (2004) emphasizes the importance of institutional research in water resources management to explain processes particularly on “how they shape management alternatives water users and organizations consider and adopt, and how they affect the outcomes that result”. Following this argument, it can be hypothesized that management which relates to value and institutions produces an outcome associated with the desired or accepted water quality and quantity, especially for water resources with competing uses.
2.4. The biophysical dimension of water resource governance
Past studies provide an empirical basis for on the effect of environmental factors to the quality and quantity of water (see Noguchi et al 2005; Chang et al 1983; Paul and Meyer, 2001;
Allan, 2004; Peters and Meybeck, 2000; Klapproth, 2000; Rola et al, 2004). To understand governance is also to assess the relationship between interactions of the elements in the social dimension to the biophysical condition of the water resource. This is the biophysical dimension of water governance. People value the water resource and that institutions are established to support the people’s value. They also set management activities to sustain and/or improve the condition of the biophysical condition of the water resource, particularly in terms of water quality and quantity. This is the point where there is a gradual shift from the social into the biophysical dimension of governance to assess the capacity of the water resource to respond what people most value, for e.g. the use of the resource or achieve the substantive goal, for e.g. protection of the water resource.
But water quality and quantity are not solely due to how people use or manage the resource but also to other environmental factors - land cover, land use, soil type, climate, rainfall, etc. Although some environmental factors are independent variables, institutions and
30
management can sustain/improve land use and land cover that may have affected the quality and quantity of water. Thus, the biophysical condition of the water resource serves as a signal for governance actors to make necessary decisions and actions to protect and improve the capacity of the water resource system to respond to its various and/or competing uses. But institutions and management are not fixed but should be open and flexible to respond to the dynamics of water resource systems.
2.5. An alternative model to understand water governance
The importance of water to “life, development and environment” as stated in the Dublin
Principles requires a dynamic and evolving concepts and model of how it should be governed to sustain its functions and services to all users and the environment. No matter what the location, condition or governance configuration, what is important is to be able to understand the equally dynamic water resource system. Understanding starts from identifying and describing key variables of governance and how these variables interact to produce a water resource system that satisfies the needs of “life, development and environment” in terms of both quantity and quality.
Several studies have been conducted to show various configurations of governance (see Rogers and Hall, 2003; Malayang, 2004; Pereira and Quintana, 2009; Antunes et al, 2009; Salgado et al,
2009;) to provide tools and insights to understand water resource governance in different settings. The water resource governance model developed by Malayang (2004) is characterized by multiple institutions, hierarchy, institutional mandates, sector representation and themes covering the technical, social, economic and political concerns of water. In his model, the hierarchy, sectors and themes define the “governance space” where water decision and actions involve institutional competition or collaboration (Figure 2.6) “Decisions and actions set the
31
parameters on (a) how water is to Figure 2.6. Three dimensions of water governance in the be defined as a resource; (b) how Philippines (Malayang, 2004) it is to be availed of; and (c) how it is to be used”, which essentially constitute the policy
(Malayang, 2004). These multiple themes can be considered as the elements of
Norgaard’s (1994) cosmos, which affect the condition of the water Figure 2.7. 3 Pillars and 1 beam, the basis for resource system (environment) itself quality river basin evaluations. Also associated of each principle with the vertices depending on the decisions and actions made. of analysis considered in ADVISOR (Pereira and Quintana, 2009)
Following Malayang’s (2004) argument, institutional configuration in the governance space is a critical role as a basis for decisions and actions.
Pereira and Quintana (2009) provided a framework on evaluating water resource governance emphasizing the sense of a post- normal science (see Funtowicz and Ravetz,
1994) considering the complexity and uncertainty of a river basin. This framework is what authors referred to as the “3 pillars and one beam” which involves characteristics of governance evaluation as represented by the three pillars
32
and across all these is the wide participation in evaluation (Figure 2.7). On the other hand, the study of Antunes et al (2009) focuses on the extent of participation and the process of evaluation of river basin governance suggesting three deliberative methods, i.e. participatory modeling, deliberative visioning and social multi-criteria evaluation.
Although the Pereira and Quintana (2009) and Antunes et al (2009) frameworks recognize the complex and diverse issues involved and emphasize participation, they do not give a picture of the biophysical condition of the water resource resulting from governance. The
IWRM model of Radif (1999) and Saleth and Dinar’s model of water institutions and water sector performance include environment but they were not specific as to how environmental influence is linked to IWRM or water sector performance, respectively. The above models present more of a process than of the interactions. Interactions are crucial since a water resource
(or any natural resource) is a complex and dynamic system that is a product of the co-evolution of the elements within that system. Interactions produce feedback mechanisms that result to or in contrast with a desired outcome or goal.
What is also lacking in the models is the emphasis on the social and biophysical interactions in the governance realm. The “problem of fit” between governance attributes and ecosystem dynamics is due to the failure to interconnect humans with the biophysical systems in the context of governance (see Galaz et al, 2007). For instance, how can we use knowledge to understand changes in the ecosystem? How can institutions arrest further degradation of the resource? How can management interventions fit with the dynamics of ecosystem? Similarly, how can changes in the ecosystem be used as basis to formulate institutions and design management initiatives? One important consideration in modeling governance is to treat social and biophysical systems as dynamic, interconnected and coevolving that create feedback
33
mechanisms. This then requires an active adaptive management as forwarded by Folke et al
(2002).
The above discussion shows how values, institutions and management are linked and how their linkage results to the biophysical condition of the water resource. Essentially, the value, institution and management and the biophysical condition of the water resource are the elements that interact and co-evolve to aid in understanding the dynamics of the water resource governance system. This is similar to Norgaard’s co-evolutionary thinking of the interactions of values, organizations, knowledge, technology and environment. The water resource governance model introduced in this study puts emphasis on the sense of value of people over their water resource; the institutions which are crafted or implemented by organization(s) through its governance actors; the management interventions using technology; the outcome of the link reflected in the biophysical condition, which is the environment. In all these elements is the knowledge – the source of information of people who are using/interacting with the water resource and those who are involved in governance through their experience, as a resident within the water resource base, as a community leader, his/her skill or profession or supplied by laws, policies and mandates. Figure 2.8 illustrates the water resource governance model following the arguments presented in the above discussions.
34
Figure 2.8. The water governance model
WATER RESOURCE GOVERNANCE
K Values N O Management Institutions W L E SOCIAL D BIOPHYSICAL G E
Biophysical condition of the water resource
Arrows describe the linkages of the variables. Each variable is enclosed in an open box
to signify that these are open variables that interact with other variables. Similarly, the broken
line between social and biophysical subsystems of the water resource also indicates that these are
open and are interacting with each other. The flexible and dynamic characteristics of the model can be
used as an analytical framework to better understand governance by determining the interactions of
variables through their linkages. In some cases, it can be used as a diagnostic tool when there are water
quality and quantity issues that need governance interventions.
How do we operationalize this model into an actual water governance scenario? At this point, we make some assumptions. Users value the water resource because of its uses, its role in the community’s culture, and its ecological function, among others. Linking this to institutions, this sense of value has to be translated into rules and policies that will guide people in their
decisions and actions to manage the water resource to achieve their goal. On the contrary,
institutions may not support the value of users within the water resource base that result to their alienation in management. At times, management decisions are often based on factors that do not consider local situation. Institutions include rules, policies and laws defined and implemented by
35
organizations and groups internal and external to the physical boundary of the water resource.
Organizations and groups are critical because these are the “actors” of governance who
command compliance to the institutions among the water users. In this aspect, it is important to
assess whether institutions are congruent or incongruent with the expressed values of users.
Other aspects to look into are determining whose values and institutions prevail when it comes to
decisions and actions and how institutions “shape management alternatives” (Blomquist et al,
2004). The linkage of values, institutions and management define the social dimension of water
resource governance. Given this governance configuration, it is important also to assess the
biophysical condition of the water resource, to assess whether the “management alternatives”
which is linked to values and institutions produce an outcome that satisfies the need and meet the
goals of management. Biophysical condition will also link to how users’ value changed or is
affected due to biophysical changes of their water resource. In turn, biophysical condition
provides signals to assess whether governance dynamics will work towards sustaining and/or
improving the water resource.
2.6. Suggested Methods when Applying the Model
The suggested model puts emphasis on looking at the complex, dynamic and coevolving social and biophysical dimensions of water governance. The link of variables require gathering
social and biophysical data by combining social and natural research methods that are
appropriate to a selected situation or location. The use of mixed methods (see Creswell, 2003) of
data gathering and analysis is recommended but the researcher is left to explore appropriate
methods. What is important is that methods selected should account for the dynamic nature of
water resource system, the flexibility to fit specific objectives and the uncertainties involved in
36
gathering social and biophysical data (e.g. availability of respondents, accessibility of the location, weather condition, existing data to provide baseline characteristic of the water resource system, availability of needed research materials or equipment, accessibility to laboratory for water quality tests, skill of the researchers, among others). Table 2.1 provides some basic
questions that may be addressed and the suggested method(s).
Table 2.1. Key questions and methods
Key Variable Key Questions/data needs Method
What is your value of the water resource? Why? Interviews What is/are the past and existing uses of the water resource? Survey questionnaire Value What is/are the effect(s) of this use to other uses, to other resources Participant (e.g. land)? Why? observation What is your preference of this water resource (e.g. in terms of use, Focus group what should be done)? discussion
What are the policies or rules in using the water resource? Interviews Who formulates these policies/rules (e.g. organization, group, agency) Survey questionnaire What is the participation of people in the formulation and Participant implementation of the rules/ policies observation Institution What do you think are the advantage(s)/benefit(s) of these Focus group rules/policies? discussion What do you think are the conflicts/problems of these policies or rules? Secondary data (specify each identified policy or rule) gathering – reports, How is your value of the water affected by these policies/rules? memos, minutes of the Documents of policies or laws operating within and outside the meeting, etc. physical boundary of the water resource List of groups, organizations or agencies and their mandates that influence institutional mechanism
What do you mean by water resource management? Interviews Who are involved in the management of the water resource? What are Survey questionnaire their roles in water resource management? Participant What are the goal(s) of the people in managing the water resource? observation What are the conflicts/problems in the management of the water Focus group Management resource? discussion How are these conflicts/problems resolved? Secondary data Who do you think should have the responsibility in managing the gathering – reports, water resource? Why? memos, minutes of the To whom do you usually raise your concern/ problem on your water meeting, etc. resource?
Was this problem adequately responded? Why or why not? Documents/reports/proposals of management initiatives/activities conducted or planned
What is your observation on the present biophysical condition of Community mapping the water resource (quantity and quality of water, riverbank or Transect walk
37
riparian) Transect What are the changes and what causes these changes? Discharge/depth/ Assessment of water quantity (e.g. discharge, depth, volume) and volume measurements quality physical, biological and chemical characteristics of water appropriate to local Biophysical over time (Water quality depends on the use of the water and the setting and availability condition objectives of the study) of materials, e.g. flow Data that affect water quantity and quality, e.g. weather, amount of meter, flotation precipitation, soil type, land cover/vegetation, land use method, etc) Map of the water resource that show features like land cover, land Methods for water use, topography, accessibility (selection of feature depends on the quality tests should objectives of the study) comply with the accepted method for a specific water quality parameter
Selection of respondents should be able to capture varied experiences, skills, observations
and interactions of users as well as position (e.g. as user, leader, official, decision maker, staff,
personnel) in the governance configuration. Whilst, selection of sampling locations and
frequency will also be able to represent the dynamics of water resource systems in different
events, e.g. seasonality, flow period, stream order, land cover, etc.
2.7. Application and Contribution of the Model to Understanding Water Resource Governance
This governance model was tested in the six selected sites in Bukidnon, Philippines,
which represent levels of governance at the barangay (village), city/municipality and national
government. Results of the study show that people value the water resource for its uses, its
importance to their culture and tradition, their ownership of the land and their sense of identity.
But groups, organizations and agencies within and outside the physical boundary of the water
resource take the responsibility to translate these values into rules and policies, which are largely
patterned from national laws. The role of these groups, organizations and agencies are very
critical since they are the main “actors” of governance who either adopt or modify institutions. In
some cases, institutions set limits and restrictions on the use of the resource, which contradict
38
how people value the resource. In addition, institutions do not account for cases of competing uses within a water resource.
The common goal of water resource management among the six sites is to sustain and/or improve its uses. Management alternatives are based on the institutions stipulated in national laws but the implementation of management is difficult due to financial and technical constraints experienced by the actors of governance, that is, the group, organization or agency. On the contrary, there are also cases where management activities are built-in within the structure or operations of the organization or agency. But the management is for compliance and not used as a basis to improve the condition of the water resource. An assessment of the biophysical condition of the water resource indicates problems on either quantity, quality or both. This is because management activities do not reflect management goals and are lacking to improve water quality and quantity. The causes of deterioration show the need for organizations and agencies to assess the applicability of the institutions to local setting and to explore other management activities and collaboration with water users.
The governance model presented focuses on the social and biophysical dimensions of a water resource governance. The intent is to link values, institutions, management and biophysical condition to identify congruence or conflicts that affect or potentially affect the sustainability of the water resource system and/or improve the quality and quantity of water to satisfy needs of users and meet their management goals. Incongruences represent the gaps of governance where attention is needed to better understand and improve it. The output and lessons of the study serve as a basis to more deeply explore other more appropriate and relevant institutional mechanisms
(e.g. collaboration, agreements, deliberations) and management initiatives at the local and catchment scale (e.g. land use zoning; natural and/or assisted regeneration to increase water
39
infiltration and decrease turbidity, erosion or sedimentation; social services like health and
sanitation and educational campaigns; workshops and capability building activities, etc).
Strengthening the capability of local groups, organizations and agencies operating within the
physical boundary of the resource is necessary for them account for responsibility, accountability
and transparency in governing the water resource. This is an important aspect to include in
analyzing the institutional mechanisms occurring in the governance configuration because these
groups, organizations and agencies are the main actors of governance. Their institutional
mandates, administrative rules and the policies they follow affect management, which in turn,
affects the biophysical condition of the water resource. The condition of the water then affects how the water resource will be able to sustain its services and functions to “life, environment and development”.
2.8. Challenges, Limitations and Caveats
As with any other models, there are limits and caveats to the suggested model. It only focuses on four key variables that are seen as critical in understanding water resource governance. The assumptions, which essentially become the bases for site selection are that: 1)
people value the water resource; 2) there are actors of governance (e.g. groups, organizations, agencies); and 3) there are formal and informal institutions. Although the model emphasizes the
social-biophysical link in water governance, other variables which may be important (historical
events, cultural beliefs and practices, poverty index, security issues, local and national events,
etc). But this is a challenge for other researchers to explore other variables that applies to the
local setting. However, the addition of variables should not lead to confusion in the interpretation
of the findings of the study.
40
There are no specific methods to be used to apply the model so as to allow for flexibility and creativity of researchers to deal with social and biophysical data gathering and analysis.
Other variables may be added as long as the researchers are aware of how to link these with other variables. The challenge is to be able to explore deeper into water governance to come up with concrete actions and decisions to respond to the diverse issues of water.
41
CHAPTER 3. LINKING SOCIAL AND BIOPHYSICAL VARIABLES OF GOVERNANCE: Cases of water governance in Bukidnon, Philippines
Abstract: As a critical resource, there is a need to understand water governance beyond the traditional institutions, organizations and management realms. Governance should be able to link social – values, institutions and management - and the biophysical variables – water quality, water quantity and land cover of a water resource system. The linkages of these variables define governance. An analytical model is proposed in this study and applied to six cases of water governance in Bukidnon, Philippines. Cases represented different levels of governance - barangay/village, city/municipality, national) and water uses. Social data were gathered using key informant interviews, participation observation and document analysis. Water quantity was analyzed by measuring discharges and determining the demands of users. Water quality parameters were assessed by determining the bacteria, total suspended solids and nitrate and were compared to the standard values of water quality parameters based on the national policy. Land cover was determined from the existing 2005 land cover map of Bukidnon. Criteria for the linkages were established based from several literatures on water governance. Results of the study show that each case illustrated different linkages/gaps of variables regardless of governance level or water uses. Users’ values are acted upon by organizations who formulate the rules on the use, access, withdrawal and management of water. The link between values and institutions is critical in users’ participation in management. But in some cases, there are incongruence between management goals and management activities. Analysis of institutions showed that national laws are not context-specific to local setting and fail to address competing uses. Although water quality parameters are within the standard values, users perceived water quantity and quality differently that affect their values toward their water resource. Gaps of the variable linkages were the bases for institutional and management recommendations to improve water and water governance. Over-all, the output of the study provided empirical data on the relevance of values, institutions, management and biophysical variables in water governance.
Key words: water governance, social-biophysical linkage, gap analysis, value, institution, management
3.1. Background of the study
The research problem
Water covers 70% of the earth but about 97% is saline and only about 3% is freshwater.
But the use of freshwater is confronted with issues on availability, accessibility and the
technology to tap its uses. Aside from ecosystem services they provide, water resources are
important to humans. Among developing countries, the use of water for agricultural purposes accounts for 81%, industrial is 11% and only 8% for domestic (World Resources Institute, 2006).
But the capacity of water resources to provide services and uses is affected by the deteriorating
quality and diminishing quantity of water due to natural events, degradation of watersheds,
pollution, increasing population and industrialization, competing uses, among others, and even in
42
governance (see UNDP, 2004). These results to a myriad of issues not only on ecological integrity of water systems but also on satisfying the basic needs of society, particularly for health, livelihood and recreation. Thus, there is the urgent need to look at the many facets of water – biophysical, social, economic and political (see de Villiers, 2000).
Efforts are aimed to protect and manage water resources through various mechanisms – initiatives for water and watershed protection and rehabilitation, policy discussions, collaboration and agreements at local, national and global levels. But even at the local level, sustaining water even for human consumption continues to challenge both the users and decision makers.
Considering the critical limits of freshwater resources, governance of water resources should be able to balance the allocation of water for domestic, agricultural and industrial uses while maintaining the integrity of water resource systems for other ecosystem services.
Due to its central location, Bukidnon has a “significant role in the cultural and economic landscape of Mindanao” (Environmental Research Division, 1996), the southern island of the
Philippines. It is considered a watershed province with six major watersheds nested within its political jurisdiction. The largest Pulangi River is the source of hydroelectric power for the
Mindanao region covering 62% of the total Bukidnon land area. The economy of the province is agriculture-based producing crops and livestock for local, national and international markets.
Based on the 2005 Bukidnon land cover map, cropland covers 19.27% of the total land area. The increasing agri-industrialization put more pressure to both land and water resources. Competition of water is exacerbated by the various uses of the water, the deteriorating biophysical condition of watersheds, weak management accountability and the lack of infrastructures to facilitate the allocation and distribution of water. These become complicated due to loopholes in the implementation and compliance of laws and policies on water use, allocation and management.
43
To operationalize the concept of sustainable development in the context of agro- ecosystems, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) created the Collaborative
Research Support Program (CRSP) to promote sustainable agriculture and natural resources management (SANREM). In the Philippines, the Manupali watershed in Lantapan, Bukidnon was chosen as the SANREM site considering the economy, political system and landscape of the area which show “growth, economic change and environmental stresses” (see Coxhead and
Buenavista, 2001). Components of the five-year program demonstrated collaborative and participatory approach to gathering data to resolve local problems, particularly on agriculture, land, water and biodiversity. The program demonstrated how biophysical and social data gathered by researchers from NGOs, agencies and universities with the local residents are needed to improve environment and policy. In fact, the output of the study includes the natural resources management plan of the municipality of Lantapan, among others. The program also provided significant input to the formulation of environmental policies in Lantapan.
The importance of collecting data for policy improvement is also raised by Bautista and
Tan (2003) from the Institute of Philippine Cultures of the Ateneo de Manila University. The authors conducted a study of watersheds and groundwater depletion in the Philippines focusing on Cagayan de Oro in Mindanao, Philippines (85 kilometers from Malaybalay, Bukidnon). The study provided an overview of the watersheds in the Philippines and its implication to water supply and uses and forwarded recommendations particularly on establishing information generation and monitoring and the link of watershed management to water resource policies.
Bautista and Tan (2003) specifically noted the lack of important information on water resources and watersheds. They call for information on the headwaters and their status, vegetation, stream flow and volume of water, water quality and source, levels of pollution, tenure system, etc. as
44
input for national level policies on watershed protection, rehabilitation, management and
monitoring program (see Bautista and Tan, 2003).
Rationale of the study
Considering the importance of Bukidnon watersheds in the ecology and economy of the
Mindanao region, a study on water governance is equally important to sustain the uses and
ecosystem services of its water resources and watersheds. But there is a need to formulate a
model that addresses failures of governance, particularly on how individuals and society value,
decide and manage water resources (UNDP, 2004) and the “problem of fit” between governance
attributes and ecosystem dynamics (Galaz et al, 2007). The challenge is to understand
governance to be able to sustain or improve the condition of water resources. At a broader scale,
this study provides an alternative model to critically analyze gaps of governance that governance
actors can focus on, particularly on their decisions and actions towards water resources.
Specifically, the output of this study provides input to current institutional mechanisms and
management initiatives to improve and/or sustain water resources and watersheds in Bukidnon.
One of the components of SANREM project is community-based water quality
monitoring, which is a collaborative activity “to develop science-based indicators of water
quality that proved relevant for developing environmental policy” (Deutsch et al, 2001). The
main goal of the water quality monitoring is to create a local water monitoring group to collect
water quality data as input to improve the environment and policy. Another initiative for natural resources management is the Landcare program of the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in
Bukidnon. The program focused on conservation farming technologies, particularly agroforestry in the uplands, operationalizing its three cornerstones – appropriate technologies, institution building and partnership building (see Catacutan, et al, 2004). Both programs aimed to respond
45
to concerns on natural resources like water, watersheds and land, partnership and collaboration
and policy improvement. Catacutan, et al (2001) discussed the ICRAF-SANREM collaboration in the Philippines in the light of governance and natural resources management but the discussion was focused on institutions, adaptation, participation and socio-political and technical factors that affect sustainability of local natural resources management initiatives. Governance is
understood as a programmatic initiative but did not provide a concept or framework of
governance, particularly of natural resources. Nor did this effort relate directly to the social and biophysical condition of the natural resource.
3.2. Theoretical and conceptual framework of the study
Several models have been forwarded to respond to the need of an effective governance of
water and watersheds (see Rogers and Hall, 2003; UNDP, 2004; Malayang, 2004; Salgado, et al,
2009; and Pereira and Quintana, 2009). The formulation of an alternative model proposed in this
study focuses on understanding governance beyond institutions and management to include the
most frequent missing components: values and biophysical variables. Most importantly, this
“water governance gap analysis model” enhances previous models to allow analysis of the
linkages of social and biophysical variables and to identify gaps as bases to improve water governance. The linkages of the variables also provide a comprehensive scenario of governance at a particular scale, e.g. water resource, watershed, political or level of governance.
The model is grounded on the principles of the complex, adaptive nature of systems by
Holling (1986), the coevolutionary thinking and plurality of disciplines of knowing the system by Norgaard (1994) and the interconnection of social and ecological system to lessen the
“problem of fit” by Galaz et al (2007). Thus, the model is non-linear and non-predictive but
46
instead illustrates linkages and feedback loops as an analytical framework of understanding the social and biophysical dimensions of water governance. It is proposed that governance is defined by the interactions of both the social and biophysical dimensions. Specifically, the model used in this research focuses on the link between the social variables – values, institutions and management - and biophysical variables – land cover, water quality and water quantity, representing the social and biophysical dimensions of governance, respectively (Figure 3.1). The linkages between social and biophysical variables give a picture of the interactions that occur in water governance. These can be considered as two open subsystems in the water resource system: social and biophysical. As the model proposed, the outcome of these interactions defines water governance.
The arrows illustrate the linkages between variables enclosed in each open subsystem – social and biophysical. The broken line separating social and biophysical represents the open nature of these subsystems with matter, energy and information flowing between them.
Figure 3.1. The water governance gap analysis model
WATER GOVERNANCE
K Values N O W Management Institutions L E SOCIAL D G BIOPHYSICAL E
Biophysical condition of the water resource
47
The interactions of these variables embody knowledge – knowledge about how users
view their water resource; how the water resource works; how they use or interact with the resource; what are the processes, changes and the events that trigger changes; what should be done to the water resource. It also involves drawing out knowledge of governance actors on the decisions and actions on the institutions and management of water. Thus, it is knowledge that articulates this information to facilitate a deeper understanding of governance.
Value refers to actions to satisfy “goals, objectives and conditions” of users (Costanza,
2000) that ultimately determine the desired environmental quality (Costanza et al, 1997).
Institutions are actually rules (Ostrom, 1990) translated into laws and policies, which become the bases for decisions and actions. Institutions not only set the rules on how a resource, for instance
water, will be used but also set the mechanisms pertaining to property rights. Discussions on
property rights revolve around rules, rights and control (Ostrom, 1990; Schlager and Ostrom,
1992; Bromley, 1998), which are crucial in institutional and management decisions.
Management consists of activities that sustain or improve the biophysical condition of the water
resource. A thorough discussion on the theoretical underpinnings of the variables and how these
are applied in the model is discussed in Chapter 2.
To analyze for the gaps, it is important to look at different concepts drawn from different authors on the linkages of these variables. Dietz et al (2005) emphasize the role of individual value that influences decisions and behavior towards environment. Individual values and actions
are crucial, particularly on resource management issues, because these are the “ultimate
determinants of environmental quality and the possibility of sustainability (Costanza et al, 1997).
“Value determines a person’s actions and goals in life, including the intention and motivation to
perform” (de Vries and Petersen, 2009) and, at the same time, participate in resource
48
management. Applying ecosystem-based management, Slocombe (1998) claims the critical importance of value for effective planning and management process. But the use of water always involves quantity and quality so Agudelo (2001) emphasizes that the valuation of water has to link with the changes in the physical characteristics and the level of services of water resources and how society (or users) value these changes.
Gibson and Koontz (1998) argued that communities “must possess institutions to translate their values into rules that members follow” to “preserve their values”. Blomquist et al
(2004) consider the importance of institutional research in water resources management particularly on “how they shape management alternatives… and how they affect the outcomes”.
And outcomes come in the form of interactions of governance actors and users and also the biophysical condition of water and watersheds. Considering the complexity of the system, management should be active adaptive that “facilitate social context with open institutions and multi—governance systems” (Folke et al, 2002).
The effects of the biophysical variables to water have been documented in various studies
(see Noguchi, et al 2005; Chang, et al 1983; Paul and Meyer, 2001; Allan, 2004; Peters and
Meybeck, 2000; Klapproth, 2000; Rola, et al, 2004). The biophysical condition is important in assessing the ability of the water resource to sustain its uses to various users and its ecosystem services. It also acts as a guide for governance actors to have “open institutions” – to learning, to new approaches, to flexibilities in response to ecosystem dynamics - to improve the capacity of the water resource to sustain values and achieve the goal of management.
49
3.3. Objectives and methodology of the study
Location of research sites
The Province of Bukidnon is located in the southern part of the Philippines (Figure 3.2).
Seventy-percent of the land area is above 500 masl elevation and about 78% of the land area has slope above 18% (PPDO, 2005). The 2005 Bukidnon land cover map estimated a 30.97% wooded land, 24.9% natural forest, 21.16% grassland and 19.27% cropland. Rivers and lakes covers 1.01% Major crops include sugarcane, corn, pineapple and rice. This study applied the model in six water resources in Bukidnon – 4 rivers and 2 lakes – located in six barangays or village (see Table 3.1).
Objectives of the study
The purpose of the study is to understand water governance through the linkages of the social and biophysical variables. Specifically, it aims to 1) identify users’ values of their water resources; 2) describe institutions and institutional mechanisms; 3) identify management interventions; 4) conduct water quantity and quality sampling; and 5) perform gap analysis between values, institutions, management and biophysical condition of water resources.
50
Figure 3.2. Land cover of Bukidnon indicating location of study sites
51
Research Methods
Objectives 1-3. Data gathering methods included key informant interviews conducted by the
researcher using a semi-structured questionnaire. Participant observation was performed while
doing biophysical data gathering to validate water uses and other respondents’ accounts as
reported in interviews. Data on policies and national laws were gathered using content analysis
of documents, specifically to determine stipulations related to the classification, use and
management of water resources, including the roles and mandates of organizations and agencies.
Additional data were collected from water consumption records of the Guinuyuran Rural
Waterworks and Sanitation Association (RWSA), Dagumbaan Water System Association
(DWSA), Don Carlos Water District (DCWD) and the Malaybalay City Water District (MCWD)
Land cover map and data were obtained from the Environmental Science for Social Change
(ESSC).
Respondents were purposely selected following a checklist of criteria to cover the full
range of knowledge, experience, interactions and observations of water users, community and tribal leaders, elders and early settlers, local officials, organization staff and officers and agency personnel. A total of 109 respondents were interviewed (Table 3.1). Interview transcripts were transcribed and coded to identify key concepts for each variable (Babbie, 2007). Codes were subsequently grouped into themes and frequencies per case counted.
52
Table 3.1. Case profile
Level of Case Water project/Use(s) Water Organizations** No. of governance classification* respondents
1 Potable water system A RWSA, BC, LWUA, 18 Barangay NWRB
2 Potable water system A DWSA, BC 19
City 3 Production of potable water A LGU, MCGWSS, BUHITA, 18 municipality BC, MCWD
4 Domestic, potable water A, C LGU, DCWD, LWUA, 15 system, ecotourism NWRB
National 5 Irrigation for agriculture D LIA, NIA 19
6 Irrigation for hydropower, D, C NAPOCOR, 20 fishing PANTUBADOL, BT, WT, BFAR
*DENR DAO 90-34 classifies water as: Class A – public water supply; Class B – recreation (primary contact); Class C – fishing, recreation (no contact); industrial (manufacturing); Class D – irrigation, livestock, manufacturing (cooling), other inland waters. ** Refer to Appendix 3. Organizations/agencies operating in the research sites.
Objective 4. Water sampling were done once a month from July to December 2008 to
obtain data during parts of both the wet (June) and dry seasons (November). Seasonal patterns are similar throughout Bukidnon. Parameters measured determine the quantity (discharge) and quality (total suspended solids, nitrate and bacteria) of water.
Discharge is the basis for determining the supply of the water resource available for use.
Discharge measurements were taken along rivers upstream of the dam (Case 3 and 5) using a
flow meter (Case 5) or by flotation method (Case 5). In flotation method, a pingpong ball was
used as a float to flow at the center of the river at a transect distance of 6 meters. Depths were measured at an interval of 1 meter of the river cross-section within the transect. A total of 5 trials/runs were made. Discharges were computed using area-velocity method (US EPA, 1997) in cubic meters per second (m3/s). In cases where intake boxes are constructed along the river,
discharge measurements were taken from the main pipe that goes to the intake box or reservoir,
53
recorded the time (in seconds) to fill a container with a known volume (in liters) expressed in
liters per second (l/s). All discharge calculations are reported in m3/s.
The data for water demand were taken from the average monthly water consumption
records for 2008 of water districts/association. In Case 5, the demand for irrigation water for
agriculture was based from the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) recommendation, of which the river discharge should be not less than 1 m3/s to irrigate the 570 hectares of ricefield.
Discharge ratio was computed by dividing the demand of water by the supply of water based on
the discharge data.
Water quality tests were conducted to determine whether quality is within or has
exceeded the standard values of water for a specific water use classification found in the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Department Administrative Order
90-34. Water samples for water quality (TSS, nitrate, bacteria) were taken from where discharges
were measured. Collection of water samples followed the protocol of laboratories where samples
were analyzed. Bacteria analyses were done at the Microbiological Laboratory of the College of
Veterinary Medicine at Central Mindanao University using the portion by dilution (Hoskins,
1934)). Analyses for TSS and nitrate were done at the Chemical Testing Laboratory of the
Department of Science and Technology using gravimetric and photometric methods, respectively
(AOAC, 1990).
Rainfall data were obtained from the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and
Astronomical Services Administration (PAG-ASA), which records daily rainfall at the
Malaybalay weather station. In 2008, PAG-ASA was able to expand rainfall data recording to other municipalities but stations are located in the urban centers of municipalities (see Figure
3.2; municipal points indicate location of urban center of the municipality). The municipal land
54
area covers a great extent which may cause error in using the rainfall data collected from these points which are far from the research sites. Although the collected rainfall data are not sufficient
for detailed water quantity analysis in the research site, it can provide a general index of
precipitation in the municipality. Watersheds of sites/cases were delineated from the topographic
map of Bukidnon obtained from the National Mapping and Resources Information Authority
(NAMRIA). The 2005 Land Cover Map of Bukidnon provided the data on the existing land
cover to relate it with water quality and quantity. On-the-ground validation of information in the
delineated watershed maps was conducted while collecting biophysical data. Rainfall and land
cover were used as indicative measures of the biophysical condition of the water resource to
supplement results of the water quantity and quality.
Objective 5. Gap analysis determined the strength/weakness of linkages of variables
following a set of criteria and decision rules. Criteria were drawn from the governance literature
(Rogers and Hall, 2003; Malayang, 2004; Elazegui, 2004; Swyngedouw, 2006; Galaz, et al,
2007; Pereira and Quintana, 2009) Results of interviews and document analysis provided the
data used to determine variable linkages. The strength of any given linkage is indicated by
number of criteria (Table 3.2).
55
Table 3.2. Criteria* for gap analysis
Possible Variable Decision rule: strength/weakness of Criteria Linkages the linkages Values-Institutions • Institutions implemented preserve or Strong (2/2) support diverse values
Weak (1/2) • Institutions respect culture of various users Absence Values-Management • Management goals reflect diverse values Strong (2/2) • Congruence of management activities to users’ goals Moderate (2/3) • Congruence of management activities to Weak (1/2) users’ values
Absence
Values-Biophysical • Sufficient quantity of water available for Strong (2/2) various uses • Satisfactory quality of water available for Moderate (2/3) various uses Weak (1/2) • Preserves the condition of the water resource as an important cultural and Absence historical site
Institutions- • Policies for management are implemented Management Strong (4/4) • Recognition of competing uses
• Institutions reflect management goals of Moderately strong ( 3/4) users Moderately weak (2/4) • Open institutions that recognize collaboration with users and other Weak (1/4) organizations and agencies
Absence
Institutions- • Flexible institutions to reflect the Biophysical Strong (3/3) changing biophysical condition • Open institutions that recognize Moderate (2/3) problems/concerns of water resource Weak (1/3) • Institutions are flexible to suit local situation Absence
Management- • Current management effort to Biophysical Very Strong (6/6) sustain/improve water quantity • Current management effort to Strong (5/6) sustain/improve water quality Moderately strong (4/6) • Current management effort to monitor land cover of the watershed Moderately weak (3/6) • Current management effort to monitor land uses within the watershed Weak (2/6) • Capacity to respond to problems and concerns in water condition Very weak (1/6) • Capacity to respond to problems and
56
concerns in watershed Absence
Notes: Criteria are not fixed. In the application of the model, more criteria can be added to suit local situation and objectives of the study. Fractions in parenthesis indicate the number of criteria satisfied over the total number of criteria per variable linkage.
Results of the gap analysis serve as guide for recommendations to governance actors to improve governance and sustain the uses of the water resources.
Limitations of the study
The biophysical data are limited to determine the biophysical condition of the water resources due to 1) the lack of historical data; 2) the limited duration of water sampling; and 3) the minimal sampling frequency and location. Sampling duration and frequency are limited due to financial and time constraints and the accessibility of laboratories to analyze the samples.
Bacteria, TSS and nitrate have specific time handling requirements (not more than 3 hours for bacteria and 4 hours for TSS and nitrate).
Although the study provided an intensive gap analysis of the social and biophysical variables, the link of the social to the biophysical dimension could not be established at this stage due to the limited biophysical data gathered. However, the output of the biophysical assessment made important recommendations to institutions and management variables. Other variables, e.g. demographic, total solids, oxygen demand that could have enhanced the linkages and provide a better assessment, were beyond the scope of the study. An extended duration and increase of sampling frequency can capture events like high/low rainfall and flow, which are important in determining water supply and quality.
57
3.4. Results and discussion
The social and biophysical variables of governance
If governance is about decisions and actions as defined by Currie-Alder, et al (2006) and
Malayang (2004), then it is important to know what forms the bases for these decisions and actions (i.e. values, institutions) and how decisions and actions are acted upon (i.e. management) by governance actors (organizations) and the users of the resource. Biophysical variables characterize water quality and quantity to assess the condition of the water that satisfy users’ values of the water resource. The feedback mechanisms created by these interactions illustrate scenarios of water resource governance as exemplified in the six cases of water resource governance in Bukidnon. (Detailed results per case are presented in Appendix 4).
Themes emerged from the coding of responses of the 109 interviews (see Table 3.1).
These responses illustrate the “story” of governance that involves users, managers and the values and institutions that all affect the quality and quantity of the water on which they depend. In the case of biophysical variables presented in Table 3.3, respondents shared their views and observations about the condition of their water resource. The perceived changes indicate their level of satisfaction of the quantity and quality of water and land cover and how these affect their values towards their water resource.
58
Table 3.3. Interview data results (n=109)
MAIN VARIABLE THEMES FREQUENCY PER CASE TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 (n=109) · Necessity to life 8 9 8 3 8 8 44 40.37% · Basic needs: drinking, washing, bathing, etc 6 10 11 3 6 4 40 36.70% · Livelihood (e.g. farming, fishing, poultry) 1 1 1 0 10 10 23 21.10% · Health 1 5 3 1 0 2 12 11.01% VALUES · Use of other people 1 0 9 0 0 0 10 9.17% · Cultural: (ritual, story, trademark/identity, historical) 1 0 1 1 0 2 5 4.59% · Hydropower 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 4.59% · Religious/gift of God 1 2 0 1 0 0 4 3.67% · Ownership of the land 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.92%
· Payment of water bills/irrigation fee 6 16 0 0 19 0 41 37.61% · Protection (e.g. maintain cleanliness, planting, no cutting, etc) 4 0 15 1 1 10 31 28.44% · Use of approved fish nets/fishing methods 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 13.76% · Maintenance of dam structures 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 13.76% · No use of water for bathing, washing, fishing 0 2 0 10 0 0 12 11.01% INSTITUTIONS · Disconnection upon non-payment of bills 5 6 0 0 0 0 11 10.09% · Sharing of benefits 1 0 7 0 0 1 9 8.26% · Water scheduling 0 2 0 0 5 0 7 6.42% · Use of water meter 3 4 0 0 0 0 7 6.42% · Monitoring of water quality 2 0 1 1 0 2 6 5.50%
· No tapping of water from main line 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 2.75%
· Sustain use 10 9 6 7 4 13 49 44.95% · Protect the water resource 4 1 9 1 1 7 23 21.1% · Continuous/sustain flow of water 3 8 3 1 7 0 22 20.18% · Balance the distribution of water 1 1 0 0 6 0 8 7.34% MANAGEMENT: · Sufficient water 0 1 2 2 1 0 6 5.5% goal(s) · Preserve the water resource 0 0 1 5 0 0 6 5.5% · Maintain water system/dam 0 2 0 0 4 0 6 5.5% · Peace, harmony, unity 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.83% · Provide direction 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.92% · Uphold the rights of Lumad (indigenous) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.92%
· Watershed rehabilitation (e.g. MANAGEMENT: reforestation, tree/bamboo planting, nursery activities establishment) 6 5 15 7 3 15 51 46.79% · Maintenance of water system/dam 9 18 0 2 11 0 40 36.70%
59
· Monitoring of activities within the water resource 4 1 2 1 0 15 23 21.10% · Clean-up/beautification 2 0 1 8 4 2 17 15.60% · Collection of fees 4 5 0 2 4 0 15 13.76% · Monitoring of water quality 1 0 4 2 2 9 8.26% · Organize groups (e.g. Forest/water guards, volunteers) 0 0 4 0 0 5 9 8.26% · Water scheduling 0 2 0 0 4 0 6 5.50% · Ritual 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.75%
· Organization 10 14 11 5 12 15 67 61.47% MANAGEMENT: · Both 6 3 1 6 6 3 25 22.94% responsibility · Community/users 2 1 6 4 1 2 16 14.68% · I don’t know 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.92%
· Water quantity is decreasing 3 13 0 14 15 19 64 58.72% PERCEIVED · Water quantity has not changed 15 6 18 1 4 1 45 41.28% BIOPHYSICAL · Water quality is deteriorating 2 14 2 13 12 20 63 57.80% CONDITION OF · Water quality has not changed 16 5 16 2 7 0 46 42.20% · Land cover changed due to other causes THE WATER (e.g. logging, farming, etc) 15 4 3 12 13 3 50 45.87% RESOURCE · Land cover has not changed 3 5 15 3 1 0 27 24.77% · Land cover has changed due to water use/project 0 0 0 0 5 18 23 21.10% · No idea 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 9.17% Note: Data overlap per theme, for instance, a respondent may claim 2 or more values, institutions or management
Water users’ values
The six cases of water governance in Bukidnon present the range of values of users to the water and to the water resource Generally, respondents value water as a necessity to life (40%) and for its various uses for domestic (37%), livelihood (21%) and health and sanitation (11%) shown in Table 3.3, and thus agree to protect and manage the water resource. But value is not only due to personal consumption but also its uses to other people as well as its cultural and religious values. The intrinsic value of water was expressed by an elder and tribal leader, “sa wahig yan sa langusa hu etaw, iyan sa kinabuhi” (water is the blood of people, it is life). The importance of the river is also because of the cultural story his ancestors hold. As related by a
60
tribal leader in Case 6, it is in this portion of the Pulangi River where a number of lives of Lumad
(generic term for indigenous groups in Mindanao) were saved by Wali, a human comedian, from a human-eating monster, Ikugan, who lived in the river. This is why Lumad offer panalawahig
(water ritual) every year in this portion of Pulangi River. Panadtalan is also the site of a battle between Manobo indigenous group and the Muslims in the early 1300’s which resulted into a tampura hu balagun (a ritual where bamboo pole is cut to signify the resolution of the conflict between groups). These cultural values were mentioned specifically by elders and early settlers but not by other users.
In most cases, the use values are enhanced via the establishment of infrastructures, such as the water system for accessibility to potable water and irrigation to improve livelihood of farmers. In Case 6, the livelihood value evolved when a lake, which is actually the reservoir of the hydropower plant, was formed. The once subsistence fishing now becomes the means of livelihood for most of the residents around the reservoir. As part of the negotiation, NAPOCOR paid the landowners whose farms and residential lands are within the reservoir, thus farmers had to abandon their farms. In Cases 1 and 2, residents claim the value of the rivers not only for themselves but also because other people downstream depend on the water. According to one of the tribal leaders in Case 3, “sa laus ha taggamit hu wahig iyan sa taga Malaybalay. Sa wahig day tagdiya ta Malaybalay” (the true users of the water are the people in Malaybalay. Our water
flows to Malaybalay). “Sa wahig in-ila ta kanay dun tai, kinahanglan ha pandayaan day ta
madakel ha etaw ha tagkinahangaln hai” (the river is given to us here so we have to take care of
it because a lot of people need it) according to a Barangay Councilor in Case 3.
However, existing uses that cause changes in the water resource resulted to feelings of
apprehensions among users and residents. Because of the apparent change in the depth and size
61
of the lake, respondents/residents in Case 4 suggested to stop the extraction of water for
municipal potable water system to preserve the beauty of the lake. In Case 2, respondents
suggested to abandon the river and look for a reliable water resource since the current water
resource no longer satisfied their need in quality and quantity. Respondents in Case 6 wish the
clean, clear and flowing Pulangi river as it once was, which is free and accessible to use for their
household needs. Now, they have to pay for the water from their water system. Yet, despite these
changes, users still hope for a better, improved water resource.
Institutions and institutional mechanisms
Schlager and Ostrom (1992) stressed the importance of rules on the rights and duties in
the realm of property. With a common pool resource like water, the rights to access and withdrawal, management, exclusion and alienation result in associated positions of the holders of rights as owner, proprietor, claimant and authorized user. Although a decentralized system of governance is practiced in the Philippines, the Regalian Doctrine still dominates particularly in ownership of natural resources like water. Institutions (e.g. Water Code of the Philippines, Local
Water Utilities Act, Local Government Code, NIA Charter, NAPOCOR Charter) provide the bases to assign rights to organizations as state representatives. These organizations operationalize the institutions (Bromley, 1982).
With regards to water, the state owns all water resources as stipulated in the 1976 Water
Code but creates organizations to implement rules on the access, withdrawal and management of
water resources. For instance, the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) issues water rights
and the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) supervises water districts. National
agencies have specific mandates to undertake the use and development of water resources, e.g.
the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) on the establishment of dams and the National
62
Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) for power generation. Local government units are also tasked to provide basic services to constituents, including potable water supply, irrigation, among others in partnership with other organizations and national agencies. Thus, the state who has the property rights designates national and local organizations the rights to both access and withdrawal and management, which make them claimants of the water resource. As a result, water users only become authorized users, as members of organizations or as consumers, who have rights to access and withdrawal of water. These property rights regimes become problematic in cases of competing uses and when there are rules that are inappropriate or in conflict with the local situation.
In all of the six cases in Bukidnon, the expression of values is acted upon by specific organizations and groups at the local, city/municipal and national levels (see Table 3.1). Each organization and group has their own institutional mandates stipulated in various forms like memorandum of agreement, charters and laws. The creation of organizations shifts decision- making from the users or people who are the “originators of values” (Brown, 1984) to these organizations who set up the rules of using the water resource. Organizations/agencies formulate the collective-choice rules, patterned from the constitutional choice rules (see Ostrom, 1990). At the local level, local organizations like water districts/associations, irrigators and fisherfolks’ organizations implement rules for their day-to-day operations that water users will follow. As claimants and state representatives, organizations exercise decisions on the access, use and management of the water resource. Because of this, water users see the management of water resource as the responsibility of these organizations.
Users relate more to the operational rules, which are actually local policies, imposed by local water organizations that define their duties in the use and/or management of the water
63
resource, e.g. payment of water bills and irrigation service fees (38%), participation protection of
water (28%), maintenance of dam structures (14%), use of approved fish nets (14%), among
others (Table 3.3). Based on accounts of the respondents, compliance to local policies are driven
by the fact that these are “the rules” that they have to follow, which either may be in agreement
or in conflict with their sense of value. The conflict is due to the implementation of local policies
which are patterned from national laws (or constitutional rules) that are not context specific, i.e.
without consideration of the realities at the local setting. For instance, a local water district in
Case 1 forged a memorandum of agreement with the de facto landowners to avoid conflict on their use of the water resource. In Case 4, the local government unit issued an ordinance to prevent residents from using the lake for washing, bathing and fishing. By virtue of Presidential
Decree 198 (as amended), water districts have the right to “prevent interference with or deterioration of water quality or the natural flow” and the “management, administration, operation, and maintenance of all watersheds within its territorial boundaries”. Local
Government Code also stipulates the rights of local government units to develop parks and recreational sites. So although the intention is to secure the lake as a source of potable water for the larger population in the municipality and as an ecotourism site, the residents lost the use of the lake as source of water for domestic needs.
The classification of water and its beneficial uses are standardized via the national policy
- the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order (DAO)
90-34 and the NWRB Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) in 2005 which amended the
1976 Water Code of the Philippines (Boxes 3.1 and 3.2). These policies provide the criteria for management of water and water resources as well as the allocation of uses.
64
Given a level of understanding of the local situation from interviews and document analysis, the critical concern not addressed institutionally is on the competing uses of the water resource and among users. This is the case of “externalities” of one’s use on others’ uses.
Prohibiting access of residents to the lake is the concern to protect the lake as source of municipal water supply and ecotourism. Such restrictions ensure the safety and cleanliness of the lake to the larger population. Flow regulation of dams in response to hydropower demand affects fishing. The use of water by upstream farmers affects the supply of water available for downstream farmers. Natural events and the degraded watersheds contribute to magnify the decreasing quantity and deteriorating quality of water. But competing uses becomes complicated with NWRB’s IRR in 2005 which has serious implications in terms of use, management and potential conflict among users (Box 3.2).
65
Box 3.1. DENR DAO 90-34. Box 3. 2. NWRB IRR (March 21, 2005). Section 68. Water Usage and Classification. - The Section 1. Water may be appropriated for the quality of Philippine waters shall be maintained in a following descending purposes and uses: safe and satisfactory condition according to their best a. Domestic f. Livestock raising usages. For this purpose, all waters shall be classified b. Municipal g. Industrial according to the following beneficial usages: c. Irrigation h. Recreational (a) Fresh Surface Waters (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, d. Power generation i. Other purposes etc.) e. Fisheries Class AA Public Water Supply Class I. This class is intended primarily for waters having watersheds which Use of water for domestic purposes is the utilization of are uninhabited and otherwise protected and which water directly drawn from a source by a household for require only approved disinfection in order to meet the drinking, washing, bathing, cooking, watering of gardens National Standards for Drinking Water (NSDW) of the or animals and other domestic uses. Philippines. Use of water for municipal purposes is the utilization of Class A Public Water Supply Class II. For sources water for supplying the water requirements of a of water supply that will require complete treatment community, whether by piped or bulk distribution for (coagulation, sedimentation, filtration and domestic and other uses, direct consumption, the drawer disinfection) in order to meet the NSDW. or abstractor of which being the national government, its Class B Recreational Water Class I. For primary subsidiary agencies, local government units, private contact recreation such as bathing, swimming, skin persons, cooperatives or corporations. diving, etc. (particularly those designated for tourism Use of water for irrigation is the utilization of water for purposes). producing agricultural crops. Class C 1) Fishery Water for the propagation and Use of water for power generation is the utilization of growth of fish and other aquatic resources; water for producing electrical or mechanical power. 2) Recreational Water Class II (Boatings, etc.) Use of water for fisheries is the utilization of water for 3) Industrial Water Supply Class I (For the propagation and culture of fish as a commercial manufacturing processes after treatment). enterprise or any other aqua-culture ventures. Class D 1) For agriculture, irrigation, livestock Use of water for livestock raising is the utilization of watering, etc. water for large herds or flocks of animals raised as a 2) Industrial Water Supply Class II (e.g. cooling, commercial enterprise. etc.) Use of water for industrial purposes is the utilization of 3) Other inland waters, by their quality, belong to this water in factories, industrial plants and mines including classification. the use of water as an ingredient of a finished product. ______Use of water for recreational purposes is the utilization 1 In general, this refers to current best beneficial use of water for swimming pools, bath houses, boating, water that is expected to last, at least, for the skiing, golf courses and other similar facilities in resorts t 10 t 20 I i l h di t t d b and other places of recreation
Management goals and interventions Majority of the respondents (61.5%) claim that management is the responsibility of the organizations or local groups (Table 3.3). “Ang among pagtabang sa pagdumala mao ang pagbayad sa bill” (our contribution to management is through the payment of the water bill), as claimed by a water consumer. In cases where a national agency does the management, an official of the local irrigation association claimed “Ang mga farmers ang tagaan ug responsibilidad sa pagdumala, inay ang NIA, kay dili man ang NIA ang nag-gamit” (The farmers should have the
66
responsibility to manage, instead of NIA, because NIA is not the user). But for a woman tribal leader, management responsibility should include the Lumad because “dini man sa banwa day”
(this is our place).
Respondents claim the need for management to sustain the uses of the water resource
(45%), to protect the water resource (21%), for continuous flow of water (20%) and balance the distribution of water (7%) (Table 3.3). Their sense of management is to ensure the functionality and efficiency of water systems and dams, compliance to laws and regulations, watershed protection and rehabilitation, cooperation and involvement of all people and upholding the rights
of indigenous people. Response to these management activities includes watershed rehabilitation
(47%), maintenance of water structures (37%), clean-up and beautification (16%), collection of
fees (14%), among others (Table 3.3). In Cases 3, 5 and 6, other local groups (e.g. Bantay
Kalasan or Forest Guards, Fish Wardens) are formed as partners in management. Based on
interviews and observations, some management activities are focused more on compliance to
laws rather than responding to management goals. For instance, monitoring is focused on
submitting results as requirements of national agencies rather than as means to improve water
condition and water system. Monitoring results could have been used as points of discussion
among governance actors to improve the condition of the water resource and its watershed. In
some cases, management is lacking due to financial and technical constraints of organizations. In
some cases, management activities are focused on collection of fees rather than watershed rehabilitation to sustain the flow of water.
Although watershed rehabilitation is the dominant management activity, it is not done on
a regular basis nor is there a monitoring of growth and survival of planted trees or bamboos. Due
to limited budget and scope of management, rehabilitation is mostly done along riparian areas.
67
This may not have a significant impact on water infiltration and retention and in enhancing the
capacity of riparian to filter or buffer materials from entering into the water resource. In Cases 4
and 6, watersheds cover 55,361 hectares and 20,537 hectares, respectively, that is beyond the
capacity of the organization to manage. This is the case of a mismatch of management scale with
the watershed scale (see Minshall, 1988; Montgomery et al, 1995)
Management becomes complicated in cases of competing uses of the water resource.
Cases of competing uses have been studied and recommended the need to prioritize between ecological and human uses, formulation of a clear institutional framework, water research and monitoring, economic-based instruments to value water as well looking for other alternative sources (see Doupe and Pettit, 2002; Tabios and David, 2004) Cases presented in this study showed water resources having two or more types of water use. The challenge is how these uses can co-exist without jeopardizing the uses and the quality and quantity of water available for other uses. In Case 4, domestic purposes (1st) has a higher priority over municipal (2nd) and
recreational (8th), but residents who use the lake are prohibited by the local government because
of the other larger population who depend on the lake for potable water and recreation. In Case
6, power generation (4th) for the Mindanao has a higher priority over fishing (5th) of the residents
along the reservoir. Again, this is the case of institutions that do not relate to local situation.
There is also the confusion of which water quality standard to follow in cases of 2 or more uses.
In Case 6, Pulangi River is classified as Class A (municipal water supply) although it is used for
hydropower (Class D) and fishing (Class C) which have lower water quality standard.
Quantity and quality of water resources
Physical characteristics of the study sites/cases are presented in Table 3.4. Four of the cases (Cases 1, 2, 3 and 5) are rivers and 2 are lake (Cases 4 and 6). Of the river ecosystems,
68
Case 3 is has the longest channel length and largest watershed area. Case 4, which is a lake, is a drainage of two catchments within two political jurisdictions. Land cover in all the cases is dominated by either grassland or cropland.
Of the parameters measured, TSS has the highest standard deviation (27.17 mg/l) with a maximum value of 138.67 mg/l and a minimum value of only 0.1 mg/l. Bacteria show the highest number of times (16 times or 66.7% of the total samples) it exceeded the standard value.
All cases, except Case 6 in December, have low nitrate level relative to the standard value. For summary of biophysical results, refer to Table 3.5.
Table 3.4. Physical characteristics of study sites/cases
Case Ecosystem Stream Channel length Watershed Land cover (m) or area of lake order (has) area (has) Type Percent
1 Stream 1 2254.87 m 138.68 Grassland 38.274% Sugarcane 29.897% Corn 10.858% Other land with tree cover 6.991% Shrubland 5.857% No data 3.735% Road 3.615% Secondary forest 0.530% Pineapple 0.243%
2 Stream 1 1617.42 m 69.69 Corn 60.422% Grassland 15.584% Other land with tree cover 12.244% Secondary forest 5.246% Shrubland 3.295% Sugarcane 3.209%
3 River 4 14679.07 m 10566.46 Grassland 30.495% Mossy forest 20.977% Shrubland 20.193% Secondary forest 11.857% Other land with tree cover 4.220% Pine plantation 4.078% Manguim/Pine/ 3.967% Eucalyptus/Gmelina Primary forest 1.650% Corn 1.243%
69
River/Lake 0.510% Road 0.451% No data 0.252% Sugarcane 0.097% Pineapple 0.005% Rubber 0.003%
4 Lake NA 26.24 has 55361.2800 Sugarcane 27.721% Other land with tree cover 25.119% Grassland 19.359% Shrubland 14.530% Corn 3.653% Rubber 1.679% No data 1.561% Irrigated ricefield 1.265% Secondary forest 1.042% Road 1.042% River/Lake 0.873% Pineapple 0.835% Banana 0.653% Built-up area 0.583% Lake Pinamaloy 0.047% Mango 0.029%
5 River 2 11762.79 m 9401.76 Grassland 17.867% Irrigated ricefield 13.684% Mossy forest 11.284% Secondary forest 9.584% Corn 2.351% Sugarcane 0.624% Road 0.539% River/Lake 0.319% Primary forest 0.163% Built-up area 0.069% No data 0.006% Primary forest 0.004% Mossy forest 0.002% Coconut 0.002%
6 Lake NA 1157 has 20537.400 Sugarcane 34.377% Other land with tree cover 14.465% Grassland 14.281% Shrubland 12.866% River/Lake 6.501% Pulangi IV Reservoir 248.086% Irrigated ricefield 2.701% Rubber 2.259% Corn 2.142% Secondary forest 1.350% Built-up area 1.292%
70
Road 1.013% No data 0.667% Banana 0.423% Pineapple 0.030% Mossy forest 0.021% High value crops 0.003% Primary forest 0.002% Pine plantation 0.001%
Table 3.5. Summary of biophysical results
Q (m3/s) Q ratio TSS Nitrate Bacteria** (demand/supply) (mg/l) (mg/l) (MPN/100ml)
Sampling size 24 24 36 36 24 Mean 0.698 1.663 17.124 1.716 12 SD 0.899 2.014 27.17531 2.862 16.328 Min 0.001 0.052 0.100 0 3 Max 3.530 5.754 138.667 12.4 75 Standard value per water classification * 50 10 3 A (public water supply) N.A. N.A. 65 NR N.A B (recreation) 80 10 N.A. C (fishing) 110 Not considered N.A. D (irrigation, industrial)
No. of times exceeded 8 2 0 16 standard value or short of supply to cope with demand
% of time exceeded or 33.33% 5.56% 0 66.67% short of supply Notes * - Based on DENR DAO 90-34 ** - Based on the method of analysis used NR – no recommendation based on the DENR DAO 90-34
The four streams/river (Cases 1, 2, 3 and 5) show different levels of supply available for
use (Figure 3.3). Case 2 has the highest discrepancy between demand and supply (Figure 3.4).
In the six months measured, demand exceeded the supply 8 times. This is alarming considering
that discharge measurements were taken during the wet season in Bukidnon (Figure 3.5). In
situation where water is insufficient to cope with the demands, water scheduling were done to
71
distribute water. In Case 2 where there is an extreme shortage of water, users resort to dug wells,
springs or through informal arrangement with neighbors to share the water.
With regard to water quality, results of TSS and nitrate tests show that all water resources
comply with the standard values, except for Case 6 (Figures 3.7 and Figure 3.8). However, it is
important to note that TSS values almost reached the standard value in the month of August.
This could be due to the influence of rainfall, as also noted during the day of water sampling
when rainfall was relatively high in all sites. Note that the wet season peak is from July to
October (Figure 3.6).
Among the water quality parameters tested, bacteria show alarming results in the six
months of sampling period where most cases have exceeded the standard value 16 times, where
the MPN (most probable number) of bacteria exceeded the standard value of 3 organisms/100ml
(see Figure 3.9). Common bacteria isolated include Enterobacter and Citrobacter, which are
common to plants, animals and humans and are generally non-pathogenic. Citrobacter, however,
can occur in sewage-polluted waters (Singleton and Sainsbury, 1978). But the high number of bacteria isolated is an indicator of bacterial contamination, particularly the possibility of the presence of pathogenic bacteria (NYSDH, 2005). In fact, Shigella, Edwardsiella, and Proteus,
which are considered pathogenic to humans (Singleton, and Sainsbury, 1978; WHO, 2006) were
isolated in some water samples. Escherichia coli is absent in all water samples.
Values of water quality parameters may not exceed the standard values but the effects
will be more apparent as water and sediments move downstream. Considering the discharge and
the concentration of load, the effects can intensify downstream as shown in the computation of
the instantaneous contaminant loading (Table 3.6). Note that the computation of the
instantaneous load is based on the specific location and time of sampling only.
72
Table 3.6. Instantaneous contaminant load (ICL)
CASE 1 Month Discharge (l/s) TSS (mg/l) ICL (mg/s) Nitrate (mg/s) ICL (mg/s) Bacteria (org/l) ICL (org/s) Jul 9.58 0.10 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.40 3.83 Aug 10.33 33.70 348.12 0.00 0.00 0.90 9.30 Sept 17.11 1.10 18.82 0.00 0.00 0.30 5.13 Oct 15.62 0.40 6.25 1.30 20.31 0.60 9.37 Nov 14.99 0.60 8.99 2.00 29.98 0.30 4.50 Dec 14.39 0.60 8.63 0.24 3.45 0.30 4.32 Ave 13.67 6.08 83.16 0.59 8.07 0.47 6.42 Max 17.11 33.70 348.12 2.00 34.22 0.90 15.40 Min 9.58 0.10 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.30 2.87 CASE 2 Month Discharge (l/s) TSS (mg/l) ICL (mg/s) Nitrate (mg/l) ICL (mg/s) Bacteria (org/l) ICL (org/s) July 0.68 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.20 Aug 0.74 42.90 31.75 0.09 0.07 0.40 0.30 Sep 0.65 12.00 7.80 0.64 0.42 0.30 0.20 Oct 0.74 2.60 1.92 0.60 0.44 0.90 0.67 Nov 0.92 0.90 0.83 1.70 1.56 4.30 3.96 Dec 0.83 1.40 1.16 1.85 1.54 0.30 0.25 Ave 0.76 9.98 7.59 0.81 0.62 1.08 0.82 Max 0.92 42.90 39.47 1.85 1.70 4.30 3.96 Min 0.65 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.20 CASE 3 Month Discharge (l/s) TSS (mg/l) ICL (mg/s) Nitrate (mg/l) ICL (mg/s) Bacteria (org/l) ICL (org/s) Jul 1850.00 2.40 4440.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 2775.00 Aug 1200.00 44.60 53520.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 1080.00 Sept 1210.00 4.10 4961.00 0.97 1173.70 0.70 847.00 Oct 1860.00 10.00 18600.00 0.80 1488.00 0.40 744.00 Nov 350.00 6.50 2275.00 1.50 525.00 1.50 525.00 Dec 1010.00 1.70 1717.00 0.47 474.70 2.00 2020.00 Ave 1246.67 11.55 14399.00 0.62 777.09 1.17 1331.83 Max 1860.00 44.60 82956.00 1.50 2790.00 2.00 2775.00 Min 350.00 1.70 595.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 525.00 CASE 4 NO SAMPLING FOR DISCHARGE; LAKE ECOSYSTEM CASE 5 Discharge Month (m3s) TSS (mg/l) ICL (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) ICL (m/s) Jul 3530 8.7 30711 0 0 Aug 1200 31.6 37920 0 0 NO Sept 740 14.8 10952 0.4 296 SAMPLING Oct 780 9.4 7332 0.8 624 FOR BACTERIA Nov 1440 7 10080 3 4320 WATER IS FOR Dec 1490 7.6 11324 0 0 IRRIGATION Ave 1530 13.18 18053.17 0.70 873.33
73
Max 3530 31.6 126372.17 3 4320 Min 740 7 7332 0 0 CASE 6 NO SAMPLING FOR DISCHARGE; LAKE ECOSYSTEM
Watersheds have either dominant tree/woodland (Cases 3, 4 and 5) or cropland (Cases 1,
2 and 6) as shown in Figure 3.10. Although most catchments have dominantly
agricultural/cropland riparian, the low nitrate concentration may be due efficient farming
practices so that fertilizer application does not result to an increase in nitrate in water. Low
nitrate may also be due to higher bacteria, which is evident in the water quality tests on bacteria.
Denitrifying bacteria lessen nitrate content in water (see Rutherford and Nguyen, 2004). But high
bacterial contamination has implications to human health.
Given the limited duration of sampling, the sampling frequency, sampling location and
few parameters measured in this research, results cannot characterize the complete water
quantity and quality condition of water resources for the whole wet and dry seasons. High flow events during the rainy season were not sampled, and the annual low flow period from February to April was not sampled at all. Based on accounts of research partners who collected the data,
daily storm occur in the afternoons when rivers exhibit flash floods, particularly for Cases 3 (a
4th order stream) and 5 (a 2nd order stream). But discharge measurements were done
simultaneously with water quality sample collection done early morning so that the samples were
delivered to comply with laboratory requirements of the time of handling samples. The time of
sampling also affect TSS, nitrate and bacteria. High rainfall can result in erosion and
resuspension of sediments that lead to high TSS. The proliferation of Enterobacter and
Citrobacter is due to decomposing plant materials (twigs, leaves) in the riparian zone but pathogenic bacteria may be due to fecal contamination from animals and humans. The presence
74
of bacteria is also due to several factors such as vegetation, soil and human activities (see WHO,
2006). Concentrations in stream water are dependent both on sources and on the discharge rate.
Figure 3.3. ESTIMATED STREAM DISCHARGE July to December 2008 6 /s)
3 5
4
3
2 Discharge (m Discharge
1 Note: Cases 4 and 6 are 0 lakes Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Case 1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 Case 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Case 3 1.85 1.20 1.21 1.86 0.35 1.01 Case 5 3.53 1.20 0.74 0.78 1.44 1.49
Figure 3.4. DISCHARGE RATIO (Demand/Supply) July to December 2008
6
5 4
3
Discharge ratio ratio Discharge 2 Note: 1 Cases 4 and 6 are lakes 0 July August September October November December Case 1 0.89 0.91 0.55 0.60 0.63 0.65 Case 2 5.50 5.05 5.75 5.05 4.07 4.51 Case 3 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.27 0.10 Case 5 0.28 0.83 1.35 1.28 0.69 0.67
75
NORMAL Figure 3.5. TOTAL MONTHLY RAINFALL IN MALAYBALAY, BUKIDNON 1991 Source: PAG-ASA, Malaybalay 1992 600 1993 1994 500 1995 1996 400 1997 1998 300 1999 200 2000 2001 Total rainfall (mm) 100 2002 2003 0 2004 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2005 2006 Months (1991-2008) Note: normal is rainfall taken in a 30- 2007 year period, i.e. 1970-2000
Figure 3.6. MONTHLY TOTAL RAINFALL PER MUNICIPALITY IN BUKIDNON FOR 2008 Source: PAG-ASA- Malaybalay NORMAL 600
500 Malaybalay/Case 3
400 Don Carlos/Case 4
300 Maramag/Cases 2 and 6 200 Valencia/Cases 1 and 5 Amount of rainfall (mm) rainfall of Amount 100
Note: normal is rainfall 0 taken in a 30-year period, Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec i.e. 1970-2000
76
Figure 3.7. TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) IN STUDY SITES July to December 2008
160 Case 1 - public water supply 140 Case 2 - public water supply
120 Case 3 - public water supply
100 Case 4- public water supply/recreation
80 Case 5 - irrigation TSS (mg/L)
60 Case 6 - fishery/industrial Standard value- public water supply 40 Standard value- fishery 20 Standard value- irrigation/industrial 0 July August September October November December
Figure 3.8. NITRATE CONCENTRATION IN STUDY SITES July to December 2008 Case 1 - public water supply
14 Case 2 - public water supply 12 Case 3 - public water supply 10 Case 4- public water 8 supply/recreation 6 Case 5 - irrigation Nitrate (mg/L) 4 Case 6 - fishery/industrial 2 Standard value for public water 0 supply, recreation and fishery July August September October November December Note: Standard value applies to public water supply, recreation and fishing only. There is no recommended value for irrigation and industrial.
77
Figure 3.9. BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION IN STUDY SITES July to December 2008
80 Case 1 - public water 70 supply Case 2 - public water 60 supply 50 Case 3 - public water supply 40 Case 4- public water 30 supply/recreation
20 Standard value
10
0 Note: Sampling only done for July August September October November December Class A (public water supply) MPN (most probable number) org/100ml) number) probable (most MPN only. Cases 5 and 6 are irrigation and industrial
Figure 3.10. PERCENTAGE OF CROPLAND AND TREE/WOODLAND PER CATCHMENT 100
80
60
40 TREE/WOODLAND
Area (hectares) 20 CROPLAND
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cases
It should be noted, however, that although water quality parameters do not exceed with the
DENR standard values as shown in Figures 7-9, respondents’ perceived assessment of their water resource said otherwise. As shown in Table 3.3, almost 60% of the respondents perceived the water quantity is decreasing and the quality deteriorating, although respondents are purposely selected. However, these results are complemented with informal interactions with other users
78
and residents as well as through participant observation. Cases 2, 5, and 6 are those with the most
number of respondents who perceived a worsening condition of their water resource. Cases 2 and
5 have discrepancy of water supply and demand while Case 6 exceeds water quality standard at
certain period. Land cover change, i.e. from forest to farmlands, is caused by logging and farming (46%) as well as by natural events like long dry spell (Case 3). However, the existing water projects like the dams also promote expansion of ricefields or the change of ricefields and
wetlands into a huge reservoir/lake. Due to sediment deposition, islands are formed within the
reservoir/lake.
Linkages and gaps in governance
Data from the interviews and document analysis were used to determine the
strength/weakness of linkages among the variables as described in the model. The linkages/gaps follow the criteria of gap analysis as presented in Table 3.2. The absence of the linkage translates to governance gaps. Figures 3.11 to 3.16 present the gap analysis of the six cases (see Appendix
4 for detailed discussion of each case). The presence of an arrow indicates a linkage between
variables based on the established criteria. It should be reiterated that biophysical results
presented show only a baseline characterization of the water resources and as basis for
institutional and management recommendations that will sustain or improve the biophysical
condition of the water resource, but it is not strong enough to use as a test of the model.
79
Level of governance: Barangay (village)
Figure 3.11. WATER GOVERNANCE GAP ANALYSIS: Case 1 Figure 3.12. WATER GOVERNANCE GAP ANALYSIS: Case 2
Values V alues
Management Institutions Management Institutions
SOCIAL SOCIAL BIOPHYSICAL BIOPHYSICAL
Biophysical condition of the water resource Biophysical condition of the water resource
Water Use: Potable water system Water Use: Potable water system Classification: Class A (public water supply) Classification: Class A (public water supply)
Level of governance: City/municipality
Figure 3.13. WATER GOVERNANCE GAP Figure 3.14. WATER GOVERNANCE GAP ANALYSIS: Case 3 ANALYSIS: Case 4
V alues Values
Institutions Management Institutions Management
SOCIAL SOCIAL BIOPHYSICAL BIOPHYSICAL
Biophysical condition of the water resource Biophysical condition of the water resource
Water Use: Production of potable water Water Use: Domestic, potable water system, ecotourism Classification: Class A (public water supply) Classification: Class A, C (public water supply, recreation)
80
Level of governance: National
Figure 3.15. WATER GOVERNANCE GAP Figure 3.16. WATER GOVERNANCE GAP ANALYSIS: Case 5 ANALYSIS: Case 6
Values Values
Management Institutions Management Institutions
SOCIAL SOCIAL BIOPHYSICAL BIOPHYSICAL
Biophysical condition of the water resource Biophysical condition of the water resource
Water Use: Irrigation for agriculture Water Use: Irrigation for hydropower, fishing Classification: Class D (agriculture - irrigation) Classification: Class A, C, D (public water supply, fishing, industrial)
Notes: Absence Moderately weak Very Strong Weak Strong Very weak Moderately strong Moderate
Although users value the water resource, the existence of organizations and their rules
effectively result in a turn over of management responsibility from users to organizations. Water
users rely on these organizations to define institutions and conduct activities that sustain their
values, particularly the use of the water resource. The burden of getting the users’ involvement in
management and the compliance of the institutions now rests on these organizations.
The role of institutions is to be able to act as the bridge between values and the decisions
in management. Institutions and organizations supposedly represent the values of people (e.g.
Riker, 1980 and Dietz et al, 2005) with regards to water. To preserve the values of users,
institutions should be able to set up a system of rules that preserve or support users’ diverse
values and motivate them to take actions towards their goal of management. Our results show
81
that values are sometimes supported by local institutions through memoranda of agreement between users, residents, landowners and organizations. The benefit of using the water resource is shared by providing access to water system and payment of water user fee. Beyond policies and sharing of benefits, a Lumad in Case 3 appreciate their local water district because it respects and practices their cultural value through the annual panalawahwig (ritual for water) to offer prayers and thanksgiving to the migbaya (guardian) they call Bulalalakaw (guardian of the water) to have constant supply of water. All these initiatives encourage participation of users and residents in the management.
But the gap in the linkage between values and institutions is when institutions become
“humanly devised constraints” (North, 1990) that prohibit the expression of value. In such case, users value the water resource but local policies prohibit them to express their use values which weaken their desire to participate in management. In the interviews conducted in Case 4, residents expressed feelings of disappointment and resentment. “Kami nga mga tawo dinhi sa lake dili unta hikawan… Kung ang among atabay mamalhan, asa man mi paingon? Lain kaayo huna-hunaon nga ang tubig gi-negosyo apan kami dinhi walay tubig. Naa dire ang tubig pero dili mi makagamit” (We, the people here in the lake should not be deprived [of the water]… If our wells dry up, where will we go? It is absurd to think that the water is used for business but us here have no water. We have the source of water here but we cannot use it). Consequently, when resident respondents were asked about their participation in the management of the lake, they commented that “ngano maapil man mi nga sila ra man naka benepisyo? Kung tagaan mi ug tubig, magbayad man mi mao na dili mi magtabang kay wala man mi natagaan ug pabor. Ang nagdumala mao ra ang naka pahimulos” (Why should we participate in the management when only them get the benefits? If they provide us with water, we will also pay so we will not help
82
because we are not given favor in return. Those who manage are those who get the benefit).
These contrasting situations show that participation is a critical element in predicting the
linkages between values, institutions and management.
In some cases, the gap between institutions and management exists when local policies
focus more on the payment of bills, disconnection policies and repair and maintenance of
structures rather than on users’ participation in management to sustain their uses and achieve the
goal of management, primarily to sustain the uses the water resource. Although not critical at this
stage, the issue on the competing uses of water is not addressed in institutions and management.
Addressing this issue this early will not only avoid possible conflict but also focus the
management activities that allow the co-existence of different use values.
Even if institutions support values, it does not automatically translate into management that improves the biophysical condition of the water resource. This illustrates the relevance of the biophysical variables in the governance model as opposed to common governance models that focus on social variables, particularly institutions and management. The biophysical variables of governance are the basis to assess the capacity of the water resource to support users’ values and as basis to improve institutions and management. Agudelo (2001) also emphasized the importance of water quantity and quality in the use and values of users.
Respondents’ perceived biophysical changes in the quantity and quality of the water affect their sense of value because water can no longer satisfy their need or has lost the quantity and quality that they desired that reflect their cultural values. Respondents in Cases 1, 3 and 5 claimed there is no effect of the water project (water system or dam) to their water or land. But respondents in
Case 2 complain about the condition of their water resource which could no longer satisfy their needs. Massive extraction of water by the water district alarmed residents/respondents in Case 4
83
that resulted in the decrease in size and depth of the lake – the lake which they claimed as the
pride and trademark of their municipality. Residents/respondents in Case 6 expressed their
dismay over the change of the once clear, flowing river to a “stagnant” stinky lake (reservoir),
although the lake is now a source of livelihood of most residents around this lake.
Some respondents are conscious of their current extraction of water. For instance, a wife
of the farmer in Case 5 attested that “ang among kinabuhi nag-uswag tungod sa dam pero kung ang suba naa kanunay tubig. Kung mamadhan ang suba, dako kaayo nga problema” (our lives improve because of the dam but only if there is water in the river. If rivers will dry up, it will be a big problem). Water consumers interviewed in Case 1 also express concern of the expansion of water system services to other villages for fear that their river could no longer be sufficient in the future.
Similar to the social variables, water quantity and quality are also related to other biophysical and social factors – land cover, land use, soil, rainfall, flow period, seasonality, human activities, among others. Discharge is not only due to precipitation regime but also land cover, slope, soil type, rainfall events, and other natural and human factors. Pearson product moment correlation (r) was tested for Cases 1, 2, 3 and 5 (Cases 4 and 6 are lakes) between discharge and land cover, the latter data were taken from the 2005 Bukidnon land cover map.
Results of the correlation showed that the percentage of the tree-dominated land cover (natural forest, secondary forest, shrubland, tree plantations) of the total land area of the catchment and discharge has an r value of 0.74 while cropland and discharge has an r value of -0.69. High tree cover increases infiltration and water retention resulting to an increase in discharge while dominance of crops has lesser water infiltration and retention, thus decreasing discharge. This is evident in Case 2 where there is a wide discrepancy with demand and supply of water, as shown
84
in discharge ratio in Figure 4, where sugarcane covers 60% of the total catchment area. The result on the correlation test is contrary to what is generally expected, i.e. high infiltration and retention result to less discharge. However, in the case of the research sites, the discharge was measured at one point only per month so the discharge was possibly measured at baseflow.
Baseflow is from groundwater and since measurements were done during the rainy season, it is expected that baseflow is higher in tree-dominated land cover as compared to cropland. In Case 5 where the river is relatively big and with high discharge, water upstream from where the discharge was measured is tapped for ricefield (cropland) and so it is expected that the discharge downstream is decreased. In addition, tree species may also affect the rate of water absorption and transpiration which will also affect the discharge. To reiterate, the result may not be reliable due to the limited scope of biophysical data at spatial and temporal scales, however initial results show a relationship based on initial data gathered.
An important implication of the biophysical results relating to the model is in terms of the link between institutions and management, particularly in cases with competing uses of the water resource. In Case 6, major uses of the lake are hydropower and fishing. NWRB IRR (Box 3.2.) on water appropriation poses conflict in cases because hydropower (4th order) has a lower water quality standard than fishing (5th order). But the existence of the lake is primarily due to hydropower. In order for both uses to co-exist, institutions that define the criteria for water standard has to be flexible to account for the other use of the lake as source of livelihood of residents, who may have been displaced from farming because of the establishment of the hydropower dam.
Biophysical data should be a signal to improve institutions and management, especially for cases with standards exceeding the standard value or are perceived as unsatisfactory by users.
85
But data gathering of water parameters and monitoring are lacking or absent due to financial and
technical constraints. In all cases, there is no monitoring of discharge to determine the ability of
the water resource to sustain the demand. Some organizations conduct monitoring for
compliance but not as a tool to analyze the interactions of these variables in relation to water
quality and quantity. If there is monitoring, there are often problems with where samples are
collected. Water samples for potable use are collected from taps or downstream of water
treatment facilities (e.g. chlorinator) but not from the water resource itself, which means that
monitoring primarily consists of checking the functionality of the facilities (e.g. implementation
monitoring) instead of the sustainability of ambient water sources to provide sufficient water
with satisfactory quality. According to WHO (2006), measurement of pathogenic bacteria should
be done on source waters where the concentration is generally high. Timing of sampling is
important as well, particularly during rainfall and high/low flow events that affect the physico-
chemical properties of water (e.g. TSS, turbidity, chemical concentration), including discharge.
To reiterate, sampling done in this study is limited to characterize water quality under various
conditions and locations within the water resource.
For potable water supply, monitoring of physico-chemical parameters including turbidity,
TSS and nitrate are done annually based on Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA)
policy and the Department of Health (DOH) Administrative Order 2007-0012. But without the
baseline data and regular monitoring, it is difficult to do precautionary measures and proactive,
active adaptive approach to management. For instance, TSS results are below the standard values
but surveys in the area indicate the massive deposition of sediments and silts in the intake boxes,
dams and irrigation canals. With regards to bacteria, results of the tests are “not normally available in time to inform management action and prevent the supply of unsafe water” (WHO,
86
2006), thus the need to conduct regular monitoring and checking of the water resources as well as health data. Results of this study, which showed bacteria exceeding standard values and the presence of pathogenic bacteria, are sufficient information for concrete management actions on water quality monitoring.
Management interventions should move beyond the water resource and riparian to the watershed. This requires participation and collaboration of all users, organizations, concerned citizens and groups and local governments to match management scale with the watershed scale.
3.5. Water governance gap analysis model: insights and learnings
The cases of governance illustrate six different scenarios resulting from the interactions of the social and biophysical variables of governance. Actions and decisions are standardized via the creation of institutions. Institutions focus on compliance rather than encourage responsibility of users to protect the water resource. Institutions set the rules of how people and decision- makers will act, decide and implement activities to manage the water resource. This mechanism misses the crucial role of values which motivate people to be involved in governance (see
Costanza, 2000; Farley et al, 2005; Farber et al, 2002; Dietz et al, 2005). Although values supposedly represent institutions (see Dietz et al, 2005), nationally crafted laws and policies conflict with the realities at the local setting. This leaves local governance actors (e.g. users, local groups) to resolve such conflict. The incongruence between values and institutions also affects compliance to local policies and involvement in management activities.
The six cases of governance also show that even if values, institutions and organizations are set, these do not necessarily translate to satisfactory and reliable water sources to support diverse uses and values of water users. Hence, if governance only analyzes the social dimension,
87
there is no basis to test whether institutions and management improve the condition of the water resource. Biophysical variables provide the information to assess the quality and quantity of water that sustain users’ needs. Biophysical condition is also necessary so that water resource can continue to provide other ecosystem services. However, following the guiding principles behind the model, i.e. the complex, dynamic system (Holling, 1986), the co-evolution of subsystems (Norgaard, 1994) and the matching of governance with ecosystem dynamics (Galaz et al, 2007), governance should also be adaptive to the dynamic changes of both the social and biophysical dimensions of a water resource system. Water quality and quantity changes due to natural events and human factors will continually challenge users and governance actors.
Results of the study show that among organizations and agencies that govern water resources, management is done to comply with policies rather than to improve the biophysical condition of the water resource. The expressed goal of users is to sustain the use of the water resource which can only be achieved if the water resource provides the sufficient, satisfactory and reliable source of water. But the natural biophysical condition of the resource (e.g. topography, dominant land cover, rainfall events) also poses problems in management. Added to this is the extent of watershed area and political boundaries that also affect management.
Technological fixes (e.g. use of chlorinator, floculator, dredging) are the easiest way out to comply with water quality requirements. However, other initiatives can also be explored like assisted and natural regeneration, land use zoning, regular assessment and monitoring of water quality and quantity, delivery of social services like health and sanitation especially among communities along riverbanks and genuine collaboration and partnership among governance actors. Another important aspect to consider is knowledge. Governance actors should not leave out the importance of knowledge of users and other people – knowledge which is the source of
88
information of how people and water users understand their water resource and the ecosystem, as
a whole. Knowledge facilitates awareness of people and water users on their role to sustain the uses and ecological services of the water resource. This knowledge is not an exclusive domain of governance actors, it includes knowledge from education or knowledge on institutions. It also includes knowledge from people and users who interact with the water resource, who hold information on the changes of their water resource and what cause these changes. As shown in the model, knowledge cuts across the social and biophysical variables. This is because knowledge is an important ingredient to respond to the “problem of fit” between social and biophysical dimensions of governance.
3.5. Conclusion and recommendations
Governance is linking humans with its biophysical environment to minimize the
“problem of fit” between humans and the ecosystems (Galaz, et al, 2007). Dynamics of governance are not linear but a myriad of interactions creating feedback mechanisms among the variables involved. Thus, the model used in this study integrates the social and biophysical variables of governance to have clear scenario of water resource governance, beyond the realms of institutions and management. The non-linear organization of the variables illustrated in the model illustrate the complex, dynamic and coevolving nature of ecosystems (see Holling, 2001,
Norgaard, 1994), specifically water resource systems.
The six cases presented in this study demonstrate different realistic scenarios of water governance in Bukidnon that can apply to other similar situations. Every case has different strength/weakness of linkages of social and biophysical variables regardless of the levels of governance or types of water use. Across all levels of governance, water is valued as a basic
89
necessity to life and its importance to culture, history and livelihood. But value is also affected by the quality and quantity of water that do not satisfy the needs of the users. The congruity or incongruity of values and institutions produce different mechanisms of management. In cases where values are supported by institutions, users have the motivation to participate in management. When value is not supported by institutions, participation in management is hindered. Broader participation is essential not only to support management initiatives but also influence users and governance actors for a collaborative effort to effectively govern the water resource.
In all the cases, the expression of value is acted upon by local organizations and national agencies, which in turn, move the responsibility of management from the users to these organizations and agencies. Users rely on these organizations and agencies to define the rules and set policies on how the water resource should be used and managed. Institutions not only provide the basis for decisions and actions but it also commands compliance. Compliance is difficult if organizations lack the financial and technical support or if these are in conflict with the situation at the local setting. Decisions and actions of organizations and agencies are also patterned from national laws which in some cases, conflict with the realities at the local setting.
National policies in the Philippines generally disregard the critical issue of competing uses of water resource.
Management is important in achieving the goal of sufficient quantity and satisfactory quality of water, which should support the values of the users. But management of organizations and agencies do in compliance to laws and policies rather than responding to the biophysical condition of the water resource needed to achieve the goal. Organizations and agencies rely on technological fixes without exploring other initiatives like land use zoning, delivery of basic
90
social services, partnership and collaboration of governance actors and users. Management to achieve the goal becomes more complicated with competing uses of the water resource and the natural characteristics and ecological processes occurring in the watershed.
Outcomes of this study not only provide a broader understanding of governance but also draw out recommendation to improve water governance:
1) Institutions and management need to find ways to explicitly reflect water users’
values to encourage participation in management. Organizations/governance actors
should provide appropriate venue and time for discussions with users on policies
and management activities before these are implemented.
2) Institutions and management should be open and flexible to respond to realistic
local problems and situation and the complex dynamics of water resources and
watersheds. Organizations/governance actors should be open and adaptive to new
ideas, approaches, experimental processes and methods that are appropriate to local
condition and situation and, at the same time, seeking alternative ways from
different knowledge sources – the users, professionals, academe, local groups, etc.
3) Institutions and management should encourage participation and collaboration
among users, organizations, concerned citizens and groups beyond the political
boundaries so that management scale matches with the watershed scale.
Participation and collaboration should provide venues for users and other
stakeholders to voice out their concerns without any negative consequences that
may cause conflict and apprehensions particularly from users.
4) Organizations/agencies should regularly monitor biophysical variables like land
cover, rainfall, discharge, bacteria/total coliforms, turbidity, total suspended solids,
91
total solids, biological oxygen demand, soil mapping, etc which are important to
assess water quality and quantity at different spatial (e.g. different sections along
the river or watershed) and temporal scales (dry/wet season, high/low flow).
Monitoring should not be done only in compliance to laws but as input to improve
water and watershed condition; and
5) Sampling frequency, location, duration and monitoring and should be beyond what
is required by law to provide relevant information for management purposes, e.g.
management measures during extreme events like flashflood and massive
sedimentation; water allocation and distribution during dry season. Criteria for
sampling should emphasize on what is needed considering the existing water
quality or quantity issue. The data should provide relevant input to management
interventions.
Additional recommendations may be added depending on the usefulness of the information to understand and improve governance and the water resource. Output of the study already provided a guide of how to operationalize the model.
This study acknowledges its limitations but it sees potential for future research in governance:
1) Quantify the linkages of the variables by developing a more refined protocol of
criteria with numerical values to determine strong/weak linkages of variables;
2) Test the model in other cases with different governance actors, e.g. NGOs,
research institutions, business group, academe, public-private partnership;
3) Test the model in cases of different governance level interactions, for instance,
between local and national/international partnership (e.g. SANREM project) or
92
small villages versus watershed scale approach (e.g. SANREM project in
Manupali watershed)
4) Test the model in cases of self-motivated type of participation focusing on
localized citizens’ actions and interactions with other organizations;
5) Apply model to other resource.
Although the model was not tested in other provinces in the Philippines, findings of the study also reflect other governance scenarios in the Philippines considering that these are bounded by the same national institutions, the general concern of the value of water to life and culture and the goal of sustaining the use of water resources. Governance actors and configuration may differ but the model shows that there is the need to link social and biophysical variables in understanding governance. Their interactions illustrate the dynamic, complex and coevolving nature of water resource governance. It is hoped that findings and learnings of this study could instill discussions and actions among people and decision-makers towards sustaining the basic ingredient of all forms of life – WATER.
93
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS
Water is the basic ingredient to life but its availability and uses are constantly threatened by
both natural events and anthropogenic factors. Literature explains the importance of looking at the many facets of water to be able to respond to its various problems, issues and concerns.
However, these problems, issues and concerns are not only due to natural events and human activities but also the mechanisms for water governance. As a critical resource, there is an urgent need for an effective governance of water to sustain water resources that satisfy human uses and
provide ecosystem services.
The complex and dynamic water resource system has to be matched with a dynamic and
adaptive governance system. But the understanding of governance has to go beyond the
traditional institutions and management realms and explore deeper into other social and
biophysical variables. Governance has to be able to understand the linkages and interactions of
both the social and biophysical dimensions.
There have been several models on water governance, which focus on institutions,
organizations, management, participation and collaboration. But such models miss out other
important variables in governance. Scholars provide theories to link values, institutions and
management and encourage the integration of environment. But how to operationalize these
variables into the local setting remains a challenge.
The aim of this study was to develop an alternative model to analyze governance through the linkages of social and biophysical variables. The model incorporated the relevance of values,
knowledge and the biophysical condition of the water resource. Analysis of the linkages
provided the venue to also determine the gaps in the linkages, which essentially become the basis
94
for institutional and management recommendations to improve governance and the water resource.
The model was tested in six cases of water governance in Bukidnon, Philippines. Cases represent different levels of governance, i.e. barangay (village), city/municipality and national.
The results of the study show that each case shows different linkages/gaps regardless of the level of governance or water uses. Important findings of the study that are important in the understanding of governance are the following:
1) The linkages of the social and biophysical variables provide a comprehensive analysis
of water governance;
2) Traditional approaches of governance focusing on social variables do not account the
condition of the water resource itself as basis to determine whether the water resource
can sustain its uses, functions and services;
3) Linkages/gaps in the values and institutions are critical in users’ participation in
management;
4) Values of users’ is affected by the condition of their water resource, especially when
the quantity and quality of water are in conflict with their sense of value;
5) Values of users toward their water resource are acted upon by organizations;
6) There is the transfer of management responsibilities from users’, who are the
originator of values, to organizations as stipulated in national laws and policies;
7) National laws and policies are not context-specific and at times, pose conflict with the
existing local situation, particularly on users’ values;
8) Management of organizations are done more in compliance to institutions rather than
on improving the biophysical of water resource that reflect users’ values and goals;
95
9) Management and institutions do not address the critical issue of competing uses that
can pose conflict in uses, users and management activities.
10) Analysis of the linkages and gaps of the social and biophysical variables are the bases
for institutional and management recommendations to improve water resources and
governance.
It is hoped that the output and lessons of this study contribute to both theoretical and
practical understanding of governance. The formulation of the model used in this study
will equip users and governance actors with a better understanding and assessment of
governance. The model, the methods used to operationalize the model and the output fo
the study provided the first step, the simple (but not simplistic) approach to a braoder
understanding of water governance. Through the application of the model in actual field
setting, this study contribute to management efforts of Bukidnon, and hopefully to other
areas in the Philippines, to sustain the uses, functions and services of the water resources.
96
LITERATURE CITED
Allan. J. David. 2004. “Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems”. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. (35):257-284. Annual Reviews.
Allon, Fiona and Zoë. 2006. “Everyday water: cultures in transition”. Australian Geographer 37(1):45-55. Geographical Society of New South Wales Inc. Routledge.
Antunes, Paula, Giorgos Kallis, Nuno Videira and Rui Santos. 2009. “Participation and evaluation for sustainable river basin governance. Ecological Economics (68):931-39. Elsevier.
Agudelo, J.I. 2001. “The economic valuation of water. Principles and methods”. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 5. IHE. Delft, The Netherlands.
Asian Development Bank (ADB). 1996. Economic Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: A Workbook. Environmental Division of Environmental and Social Development. Asian Development Bank. Manila, Philippines.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 1990. Official methods of analysis. Agricultural chemicals; contaminant; drugs. Vol. 1. 15th Edition. AOAC.
Babbie, Earl. 2007. Basics of social research. Wardsworth Publishing. Belmont, CA.
Blomquist, William, Tanya Heikkila, and Edella Schlager. 2004.”Building the agenda for institutional research in water resource management”. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(4):925-936. American Water Resources Association.
Bromley, Daniel W. 1982. Land and water problems: an institutional perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64(5):834-844. Proceedings Issue. American Agricultural Economics Association.
Bromley, Daniel W. 1998. “Rousseau’s Revenge: The demise of the freehold estate” in H.M. Jacobs (ed). Who owns America? Social conflict over property rights. The University of Wisconsin Press.
Breedlove, Joseph. 1999. “Natural Resources: Assessing Nonmarket Values through Contingent Valuation”. CRS Report for Congress. http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/natural/nrgen-24.cfm.
Brown, Thomas C. 1984. “The concept of value in resource allocation”. Land Economics (60)3:231-246. University of Wisonsin Press. USA.
97
Cariño, Ledivina V. 2000. “The concept of governance”. From Government to Governance: Reflections on the 1999 World Conference on Governance. Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration.
Catacutan, Delia C., Dennis P. Garrity and Caroline E. Duque. 2001. “Governance and natural resources management: emerging lessons from ICRAF-SANREM collaboration in the Philippines”. A paper presented to the SANREM-CRSP Research Synthesis Conference. November 28-30, 2001. Athens, GA.
Catacutan, Delia C., Dennis P. Garrity and Robert A. Cramb. 2004. “Political and institutional transformation in environmental governance: a case study of local governments in the Philippines”. A paper presented to the 2nd International Conference of the Asian Rural Sociological Association (ARSA). March 26-29, 2004. Lombok, Indonesia.
Chang, Mingteh, Jack D. McCullough and Alfredo Granillo. 1983. “Effects of landuse and topography to some water quality variables in forested East Texas”. Water Resources Bulletin 19(2):191-196. American Water Resources Association.
Costanza, Robert. 2000. Social Goals and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Ecosystem 3:4- 10. Springer-Verlag.
Costanza, R., J. Cumberland, H. Daly, R. Goodland and R. Norgaard. 1997. Introduction to ecological economics. St. Lucie Press.
Coxhead, Ian and Gladys Buenavista. 2001. “Seeking sustainability” in Seeking sustainability. Challenges of agricultural development and environmental management in a Philippine watershed. Coxhead, I. and Buenavista, G. (eds). PCARRD-DOST. Laguna, Philippines.
Creswell, John, W. and Vicki L. Piano Clark. 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
Currie-Alder, Bruce, Lorra Thompson and Rocio Bustamante. 2006. “Insights on Water Governance: Research in the Middle East/North Africa and Latin America”. IDRC CRDI. Presented at Survival of the Commons: Mounting challenges and new realities. Eleventh conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property. Bali, Indonesia, June 19-23, 2006.
De Villiers, Marq. 2000. Water. The fate of our most precious resource. Jacobus Communications Corporation. New York. USA.
de Vries, Bert J.M. and Arthur C. Petersen. 2009. “Conceptualizing sustainable development An assessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, worldviews and scenarios”. Ecological Economics 68:1006-1019. Elsevier.
Deutsch, William G., Allision L. Busby, Jim L. Oprecio, Janeth P. Bago-Labis and Estela Y. Cequiña. “Community-based water quality monitoring: From data collection to sustainable
98
management of water resources. 2001. “Seeking sustainability” in Seeking sustainability. Challenges of agricultural development and environmental management in a Philippine watershed. Coxhead, I. and Buenavista, G. (eds). PCARRD-DOST. Laguna, Philippines.
Dietz, Thomas, Amy Fitzgerald and Rachael Shwom. 2005. “Environmental values”. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30:335-372.
Dinar, Ariel, Mark W. Rosegrant and Ruth Meinzen-Dick. 1997. “Water allocation mechanisms: principles and examples”. Policy Research Working Paper 1779. World Bank, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department. World Bank, Washington D.C.
Doupe, R. G. and N.E. Pettit. 2002. “Ecological perspectives on regulation and water allocation for the Ord River, Western Australia”. River Research and Applications 18:307-320. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Elazegui, Dulce D. 2004. “Water resource governance: realities and challenges in the Philippines” in Winning the Water War. Watersheds, water policies and water institutions. Rola, A.C., H.A. Francisco and J.P.T. Liguton (eds.). Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resouces Research and Development (PCARRD). Philippines.
Environmental Research Division (ERD). 1996. Map of the Bukidnon Province. Manila Observatory. Manila, Philippines.
Environmental Science for Social Change (ESSC). 1999. Decline of the Philippine forest. ESSC and The Bookmark, Inc. Philippines.
Environmental Science for Social Change (ESSC) and the Province of Bukidon. 2005. Land Cover Map of Bukidnon. ESCC. Philippines
Faber, Malte, Reiner Manstetten and John Proops. 1996. Ecological Economics. Concepts and methods. Edward Elgar. MA, USA.
Farber, Stephen C., Robert Costanza and Matthew A. Wilson. 2002. “Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services”. Special Issue: The Dynamics and Value of Ecosystem Services: Integrating Economic and Ecological Perspectives. Ecological Economics 41:437-440. Elsevier Science B.V.
Farley, Joshua, Jon D. Erickson and Herman E. Daly. 2005. Ecological Economics. A workbook for problem-based learning. Island Press. Washington D.C. USA.
Folke, Carl, Steve Carpenter, Thomas Elmqvist, Lance Gunderson, CS Holling and Brian Walker. 2002. “Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations”. Ambio 31(5). Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
99
Francisco, Herminia A. 2004. “Water Allocation Mechanisms and Environmental Service Payments” in Winning the Water War. Watersheds, water policies and water institutions. Rola, A.C., H.A. Francisco and J.P.T. Liguton (eds.). Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resouces Research and Development (PCARRD). Philippines.
Funtowicz, Silvio O. and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1994. “The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science”. Ecological Economics 10:197-207. Elsevier Publication.
Galaz, Victor, Per Olsson, Thomas Hahn, Carl Folke and Uno Svedin. 2007. “The problem of fit between ecosystems and governance systems – insights and emerging challenges. In O. Young, L.A. King and H. Schroeder (eds). The institutional dimensions of global environmental change: principal findings and future directions. MIT Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. In press.
Gibson, C.C. and T. Koontz. 1998. “When community is not enough: institutions and values in community-based forest management in Southern Indiana”. Human Ecology 26 (4):621-647. Plenum Publishing Corp.
Gleick, Peter H. 1998. The world’s water 1998-1999. The biennial report on freshwater resources. Island Press. Washington D.C. USA.
Global Water Partnership. 2002. Introducing Effective Water Governance. mimeo.
Hitlin, Steven and Jane Allyn Piliavin. 2004. “Values: reviving a dormant concept”. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:359-393. Annual Reviews.
Holling, C.S. 1986. “The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global change”. In Clarke, WC and Munn, RE, editors. Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Holling, C.S. 2001. “Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems”. Ecosystems 4:390-405. Springer-Verlag.
Hornberger, George M., Jeffrey P. Raffensperger, Patricia L. Wiberg and Keith N. Eshleman. 1998. Elements of Physical Hydrology. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore and London.
Jansson, ÅÅsa, Carl Folke, Johan Rockström and Line Gordon. 1999. Linking freshwater flows and ecosystem services appropriated by people: the case of the Baltic Sea drainage basin. Ecosystems 2:351-366. Springer –Verlag.
Johnson, Nancy L. and Maria Eugenia Baltodano. 2004. “The economics of community watershed management: some evidence from Nicaragua”. Ecological Economics 49:57-71. Science Direct. Elsevier B.V.
100
Klapproth, Julia C. 2000. “Understanding the science behind riparian forest buffers: effects on water quality”. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Knowledge for the Common Wealth. Publication Number 420-151.Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and Virginia State University.
Landau, Martin and Russel Stout, Jr. 1979. “To manage is not to control: Or the folly of Type II errors. Public Administration Review 39 (2):148-156.
Limburg, Karin E., Robert V. O’Neill, Robert Costanza and Stephen Farber. 2002. “Complex systems and valuation”. Special Issue: The Dynamics and Value of Ecosystem Services: Integrating Economic and Ecological Perspectives. Ecological Economics 41:409-420. Elsevier Science B.V.
Malayang, Ben S. III. 2004. “A model of water governance in the Philippines” in Winning the Water War. Watersheds, water policies and water institutions. Rola, A.C., H.A. Francisco and J.P.T. Liguton (eds.). Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resouces Research and Development (PCARRD). Philippines.
Minshall, G.W. 1988. “Stream Ecosystem Theory: A Global Perspective”. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7 (4) :263-288. Community Structure and Function in Temperate and Tropical Streams: Proceedings of a Symposium. The North American Benthological Society.
Montgomery, D.R., G.E. Grant and K. Sullivan. 1995. “Watershed analysis as a framework for implementing ecosystem management”. Water Resources Bulletin 31(3):369-386. American Water Resources Association.
Morna, Colleen Lowe. Undated. “Mainstreaming gender in water and sanitation: literature review for the SA Department of Water and Sanitation”. http:www.gdrc.org/uem/water/gender/genderinwatersanitation.pdf;.
New York State Department of Health (NYSDH). 2005. Coliform bacteria in drinking water supplies. www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/drinking/coliform_bacteria. htm.
Noguchi, Shoji, Abdul Rahim Nik and Makoto Tani. 2005. “Runoff characteristics in a tropical rainforest catchment”. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly 39(9):215-219. Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences.
Norgaard, Richard B. 1994. Development Betrayed. The end of progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of the future. London: Routledge.
North, Douglas C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. UK.
101
Nowak, Pete, Sarah Bowen and Perry E. Cabot. 2006.”Disproportionality as a Framework for Linking Social and Biophysical Systems”. Society and Natural Resources 19:153-173. Taylor and Francis.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Paul, Michael J. and Judy L. Meyer. 2001. “Streams in the urban landscape”. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32:333-365. Annual Reviews.
Pearce, D.W. and R.K. Turner. 1990. Economics of natural resources and the environment. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Maryland, USA.
Pereira, Angela Guimarāes and Serafin Corral Quintana. 2009. “3 pillars and 1 beam: quality of river basin governance processes”. Ecological Economics 68:940-954. Elsevier.
Peters, Norman E. and Michel Meybeck. 2000. “Water quality degradation effects on freshwater availability: impacts of human activities”. Water International 25(2):185-193. International Water Resources Association.
Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO). Province of Bukidnon. 2005. Socio- economic profile of Bukidnon 2005. PPDO, Bukidnon.
Radif, Adil Al. 1999. “Integrated water resource management (IWRM): an approach to face the challenges of the next century and to avert future crises”. Desalination 124:145-153. Elsevier Science B.V.
Riker, William. 1980. “Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions”. American Political Science Review 74( 2):432-446. American Political Science Association.
Rogers, Peter and Alan W. Hall. 2003. Effective water governance. TEC Background Papers No. 7. Global Water Partnership. Technical Committee (TEC). Novum. Sweden.
Rogers, Peter, Radhikade Silga and Ramesh Bhatia. 2002. “Water is an economic good: How to use prices to promote equity, efficiency and sustainability”. Water Policy 2:1-17. Elsevier Science Limited.
Rola, Agnes C., William G. Deutsch, Jim L. Orprecio and Antonio T. Sumbalan. 2004. “Water Resources Management in a Bukidnon Subwatershed: What Can Community-Generated Data Offer?” in Winning the Water War. Watersheds, water policies and water institutions. Rola, A.C., H.A. Francisco and J.P.T. Liguton (eds.). Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resouces Research and Development (PCARRD). Philippines.
102
Rutherford J. C. and M. L. Nguyen. 2004. Nitrate removal in riparian wetlands: interactions between surface flow and soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 33:1133-1143. ASA, CSSA, SSSA. Madison, WI.
Saleth, R. Maria and Ariel Dinar. 1999. Evaluating water institutions and water sector performance. World Bank Technical Paper No. 447. The World Bank. Washington D.C. USA.
Salgado P. Paneque, S. Corral Quintanab, Â. Guimarães Pereirac, L. del Moral Ituarted, B. Pedregal Mateos. 2009. “Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga)”. Ecological Economics 68:990-1005. Elsevier.
Schlager, Edella. and Elinor. Ostrom. 1992. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Economics 68(3):249-262.
Schmitter, P. 2002. “Participation in governance arrangements: is there any reason to expect it will achieve ‘sustainable and innovative policies in a multi-level context’?” in J.R. Grote and B. Gbikpi (eds). Participatory Governance: Political and Societal Implications. Leske and Budrich. Opladen
Sen, Amartya K. 1977. “Rational fools: a critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory”. Philosophy and Public Affairs 6:317-344. Blackwell Publishing
Singleton, Paul and Diana Sainsbury. 1978. Dictionary of Microbiology. Wiley-Interscience Publication. John Wiley and Sons. 481 pp. Chichester.
Slocombe, D. Scott. 1998. “Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management”. Environmental Management 22 (4):483-493. Springer-Verlag. New York. USA.
Syme, G.J., B.E. Nancarrow and J.A. Mccreddin. 1999. “Defining the components of fairness in the allocation of water to environmental and human uses”. Journal of Environmental Management 57:51-70.
Swyngedouw, E. 2005. “Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus-face of governance- beyond-the-state”. Urban Studies 42(11):1991-2006. Routledge.
Tabios, G.Q. and C.C. David. 2004. “Competing uses of water: cases of Angat Reservoir, Laguna Lake and groundwater system of Batangas City and Cebu City” in Winning the Water War. Watersheds, water policies and water institutions. Rola, A.C., H.A. Francisco and J.P.T. Liguton (eds.). Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resouces Research and Development (PCARRD). Philippines.
103
Bautista, Germelino M. and Rosalina P. Tan. 2003. Watersheds and groundwater depletion in the Philippines. The Cagayan de Oro experience. IPC reports. Institute of Philippine Culture. Ateneo de Manila University. Manila, Philippines.
Torres-Rouff, David S. 2006Water “Use, Ethnic Conflict, and Infrastructure in Nineteenth- Century Los Angeles”. Pacific Historical Review 75(1):119-140. Pacific Coast Branch, American Historical Association.
Turner, Kerry, Stavros Georgiou, Rebecca Clark, Roy Brouwer and Jacob Burke. 2004. “Economic valuation of water resources in agriculture. From the sectoral to a functional perspective of natural resource management”. FAO Water Reports 27. Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Management Development and Governance Division Bureau for Policy and Programme Support. 1997. Reconceptualising Governance. Discussion paper 2. New York. USA.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2004. Water Governance for Poverty Reduction. Key Issues and the UNDP Response to Millenium Development Goals. UNDP. New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1997. Monitoring water quality. US EPA.
Vatn, Arild and Daniel W. Bromley. 1994. “Choices without prices without apologies”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26:129-148. Academic Press, Inc.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. Guidelines for drinking water quality. Incorporating first addendum. Volume 1. 3rd Edition. WHO. Geneva, Switzerland.
World Resources Institute. 2006. EarthTrends. The environmental information portal. Water Resources and Freshwater Ecosystems. http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/
104
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. Semi-structured questionnaire ……….………. 106
APPENDIX 2: Table A.1. Profile of respondents ……….………. 108
APPENDIX 3: Table A.2. Organizations/agencies operating in the research sites … 109
APPENDIX 4: Case studies ……….………. 111
APPENDIX 5: Table A.9. Summary of governance dynamics across all levels ….. 186
APPENDIX 6: Table A.10. Implications of national institutions ……….……… 190 to the different levels of governance
APPENDIX 7: Table A.11. Water system levels applied in the ……….………. 192 Philippine potable water system
APPENDIX 8: Department of Environment and Natural Resources ………………. 193 (DENR) Administrative Order No. 34 Series of 1990
APPENDIX 9: NWRB Amended IRR 2005 ……….…..……. 194
105
APPENDIX 1. Semi-structured Questionnaire
NAME (optional): POSITION (community member, official, staff): OCCUPATION: GENDER: AGE: NO. OF YEARS OF RESIDENCE IN THE BARANGAY: TRIBAL GROUP:
VALUES • What is the meaning of water to you? • What is river/spring mean to you? • Is the water resource important to you? Why or why not? • What are the activities that community does in the water resource? • If the community does not use this water, do you think it is still important? Why or why not? • What was the use of the water source (cite specific river or spring) before the project? • What is the effect of this present use to the water resource itself? To other community uses? • What do you think should be done to this water resource?
INSTITUTIONS • What are the policies or rules in using the water resource? • When were these policies/rules implemented? • Who formulates these policies/rules? (specify each identified policy or rule) • Were the community consulted or had participated? • What do you think are the advantage(s) or benefit(s) of these rules/policies? (specify each identified policy or rule) • What do you think are the conflicts/problems of these policies or rules? (specify each identified policy or rule) • Do these policies/rules change over time? Why or why not? Who initiates the change? • How is your use of the water affected by these policies/rules? • (In the case of dams for agriculture) What is the basis for water distribution?
MANAGEMENT • What do you mean by water resource management? • How does the community manage the water resource? • Who are involved in the management of the water resource? What are their roles in water resource management? • What are the goals and objectives of the community in managing the water resource? • How do you come up with these goals and objectives? • What are the specific policies/rules/mandates that the community follows in the management of the water resource?
106
• What are the advantages of these policies/rules/mandates (cite each policy/rule/mandate)? • What are the disadvantages of these policies/rules/mandates (cite each policy/rule/mandate)? • What are the conflicts/problems in the management of the water resource? • How are these conflicts/problems resolved? • Who do you think should have the responsibility in managing the water resource? Why?
BIOPHYSICAL CONDITION • What is the condition of the river/spring before the project (e.g. size, land use, vegetation)? At present? • Do you think there is a change in the water quality over time? How? • Do you think there is a change in the water quantity over time? How • What do you think are the causes of its improvement/ deterioration? • When was the time when you experience the best condition of your water resource? What causes this? • When was the time when you experience the worst condition of your water resource? What causes this? • What do you think are the advantages of having this project (e.g. to the people/community; to the water; to the land?) • What do you think are the disadvantages of having this project (e.g. to the people/community; to the water; to the land?) • To whom do you usually raise your concern/ problem on your water resource? • Was this problem adequately responded? Why or why not? • How do the community and the organization/ agencies respond to the changing condition of the water resource?
107
APPENDIX 2: Table A.1. Profile of Respondents
SITE LEVEL OF CODE NO. OF PROFILE GOVERNANCE RESPONDENTS RWSA BOD/personnel:4 Ex-BOD: 3 Barangay Guinuyuran Barangay Case 1 18 Barangay officials: 2 Tribal leader:1 Water users: 8 DWSA BOD/personnel: 4 Barangay Dagumbaan Case 2 19 Barangay officials: 3 Water users:12
LGU/MCGWSS personnel: 3 MCWD BOD/personnel: 3 Barangay officials: 4 Barangay Kibalabag Case 3 18 Tribal leader: 2 Religious leader: 2 Coop leader: 1 City/municipality Water users: 3
Case 4 15 LGU personnel: 1 Barangay Pinamaloy DCWD BOD/personnel:2 Barangay officials: 3 School/religuous leader:1 Water users: 8
NIA personnel: 2 LIA BOD: 4 Barangay official: 1 Barangay Laligan Case 5 19 Tribal leader:1 Irrigators/members: 6 Other water users:4 National Community organizer: 1
NAPOCOR personnel: 2 PANTUBADOL officer/ member: 4 Barangay Panadtalan Case 6 20 Fish Wardens: 2 Barangay officials: 2 Tribal leader: 1 Other fisherfolks/water users: 9
108
APPENDIX 3: Table A.2. Organizations/agencies Operating in the Research Sites
ORGANIZATION/ LEGAL BASIS OF YEAR INVOLVEMENT/ROLE AGENCY CREATION ORGANIZED/INVOLVED* (specific to this study) LEVEL OF GOVERNANCE: BARANGAY RWSA: Guinuyuran Provincial Water 1992 Operates and manages the potable Rural Waterworks Utilities Act of 1973 water system of of Barangay Service Association Guinuyuran and its service areas in other barangays
Guinuyuran BC: Local Government 1992* Provides material support to RWSA, Guinuyuran Barangay Code of 1991 particularly on the installation of water Council systems in remote areas of the barangay
LWUA: Local Water Provincial Water 1973 Provides loan and supervises the Utilities Administration Utilities Act of 1973: operation of RWSA LWUA Law
DWSA: Dagumbaan MOA with 1998 Operates and manages the potable Water System Dagumbaan BC water system of Barangay Dagumbaan; Association under the umbrella of the Dagumbaan BC Dagumbaan BC: Local Government 1998* Initiates the installation of water system Dagumbaan Barangay Code of 1991 in 1997; supervises the DWSA as based Council in the MOA
LEVEL OF GOVERNANCE: CITY/MUNICIPALIY Malaybalay LGU: Local Government 2006* Finances the installation of the potable Malaybalay Local Code of 1991 water system production for Government Unit Malaybalay City
MCGWSS: Malaybalay Malaybalay City 2006 Created under the Office of the City City Government Water Resolution Mayor to operate and manage water Supply System supply system to produce water for Malaybalay City Water District
Kibalabag BC: Local Government 2006* Signs a MOA with Malaybalay LGU in Kibalabag Barangay Code of 1991 the management of the watershed; Council receives water user fee from Malaybalay LGU
BUHITA: Bukidnon Indigenous Peoples’ 2006* Works to uphold the rights of Bukidnon Higaonon Tribal Rights Act of 1997 Higaonon indigenous group within Association their ancestral domain; signs a MOA with Malaybalay LGU in the management of Kibalabag watershed
MCWD: Malaybalay Provincial Water Operates and manages water system of City Water District Utilities Act of 1973 Malaybalay City; buys water from the Malaybalay LGU
DCWD: Don Carlos Provincial Water 1986 Operates and manages the water system Water District Utilities Act of 1973 of Don Carlos
109
Don Carlos LGU: Don Local Government 1986* Establishes the ecotourism/recreation Carlos Local Code of 1991 site in Pinamaloy Lake; manages and Government Unit maintains the Pinamaloy Tree Park
NWRB: National Water Water Code of the 1976 Issues water permit to DCWD and Resources Board Philippines in 1976 MCWD; In the case of Kibalabag, NWRB issues the water permit to MCWD but the latter waives its rights over the Malaybalay LGU
LEVEL OF GOVERNANCE: NATIONAL LIA: Laligan Irrigators RA 3601 as amended 1986 Maintain dam structures and collects Association by Presidential irrigation service fee (ISF) from farmer Decree (PD) 552 and members PD 1702
NIA: National Irrigation An Act Creating the 1963 Constructs and manages the Laligan Administration National Irrigation irrigation dam; supervises and monitors Administration, 22 LIA June 1963
NAPOCOR: National Revised Charter of 1972 Constructs and operates the Pulangi IV Power Corporation NAPOCOR hydroelectric power plant in Maramag, Bukidnon; manages Pulangi Lake and its watershed
PANTUBADOL: Fisheries Code of the 1986 Formulates local policies and monitor Panadtalan, Tubigon, Philippines fishing activities within the Pulangi Bayabason and Dologon Lake Fisherfolk Organization
BFAR: Bureau of Fisheries Code of the 1998 Provides fingerlings to Fisheries and Aquatic Philippines (BFAR is first PANTUBADOL for propagation in the Resources organized in 1947 but Pulangi Lake; facilitates the considered as line organization of PANTUBADOL bureau of the Department of Agriculture in 1998)
110
APPENDIX 4: CASE STUDIES
CASE 1 (BARANGAY LEVEL). Water resource governance in Barangay Guinuyuran
The social dimension of water resource governance in Baranagy Guinuyuran: Values, institutions and management
Water users’ values
Prior to the establishment of the water system in 1992, residents in the Manggipanaw headsource used the creek primarily for drinking and bathing. Much of the volume of water that flows in the creek drains into the larger Sagumata River and eventually to Pulangi River. On the other hand, downstream residents sourced out their water from a spring which is shared by all users. During that time, people lined up as early as 3AM to fetch water, take a bath or do their laundry. This situation triggered concerned users to establish their own water system in the barangay. These users created an informal group in 1986 to do the legwork in making the right network with politicians to source out fund. The Rural Water Development Corporation established during the Marcos regime provided the initial funding for a level 2 water system
(communal water system). In 1990, the group was able to access more funding from the then
Aquino government through its rural water system projects and used it to supplement the loan from the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). The Guinuyuran Rural Waterworks and
Sanitation Association, Inc. (RWSA) was established under the supervision of LWUA. The level
3 (individual household connection) water system became operational in 1992. The water is tapped from Manggipanaw creek in the upstream.
All respondents value Manggipanaw Creek as the source of their water, water being the source and continuity of life. Water provides everything they need for drinking, cooking, washing as well as for health. But Manggipanaw includes not just the flowing water, per se, but
111
everything that surrounds it – the trees, the land, the whole environment. Manggipanaw is important for Lumad (indigenous people) clans who claim ownership of the land that their ancestors cultivated over many years, which include the Manggipanaw creek. A respondent who is a member of the clan and an employee of RWSA claimed that his family offered ritual in the
Balete (Ficus sp) tree. Lumad respondents are grateful that RWSA respects and practices the panalawahwig (ritual for water) to offer prayers and thanksgiving to the migbaya (guardian) they call
Bulalalakaw (guardian of the water) to have constant supply of water.
But even if Manggipanaw creek is not tapped as water source, respondents claimed that it is still Community panalawahig (ritual in water) offered to migbaya for thanksgiving and prayer for sufficient water important for other people who needs water, “igbahaw-bahaw ku mamadahan sa mga wahig” (to preserve it for future use in case rivers dry up) as stated by a Lumad BOD.
Downstream respondents all agree the benefit they get from Manggipanaw as their source of water. The water system provides them the comfort and convenience of water in their households. But respondents in the upstream feel deprived of this benefit because individual household connection is not feasible due to the difference in elevation. RWSA provided a pipe that goes straight to the community (intake box is about 100 meters from this community).
Interviews with housewives and a farmer revealed their desire to have water right in their households as well because “dinhi ang pinaka lami na tubig. Kung mag-adto mi sa lain lugar,
112
naa sila daghan tubig pero kami dinhi
hinuon wala” (we have the best water
here. If we go to other places, they have
abundant water but us here do not have).
Housewives envy other barangays
because the Manggipanaw water reaches
them but, ironically, residents in
Manggipanaw do not enjoy the A housewife in Manggipanaw is thankful of the pipe because “we have water in our front yard and there is no convenience of an individual household need to carry pail in our heads”. connection. But despite the fact that community is deprived of level 3 water system, they still participate in the protection of the Manggipanaw because “kini na tubig mao magsalbar sa amo”
(this water saves us). Community leaders claimed their responsibility to protect the creek
because they live there and they are afraid people in the downstream will blame them if water
gets dirty or the structures are destroyed. They provided support to the RWSA through
monitoring, tree planting and participation in the panalawahig. As an incentive, RWSA provides
the water service to the community for free.
To continue getting the benefits from their water source, both upstream and downstream
users prefer the planting of trees to restore forest in the headsource to ensure the quality and
quantity of water. Buying the land under the ownership of RWSA is an alternative option to
protect the upstream to ensure that RWSA can effectively do its management over the land
where the water source is tapped.
113
The governance actors, institutions and institutional mechanisms
The water system of Barangay Guinuyuran is run by RWSA under the direct supervision
and monitoring of LWUA, a national agency tasked to promote, develop and finance local water
utilities. RWSA has its Board of Directors (BOD) who formulates policies on its day-to-day
operations but with the approval of LWUA. Policies formulated are based from LWUA policies
which include water bill collection and financial and maintenance operations. RWSA is
independent from the Barangay Council (BC) of Guinuyuran though there is coordination
between them in terms of water service connections to remote areas in the barangay. BC
provides local funding and materials for the installation of water system in these areas.
Although water users acknowledge the value of the water and Manggipanaw, it is RWSA
that runs the whole system of operation of the water system – from production to distribution to
over-all management. RWSA follows the directives of LWUA. Even the BC does not meddle
with RWSA affairs, unless there are requests for water system connections of remote areas in
barangay. In 2003, Valencia City Water District requested to tap Manggipanaw Creek to
augment its water production. RWSA sought the support of BC and the Tribal Council to stop
the plan. However, RWSA augment its connections to adjacent barangays which alarm some
residents because they wanted to preserve the water for the growing population of Guinuyuran.
Water consumers are informed of RWSA policies, activities and financial reports during the annual general assembly meeting. To maintain the water system, all downstream water users follow RWSA policy on the use of water meters and the payment of monthly water bill at the rate of 75 pesos for a minimum consumption of 10m3. Whilst, upstream residents respect the
unwritten rule of maintaining the cleanliness surrounding Manggipanaw and participates in
management activities like tree planting, clean-up and ritual.
114
As a LWUA borrower, RWSA General Manager admits that RWSA policies are
patterned from the guiding law of LWUA which is the PD 198: Provincial Water Utilities Act of
1973. This law stipulates the rights of water districts on the construction and maintenance of its
facilities, water rights, sale and charges of water, among others. Although RWSA can now run
the water system operations, according to the General Manager, any policies and actions still
require the approval of LWUA as part of the loan contract. When RWSA raised the concern on
the presence of de facto landowners in Manggipanaw, LWUA insists its claim that water sources
are owned by the state as stipulated in the 1976 Water Code of the Philippines. But according to
an ex-BOD of RWSA and one of the pioneers of the group that initiate the water system, neglecting landowners is a violation of the Lumad law, which claim their domain is over and
below the land. To avoid conflict, RWSA devise a mechanism to involve the two Lumad clans who are the landowners in its management. RWSA and landowners signed a MOA stipulating that RWSA pays 600 pesos/month to the two clans. In addition, a member of the clan was hired as a Spring Tender to monitor activities in and protect the water source. Community in the upstream are exempted from payment of water bill and in return, the community participate in
RWSA management activities in Manggipanaw. These strategies are important in RWSA’s water resource management.
Management interventions
For Guinuyuran respondents, the goal of management is to sustain the quality and quantity of water as well as promote peace, harmony and unity among all users and residents.
Management is the task of everybody although respondents understood that RWSA runs the
entire water system operation. For downstream water consumers, their role in management is to
pay their bills. But for a tribal leader, management responsibility should include the Lumad
115
because “dini man sa banwa day” (this is our place). Thus, the Tribal Council participated in the
tree planting activity of the RWSA. Despite being deprived of a level 1 water system, upstream
community participate in the pahina (communal work) to plant trees around the headsource. In
addition to the Spring Tender, community leaders assist in the monitoring of water and its
facilities to ensure the safety of the drinking water.
As a LWUA requirement, RWSA conducts and submits quarterly bacteriological and
annual physico-chemical water tests to LWUA. RWSA also regularly maintain the functionality
of its water facilities, including repair of broken pipes. At present, RWSA is preparing a proposal
for reforestation at the headsource in response to an invitation of the Dole Company who has a
program on watershed protection and rehabilitation. In 1998, Dole established banana plantations
using lands leased to them by the farmers.
The biophysical dimension of water resource governance in Barangay Guinuyuran
RWSA consumers are satisfied with the quality and quantity of water of their water
system but the continued expansion of RWSA to other adjacent barangays alarmed the
respondents. According to an ex-BOD of RWSA, expansion should not extend further wherein
monitoring becomes difficult while others fear that supply may not be sufficient for the growing
population of Guinuyuran.
All respondents agree that the water system of RWSA does not cause any destruction to
the land, water and the people. It is normal for the water quantity to reduce during dry season but
the creek never dried up. The freshness of the water has changed due to the loss of forest.
According to a Lumad BOD, chlorine is now used to clean the water.
The deforestation in the upstream is due to logging under the concession of the Carlson
Company and then of the Central Mindanao University in the 1960’s. Logging opened up areas
116
for agricultural crops like sugarcane and corn. Land cover mapping of Manggipanaw riverbank in August 2008 indicate that the area is largely sugarcane and grassland. Patches of trees and shrubs surround the headsource. In a catchment scale, 38% is grassland, and 30% sugarcane of the total land area (see Figure A.1 and Table A.3). Average discharge is 14.5li/sec while the average consumption of all RWSA consumers is only 9.37 li/sec.
The satisfaction of water users on the quality of their water concurs with the water quality results of the water quality sampling. Water bacteriological tests show negative to E. coli but the months of July, August and October register an MPN of higher than 3org/100ml (see Fig. A.3).
MPN should not be more than 3org/100ml for the water to be considered potable. Bacteria isolated include Citrobacter, Enterobacter and, Proteus, which are common in humans, plants, animals and water. However, Citrobacter and Proteus also present in sewage-polluted water and are considered pathogens to humans. Results of TSS and nitrates passed the standards values for drinking water (see Fig. A.4). August has the highest TSS value of 33.7 mg/l but TSS stays within the value of less than 1 mg/l for the rest of the months of sampling. Nitrates dramatically increase in November at 2 mg/l but declines by December (see Fig. A.5).
117
Figure A. 1. Land cover map of Manggipanaw catchment
118
Table A.3. Area per land cover type in Manggipanaw catchment
LAND COVER AREA (has) % Grassland 53.08 38.27 Sugarcane 41.46 29.9 Corn 15.06 10.86 Other land with tree 9.7 7 cover Shrubland 8.12 5.86 No data 5.18 3.73 Road 5.01 3.62 Secondary forest .73 .53 Pineapple .34 .24 TOTAL 138.68 100
Discharge of water flowing out of the intake box in Manggipanaw in June 2008
The newly planted sugarcane expanding in the Manggipanaw upstream landcover dominated by Manggipanaw watershed grassland and tees
119
Figure A.2. MANGIPANAW ESTIMATED DISCHARGE Figure A.3. MANGGIPANAW BACTERIAL ANALYSIS August to December 2008 July to December 2008
20 10 8 15 6 10 4
5 2 MPN (org/100ml) MPN Discharge (l/sec) 0 0 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Months Months Notes: MPN - most probable number :for the water supply to be considered potable, the MPN should not be more than 3 org/100ml and Note: .Points indicates the average consumption of all RWSA consumers negative to E. coli. All the results show negative to E. coli : 0-excellent; 1-3-satisfactory;4-10-suspicious;>10-unsatisfactory : points indicate acceptablity value of >3org/100ml :laboratory test conducted by CMU College of Veterinary Medicine
Figure A.4. MANGIPANAW STREAM TOTAL SUSPENDED SOILDS (TSS) Figure A.5. MANGGIPANAW STREAM NITRATE July to December 2008 CONCENTRATION 60 12 July to December 2008 40 10 8 20 (mg/l) TSS 6 0 4 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Nitrates (mg/l) Nitrates 2 Result 0.1 33.7 1.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Standard value 50 50 50 50 50 50 Months Result 0 0 0 1.3 2 0.24 Standard value 10 10 10 10 10 10 Notes:laboratory test conducted by DOST Region 10 Months : points indicate accepted value of 50mg/li for Class A water based on DENR DAO 90-34 Notes: laboratory test conducted by DOST Region 10 : standard value is 10mg/li based DENR DAO 90-34
Water resource governance in Barangay Guinuyuran: linking social and biophysical dimensions
Upstream and downstream water users in Manggipanaw all share the same value of the
water resource in terms of its uses and its importance to life and cultural practice. It is their
desire to protect the water resource through tree planting and maintaining its cleanliness and
safety. But institutions allow the organization, i.e. the RWSA, to operationalize these values
though the provision of safe and adequate water supply. As a LWUA borrower, RWSA is
required to follow the provisions of LWUA law as embedded in the Provincial Utilities Act of
1973, which reserves the rights of water districts to operate, manage, sell and protect water and
its facilities, among others. Thus, water consumers consider the payment of water bills and the
120 use of water meters as their main responsibility. Protection of water resource is passed on to
RWSA. On the part of the RWSA, its policies are subjected to permission and approval of the
LWUA, which creates problems in the context of the Guinuyuran situation. When RWSA’s
concern on the presence of landowners in the water resource was raised to LWUA, LWUA
insists its rights on the water as embedded in Article 3 of the Water Code of the Philippines
which claims all water belonging to the State. Article 3 is also in contrast to the Lumad’s claim
of ownership of the land and other resources within it as their ancestral domain as embedded in
the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA). To avoid conflict, RWSA signed a MOA with the
landowners, which in turn, recognizes and gives responsibility to the landowners to be part in the
management of the water resource. This arrangement becomes useful in RWSA’s management
activities. Lumad landowners not only participate in rituals but also in tree planting activities.
Hiring the member of the clan of landowners as Spring Tender provides the legal basis of his responsibility in monitoring activities and maintaining the functionality of the structures of the water system in the headsource. In fact, the Spring Tender offered a piece of his land for reforestation. RWSA also get the participation of the community in the headsource by providing them with a level 1 water system free of charge. Although deprived of the convenience of a level
3 water system, the community claims their responsibility in the protection of the water resource
being residents in the area. Considering the above mechanisms, RWSA is able to achieve the
goal of management which is to promote peace, harmony and unity among all users.
Monitoring of water quality and the maintenance of the functionality of the water system,
e.g. fixing broken pipes, are management activities of RWSA in compliance with the LWUA
policy. But such results are not used to become RWSA’s basis for specific management
activities, particularly protection and regeneration to increase tree cover along the riverbanks.
121 The increasing expansion of corn and sugarcane plantations in the upstream can have effect not
only to water quality but also to quantity. Add to this is the continued expansion of water service
connections of RWSA to other barangays, without monitoring the discharge of water. Discharge
measurement is not done by RWSA and, surprisingly, is not also included in LWUA policy. This
is very crucial since the other goal of management is to sustain the flow of water. Guinuyuran
consumers already expressed this concern for fear that the supply may not be sufficient or sustain
the needs of the growing population in Guinuyuran.
With the present governance dynamics, RWSA has to review its existing institutions and
management to achieve the goals. Monitoring of water quantity and quality should be
institutionalized within RWSA’s operation. RWSA has excess water but the expansion without
monitoring the discharge and consumption may endanger the quantity of water produced in the
long run. In addition, RWSA has to continually strengthen its coordination with the landowners
through a MOA and recognize the value of upstream community in Manggipanaw. This
community should be given incentives through an improved communal water system and
sanitation for them to become active participants the protection of Manggipanaw. RWSA can
negotiate with landowners regarding easements through a joint effort of natural and assisted
regeneration along riverbanks. However, species to be planted should avoid fast-growing plantation species like Mahogany and Gmelina. The latter absorbs more rather than retains water while Mahogany is a demand in the wood industry which will encourage landowners to harvest.
Species to be planted should be mixed to provide both ecological and economic benefits to landowners. Management activities should not be considered as a means of policy compliance but to ensure the quality and supply of water to all water users and consumers.
122 CASE 2 (BARANGAY): Water resource governance in Barangay Dagumbaan
The social dimension of water resource governance in Barangay Dagumbaan: Values, institutions and management
Water users’ values
Community in the Agutayan headsource does not use this river because they have their own water system sourced out from another river. Those who benefit from Agutayan River are the downstream users in Dagumbaan. Respondents acknowledge the importance of water as a basic necessity for drinking, washing and health. Thus, according to a respondent, water should be clean and safe because it is the source of life. Water includes the spring and the reservoir attached to it. Agutayan River is considered important as their source of water. But although respondents claim its importance, nobody has been to the headsource except for the Board of
Directors (BOD) of the Dagumbaan Water System Association (DWSA) and a respondent who acted as the guide of the workers of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) who constructed the water system
The establishment of the water system provides DWSA water consumers the convenience of available water in their households. To protect the source, respondents prefer reforestation and fencing around the source although majority suggested to look for another water source. This is because Agutayan River cannot sustain their water needs in both quantity and quality.
Although people value water, this value is negatively affected by the low quality and quantity of water from their water system. People complain about the insufficiency of water that cannot reach to all households. A respondent revealed that she herself has seen how dirty the water is that comes out of her faucet. Another respondent admitted that her family buys bottled water for drinking because she no longer trusts the quality of their water after her daughter got
123 sick. Even if consumers only pay a minimum rate of 30 pesos for a consumption of 10m3, they
express dissatisfaction. Respondents agree to pay a higher amount as long as the water supply is sufficient and clean.
Institutions and institutional mechanisms
Prior to the installation of the barangay water system, people in Dagumbaan sourced out
their water from springs and dug wells. In 1995, a typhoid epidemic hit the barangay which
forced the Municipal Health Office to investigate the case. Upon its recommendation, the
Municipal Sanitary Inspector ordered that all dug wells be abandoned. The Dagumbaan
Barangay Council (BC) initiated the sourcing of funds for the construction of the barangay water
system. Through congressional fund, the construction of the water system was undertaken by the
DPWH. The BC bought one hectare of land along the river bank of the Agutayan River which is
the source of water of the 369 households. It was agreed that the operation and management of
the water system be turned-over to the BC. In 1998, the BC decided to create the DWSA to take
over the operation and management through the signing of a MOA. DWSA remains under the
umbrella of the Dagumbaan BC. DWSA has its own Board of Directors (BOD) who composes
the policy-making body of the association and discusses issues on the water system. But any
decisions and actions of the DWSA require the approval of the BC.
Two of the DWSA BOD claimed that the construction of the water system was hastily done in response to the epidemic. Even the DPWH guide admitted that there some technical problems encountered in the water system construction. The water system was originally
designed for a level 2 (communal) water system due to low flow of the water source but some
residents connected pipe from the main line that went straight into their households. There was
no rule on tapping of water in the barangay at that time but the Provincial Water Utilities Act of
124 1973 and the National Water Crisis Act in 1995 prohibit such illegal connections. These illegal
connections proliferated throughout the barangay which eventually changed the water system
into level 3. When DWSA took over the operation, it imposed a policy on the use of water
meters and the disconnection for failure to pay the water bill set at 30 pesos for the first 10m3 of
water consumption. Despite the meager fee, it is difficult for DWSA to get a higher collection
rate. According to a DWSA BOD, collection efficiency is only 50-60%. The reason for low
collection is because of complaints of consumers on the quality and quantity of water provided
by DWSA. Some consumers refuse to pay for the reason that the construction of the water
system is a dole-out, at no cost to the DWSA or to the BC.
DWSA sourced its funds primarily from monthly collections of water rate which is not enough to cover the cost of major repairs. In this case, DWSA seeks additional funding from provincial government and pork barrel fund of senators. BC has neither financial nor technical assistance provided to DWSA. However, a Barangay Councilor sits in the DWSA meetings as venue for coordination between DWSA and the
BC.
The annual general assembly meeting is the venue of DWSA to inform consumers of the policies, activities and financial status. But
DWSA finds it difficult to have quorum during such meetings. According to some respondents, they are too busy to attend to such meetings. Consumers return to their dug wells due to insufficient water supply Water consumers know DWSA policies like the use of water for household consumption, the use of water meters and the payment of monthly
125 water bill. But some consumers question the payment since the cost of the construction of the
water system is from a congressional fund. Moreover, they are not satisfied with the quantity and
quality of water delivered through their water system. In fact, some residents go back to their dug
wells or source out water from another spring or river. There was even a plan to turn-over the
water system to Maramag Water District but consumers backed out of the plan due to a high
monthly water rate of 120 pesos/month.
Management interventions
Although Agutayan River is important as their source of water, most of the consumers
have not been to the Agutayan source itself because they claim that the management of the water
source is the responsibility of DWSA. Consumers reasoned out that their involvement in
management is in the form of payment of their water bills. Only three of the respondents agree
that DWSA demand a pahina to assist in the tree planting and repairs. According to some
respondents, BC does not even allow pahina because consumers pay. Consequently, DWSA takes the burden of the over-all operation and management of the water system which includes repairs and maintenance of the intake box and pipes as well as tree planting in the headsource.
When a new intake box was constructed to replace the non-functioning box constructed by
DPWH, BODs did the labor. From the point of view of a BOD, management responsibility of consumers is to pay the water bill and report damage and leaks and protect the water pipelines. A
Barangay Councilor who sits in the DWSA suggested that management should involve tree planting at the water source. He laid out plans on how to involve the barangay and the DENR in reforestation activities.
For all the respondents, the goal of management is sufficient and continuous flow of
water, a goal difficult for DWSA to achieve. For one, the structure of the water system is
126 designed for level 2. The existing level 3 makes insufficient water supply inevitable. In this situation, DWSA practices a rotation system of water distribution among its consumers. Aside from water supply problem, DWSA lacks funding and technical support to run the water system.
There is no budget even for water quality monitoring. At present, consumers have to make do of what their water source and the water system can deliver water for them. But they still desire that another water source will be tapped that will provide them with sufficient and clean water. If this happens, the Agutayan water resource has to be abandoned because it no longer satisfies the needs of consumers.
The biophysical dimension of water resource governance in Barangay Dagumbaan
The water system installed does not cause any change in the water and watershed of the
Agutayan River. There were already farms even before the construction of the water system.
Water quantity and quality are the main problems of water consumers in Dagumbaan. These problems are evidenced in the results of the biophysical survey conducted. Land cover mapping along riverbank of Agutayan Creek in August 2008 indicate that trees, bamboos and shrubs are only confined in the land owned by the Dagumbaan BC. Above the headsource are grassland, mango plantations and farms planted with corn and sugarcane. The whole stretch of Agutayan
River bank is dominated by agricultural lands planted with corn and sugarcane. In a catchment scale, upstream is dominated by sugarcane which represents 60% of the total land cover (see Fig.
A.6 and Table A.4). The dominance of agricultural crops does not contribute to effective water retention and filtration. The portion of the river where the intake box is located is totally dried up and there is not even excess water coming out of the intake box so that measurement has to be done at the pipe that goes to the reservoir. Discharge measurements indicate that Agutayan River
127
Figure A. 6. Land cover map of Agutayan catchment
128 Table A.4. Area per land cover type in Agutayan catchment
LAND COVER AREA (has) % Sugarcane 42.1061 60.422% Shrubland 10.8600 15.584% Grassland 8.5322 12.244% Other land with tree cover 3.6558 5.246% Secondary forest 2.2963 3.295% Volume of water flowing into the reservoir in Corn 2.2362 3.209% September 2008 TOTAL 69.687 100.000%
Intake box of the Agutayan water source Land cover of Agutayan upstream
129 has only an average discharge of 0. 78 Figure A.7. AGUTAYAN STREAM ESTIMATED DISCHARGE August to December 2008
li/sec, with a maximum of only 0.92 4 3.5 3 li/sec (see Fig. A.7). Average 2.5 2 1.5 consumption of the 369 households 1
Discharge (l/sec) 0.5 0 depending on the Agutayan creek is July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave Months 3.74 li/sec. Note: points indicate the average consumption of consumers
Bacteriological tests in water
show the months of August, September, Figure A.8. AGUTAYAN STREAM BACTERIAL ANALYSIS July to December 2008 November with 50 45 40 35 above 3org/100ml MPN, the highest 30 25 20 15
occurs in November with MPN of MPN (org/100ml) 10 5 0 43org/100ml (see Fig.A.8). E.coli is, Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Months Note: MPN - most probable number however, absent in the whole 6-month : for the water supply to be considered potable, the MPN should not be more than 3 org/100ml and negative to E. coli. All the results show negative to E. coli : 0-excellent; 1-3-satisfactory;4-10-suspicious;>10-unsatisfactory sampling. Bacteria isolated include : points indicate acceptablity value of >3org/100ml : laboratory test conducted by CMU College of Veterinary Medicine Enterobacter, Citrobacter and
Edwardsiella. Enterobacter and Citrobacter are common in humans, animals, plants as well as in
water but their number are already alarming considering that DWSA has no chlorinator.
Edwardsiella is considered a pathogen to animals and humans. Results of TSS and nitrates are
within the accepted standard values. For TSS, August records the highest value of 42.0 mg/l
although it starts to go down by September (see Fig. A.9). Nitrate continue to climb up from
August to December, a highest of 1.85 mg/l for December, which coincides with the planting
season of farmers (see Fig.A.10). Considering that Agutayan is highly agricultural, nitrate value
is surprisingly way below the accepted standard.
130
Figure A. 9. AGUTAYAN STREAM TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) July to December 2008
100
50
TSS (mg/li) 0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Result 0.1 42.9 12 2.6 0.9 1.4 Standard value 50 50 50 50 50 50 Months Notes:laboratory test conducted by DOST Region 10 : points indicates accepted value of 50mg/li for Class A water based on DENR DAO 90-34
Fifure A. 10 AGUTAYAN STREAM NITRATE CONCENTRATION July to December 2008 15
10
5 Nitrates (mg/l) Nitrates 0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Result 0 0.09 0.64 0.6 1.7 1.85 Standard value 10 10 10 10 10 10
Months Notes: laboratory test conducted by DOST Region 10 : standard value is 10mg/li based from DENR DAO 90-34
Water resource governance in Barangay Dagumbaan: linking social and biophysical dimensions
Respondents value water as source of life, for health and its uses for drinking and washing. As source of their water, respondents prefer to protect the Agutayan River through tree planting and fencing around the area. However, these values are affected because of the quality
131 and quantity of water they are getting, which pose a risk to their health and denies them with the
convenience of a continuous flow of water from a level 3 water system. As such, DWSA has
difficulty in implementing its policy on the payment of water bill. It should be noted that
majority of the respondents reasoned out that their payment is their contribution to management
of the water system. The payment also becomes the reason for their unwillingness to do pahina
and even attend the annual assembly meetings called by DWSA. On the part of the Dagumbaan
BC, the whole operation and management of the water system is totally turned-over to DWSA
without the financial and technical support. BC relies on the collection of the DWSA for the
latter’s financial needs but the collection efficiency is only 50-60% and the amount collected is
not enough to cover costs of repair and maintenance of the water system. The pending request of
DWSA to BC for an increase in water rate to improve management is only feasible once the
delivery of water is improved. In the absence of a funding support, it is observed and validated
by accounts of respondents that the work of the BOD is more on the maintenance and repair of
the water system instead of policy formulation.
The quality and quantity of water produced, the difficulty in implementing policies and the lack of support from both BC and the consumers all add up to affect the management of the water resource. Responding to issues on water quantity and quality is indeed very challenging for
DWSA who lacks both financial and technical capabilities. Biophysical results of the study showed the need for DWSA to focus its management beyond repairs and maintenance. The ownership of the land surrounding the headsource is an opportunity for DWSA to institutionalize its management, specifically on assisted natural regeneration. This intervention has to be worked out with the BC. In addition, DWSA has to strengthen its coordination with the BC imposing the latter’s responsibility on the delivery of basic services to its constituents as embedded in the
132 Local Government Code of the Philippines. BC and DWSA must work out ways to tap the
municipal government to provide them with financial and technical support to improve the water
system and its water resource. One possible source of support is the reforestation program of the
NAPOCOR. According to a respondent who is a member of NAPOCOR’s Bantay Tubig (Water
Watch), NAPOCOR provides funding for reforestation, In addition, DWSA and BC should
prioritize the purchase of a chlorinator considering the bacterial contamination and reports of
people getting sick from drinking water.
The goal of management is sufficient and continuous flow of water. In response to this,
discharge measurement should be continued as basis for DWSA to devise a concrete plan on its
rotation mechanism of water distribution. The system of distribution should be disseminated for
the consumers to be aware of their schedule. BC should issue an ordinance to stop individual
household connections to lessen the problem of insufficient water. To augment its supply,
DWSA and BC should be able to tap other sources of water, including rain harvesting and dug
wells, provided that bacterial analysis will be regularly conducted.
CASE 3 (CITY/MUNICIPAL). WATER RESOURCE GOVERNANCE IN BARANGAY KIBALABAG
The social dimension of water resource governance in Barangay Kibalabag: Values, institutions and management
Water users’ values
According to all respondents, all water sources in Barangay Kibalabag have uses; river is a gift from God therefore there is a use. Water is important because it is the continuity of life - it
is the one that provides the need for drinking, washing, cleaning, bathing, etc. Water sources like
133 rivers not only include the flowing water itself but the whole of nature – land, forest, trees, rocks, the headsource where it comes from.
Kibalabag River in the past was used for fishing, washing and ritual. Before the
Malaybalay tapped the river for its water source, the barangay already has a level 3 water system free of charge. Thus, people no longer use Kibalabag river. But even if people no longer use the river, all the respondents claim that Kibalabag river is still important as the source of water for
Malaybalay City. According to one of the tribal leaders, “sa laus ha taggamit hu wahig iyan sa taga Malaybalay. Sa wahig day tagdiya ta Malaybalay” (the true users of the water are the people in Malaybalay. Our water flows to Malaybalay). “Sa wahig in-ila ta kanay dun tai, kinahanglan ha pandayaan day ta madakel sa etaw ha tagkinahangaln hai” (the river is given to us here so we have to take care of it because a lot of people need it) according to a Barangay
Councilor. This sense of value correspondingly gives a sense of responsibility to the community being the caretakers of the water source of Malaybalay City. Respondents admit that they fear that the water will get dirty because they will be blamed by people in Malaybalay City or will be held accountable by the local government (LGU). To sustain water, respondents agree that rehabilitation of Kibalabag watershed is essential, like planting of fruit trees that could also benefit the community as a source of livelihood. When MCGWSS conducted tree planting through a pahina, barangay residents participated in the activity. Barangay is also grateful for the benefits they get from the Malaybalay LGU in the form of water user fee.
Institutions and institutional mechanisms
With the growing population and industrialization in Malaybalay, the need for water also increases. The old source, Sawaga River, is no longer reliable to provide potable water in sufficient quantity and good quality. This is due to the deterioration of its watershed and its
134 riverbanks due to the proliferation of residential and livestock farms. In some parts of the city, households experience low water pressure or no water at all.
In compliance to the 1991 Local Government Code, Malaybalay City LGU establishes the production of potable water for its constituents. From its revenue savings, Malaybalay LGU constructed a dam to tap water from the Kibalabag River. In 2006, it then created the Malaybalay
City Government Water Supply System (MCGWSS) under the Office of the City Mayor.
MCGWSS is tasked to operate and manage the production of potable water. MCGWSS sells the water to Malaybalay City Water District (MCWD) at a rate of 2 pesos/m3. According to MCWD
General Manager, MCWD pays an average of 500,000/month to Malaybalay LGU. Thus, the production of potable water to MCWD becomes a source of income for the Malaybalay LGU.
Although MCWD holds the water right issued by the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) in compliance to the 1976 Water Code of the Philippines, it waives its right over Kibalabag
River in favor of Malaybalay LGU. As stipulated in the MOA between Malaybalay LGU and
MCWD signed in 2006, the relationship between the two is purely that of seller-buyer.
Kibalabag River is totally under the management of Malaybalay LGU through the MCGWSS.
Although the MOA between Malaybalay LGU and the MCWD clearly describes the seller-buyer relationship, MCWD expresses its interest to participate in the Kibalabag watershed management. This is in line with the directives of LWUA Law since MCWD is directly under the supervision of the LWUA. Sec. 31 of LWUA Law emphasizes the role of water districts in the protection of water and its facilities. PD 1479 in 1978, which amended PD 198: Provincial
Water Utilities Act, also stipulated that a water district shall have the right to “take over the management, administration, operation and maintenance of all watersheds within its territorial
135 boundaries.” MCWD also has a claim in Kibalabag River being the legal holder of the water permit issued by the NWRB.
At the barangay level, there is an informal agreement that issues on land and forest, including rivers, are under the domain of the Tribal Council (TC). Thus, the BC and the TC coordinate in monitoring the forest through their local forest guards and local volunteers.
Another organization – the Bukidnon Higaonon Tribal Association (BUHITA) – is also involved in governing the water. BUHITA has a unified claim of ancestral domain, which includes
Barangay Kibalabag. BUHITA’s concern is to uphold the rights of the Lumad in their ancestral domain, including the management of their resources as embedded in the Indigenous People’s
Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997.
Prior to the extraction of the water and the construction of the dam, Malaybalay LGU conducted a series of consultation with the Kibalabag community and the Barangay Council.
BUHITA also participates in the series of consultation to make sure that Malaybalay LGU upholds the rights of the indigenous community over their claimed ancestral domain. Kibalabag community was concerned that they will be driven out of their lands and their livelihood. In addition to an assurance from the Mayor, an agreement was made that the Malaybalay LGU pays the water user fee to Kibalabag through a share of 15 cents/m3 of water extracted. The Kibalabag
BC shares the amount of 7.5cents/m3 to BUHITA. From the user fees they receive, Kibalabag
BC and BUHITA decided to give 1.5 cents each to the Lindaban clan who claims ownership of the land. In an average, Kibalabag BC and BUHITA each receive 18,000 pesos/month from the water user’s fee. In exchange, Kibalabag BC and BUHITA each signed a MOA with the
Malaybalay LGU which stipulates, among others, their role in the protection of the Kibalabag
River and its watershed. In effect, BC formulate local policies like no cutting of trees and
136 charcoal making at the headsource, maintain cleanliness in the river, no animal pool, among others, which all the people in Kibalabag comply. In addition, Barangay Kibalabag participate in tree planting activities while BUHITA established a nursery to provide seedlings to any individual who wish to plant trees in his/her own land.
Management interventions
Due to a series of consultations conducted by the Malaybalay LGU prior to its project, the community is aware of the local policies imposed to protect and maintain the cleanliness of
Kibalabag River and its watershed. According to the Barangay Captain, it is the special request of the Mayor that the community helps the people in Malaybalay. In effect, MOAs between
Malaybalay LGU with the Kibalabag BC and BUHITA were enforced that emphasize the role of
BC and BUHITA in the management of the Kibalabag River and its watershed. Management activities already started when community and staff of MCGWSS did a community tree and bamboo planting along the river banks through a pahina. Landowners were given seedlings from the BUHITA nursery in Barangay Kibalabag. Aside from nursery, BUHITA also formed Bantay
Kalasan (Forest Guard) for its entire claimed ancestral domain. There are 3 forest guards in
Barangay Kibalabag.
For MCGWSS, management should be the production of potable, safe and clean water whose quality and quantity are based on set standards. On the part of MCGWSS, management also includes the technology for water treatment like floculator to ensure acceptable water quality standards. Bacterial analysis is done every month but samples are taken after water undergoes treatment.
For the respondents in Kibalabag, the common goal of management is to sustain the cleanliness, beauty and good quality of water of Kibalabag River. Kibalabag respondents agree
137 with MCGWSS that management of Kibalabag is watershed rehabilitation through planting of
fruit trees in the upstream and bamboos along riverbanks
The biophysical dimension of water resource governance in Barangay Kibalabag
Respondents in Kibalabag admit
that there is no effect of the water
system to the river and its watershed
when the Malaybalay LGU started to tap
water in 2006. Forest in the headwaters
of Kibalabag is a remnant of logging in
1960’s. The land cover for the rest of
Kibalabag is generally grassland. The extensive grassland dominating Kibalabag area
According to a tribal leader and elders,
the extensive grassland was a result of 7-month drought in 1957. Erosion was observed in the downstream when the construction of the dam started in 2004.
Mapping done in August 2008 of
Kibalabag River indicate a vast forest in the upstream while the riverbank downstream is dominantly grassland with patches of trees. In a catchment scale,
31% is grassland, 21% mossy forest confined at the headwater and 20%
The island formed at the center of the dam shrubland scattered along the whole due to sedimentaion stretch of the river (see Fig. A.11 and Table A.5). However, the topography is hilly, which is
138 prone to erosion. Downstream to where the dam is located, topography is very steep which le ads to erosion.
Total suspended solid (TSS) in the 6-month period is highest in August at 45mg/l, which may be due to high rainfall during that month (see Fig A.12). TSS abruptly goes down in
September. TSS is very critical especially during heavy rainfall. In one of the surveys done in
June 2008, the extent of sedimentation in the dam reaches about 3 feet. In fact, an island is already formed at the dam site due to sedimentation. This island was absent when the dam was constructed in 2004-2005.
Sediments also fill up the intake box. These problems occur because the design of the dam may not be able to accommodate the amount of gravel and sediments and there is Sedimentation in the dam that occured in June 2008 no regular dredging. at the onset of rainy season
139 Figure A.11. Land cover map of Kibalabag catchment
140 Table A.5. Area per land cover type in Kibalabag catchment
LAND COVER AREA (has) % Grassland 3222.2315 30.495% Mossy forest 2216.5595 20.977% Shrubland 2133.6628 20.193% Secondary forest 1252.9086 11.857% Other land with tree cover 445.9103 4.220% Pine plantation 430.8643 4.078% Manguim/Pine/Eucalyptus/Gmelina 419.2224 3.967% Primary forest 174.3700 1.650% Corn 131.3636 1.243% River/Lake 53.9346 0.510% Road 47.6915 0.451%
No data 26.5946 0.252% Land cover of Kibalabag watershed upstream Sugarcane 10.2610 0.097% Pineapple 0.5567 0.005% Rubber 0.3260 0.003% TOTAL 10566.457 100.000%
The MCGWSS dam supplies water to Malaybalay Erosion in mountain along Kibalabag river bank water consumers near the MCSGWSS dam
141
Figure A. 12. KIBALABAG RIVER TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) July to December 2008 60
50
40
30
TSS (mg/l) 20
10
0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month
Notes:laboratory test conducted by DOST Region 10 : points indicates accepted value of 50mg/li for Class A water based on DENR DAO 90-34
Figure A. 13. KIBALABAG RIVER NITRATE CONCENTRATION July to December 2008 12 10 8 6 4 2 Nitrates (mg/l) Nitrates 0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Result 0 0 0.97 0.8 1.5 0.47 Standard 10 10 10 10 10 10 Month
Notes: laboratory test conducted by DOST Region 10 : points indicate the standard value of 10mg/l based from DENR DAO 90-34
Nitrates abruptly increased in September to its highest in November at 1.5mg/l and tapers
down by December (see Fig. A. 13). This could be due to small farms and gardens interspersed
at the upstream. However, nitrates is way below the accepted standard value of 50mg/l.
MCGWSS is confident that water produced from Kibalabag River has excess from what is demanded by MCWD. Indeed, discharge measurements in Kibalabag river produces water above the volume of water demanded by MCWD. Highest discharge is recorded in October at
1.86m3/sec while the lowest is 0.35m3/sec in November (see Fig. A.14). The average discharge is
1.25m3/sec or 3,240,000m3/month. According to MCWD General Manager, MCWD gets
142 between 230,000-250,000m3/month and 260,000m3/month of water during summer. This is below what the Kibalabag River can produce in the average, even at its lowest discharge. But it is important to note that the discharge drops in the month of November.
MCGWSS relies on technology to improve water quality but results of bacterial analysis are either suspicious or unsatisfactory, which means above the accepted 3org/100ml of water, even if water has undergone treatment. Bacteriaal analysis results from July to December 2008 are consistently beyond the accepted value, the highest of which occurs in December at
20org/100ml (see Fig. A.15). Bacteria isolated are Enterobacter, Citrobacter and Proteus which are common in humans, plants, animals and water but Citrobacter and Proteus are also present in sewage-polluted water and are considered pathogens to humans. Bacteria analyses of water samples done by MCGWSS on its treated water also yield suspicious or unsatisfactory results at certain period of sampling. The higher bacteria may be due to the presence of organic materials from decaying plants and soil or sediments. Kibalabag river is a kilometer or so away from the residential area of Barangay Kibalabag.
Figure A. 14. KIBALABAG RIVER ESTIMATED DISCHARGE July to December 2008 2
/s) 3 1.5
1
Discharge (m 0.5
0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month
Note: points indicates average amount of water demanded by MCWD
143 Figure A. 15. KIBALABAG RIVER BACTERIAL ANALYSIS July to December 2008 25 20
15
10 MPN (org/100) 5 0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month Notes: MPN - most probable number :for the w ater supply to be considered potable, the MPN should not be more than 3 org/100ml and negative to E. coli. All the results show negative to E. coli : 0-excellent; 1-3-satisfactory;4-10-suspicious;>10-unsatisfactory : points ndicate acceptablity value of >3org/100ml :laboratory test conducted by CMU College of Veterinary Medicine
Water resource governance in Barangay Kibalabag: linking social and biophysical dimensions
Albeit people in Kibalabag do not use the Kibalabag river, they recognize its value as source of water for the greater populaiton of consumers in Malaybalay City. Respondents in
Barangay Kibalabag attest that the use of Malaybalay LGU on the Kibalabag River has no effect to the community or to its watershed. In fact, they have been benefited from the water user fees.
Aside from that, community members are hired to work in the MCGWSS in the monitoring and maintenance of the dam facilities. This is the reason why they take it as their responsibility to help in the protection of the Kibalabag River and its watershed. Recognizing their role as caretakers of the river, the sense of value of the river encourages the people to participate in the management of the river and its watershed. This is supported by institutions that allow the barangay to have a share of the benefits through water user fee. This effort is initiated by the
Malaybalay LGU itself, through the signing of the MOA. Consequently, the over-all management of Kibalabag river and its watershed is a joint effort between the Kibalabag BC,
BUHITA and the Malaybalay LGU through the MCGWSS.
144 The above dynamics show a link between value and institutions but this do not directly link to management as also evidenced by the biophysical condition of the Kibalabag river. Even in the two years of operation, massive sedimentation is very apparent in the dam. This sedimentation may have been caused by the steep slopes, the dominantly gravel substrate, the extensive grassland and erosion occurring in the mountains and along riverbanks. The proliferation of sediments in the dam and the formation of the island could be due to faulty engineering design which cannot accommodate the amount of gravel deposited especially during heavy rainfall events. In this case, MCGWSS should anticipate the volume of load of sediments entering the dam and take measures to regularly remove the sediments. Thus, monitoring of stream discharge and water quality parameters must be institutionalized within MCGWSS operations.
As a LWUA borrower, it is the Malaybalay City Water District (MCWD) that complies with the provisions of the Provincial Water Utilities Act and its amendments (PD 1479) which reserves the right to management of watershed and the responsibility for water quality monitoring to water districts. MCGWSS is not directly under the LWUA. But the Department of
Health (DOH) Administrative Order 2007-0012 requires all water supplies, both government and private to comply with the water quality standards set under the Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water (PNSDW). This means MCGWSS is legally obliged to comply with these requirements. It should be emphasized, however, that monitoring should not be made only in compliance to laws but, most importantly, for management purposes like lessening sediment load and bacterial contamination. Considering the quality of water produced, management should include the combination of watershed rehabilitation and technological fixes.
145 Planting of trees and bamboos must be continued and their growth be monitored.
MCGWSS should also encourage planting of mixed trees that have both economic and ecological benefits. But planting should be turned-over to the BC and the BUHITA for them to take the lead in the management of the watershed. BC and BUHITA must make transparent how the money from water user fee is expended and make a proportionate budget for watershed rehabilitation and protection and basic services to the barangay like livelihood assistance. The concern on budget allocation from water user fee for community livelihood and watershed protection was expressed by respondents in Kibalabag, MCGWSS and MCWD.
CASE 4 (CITY/MUNICIPAL). WATER RESOURCE GOVERNANCE IN BARANGAY PINAMALOY
The social dimension of water resource governance IN Barangay Pinamaloy: Values, institutions and management
Water users’ values
THE LEGEND OF LAKE PINAMALOY Before there was lake, it was all land and forest. There was a couple Respondents value named Pina and Maloy. Maloy, the husband, is a hunter. Maloy has a dog that goes with him during hunting. After few days of hunting, the husband was not able to return but only the dog. So Pina asked the dog water because it is life from where its master is. The dog did not respond but only wagged its tail. But Pina did not stop from asking until the dog spoke up. "I will tell you but you must not get disappointed. Your husband was killed by a big which the basic needs are animal." After saying it, the surrounding turned dark, it rained heavily, and a lightning hit the dog and it died. The land where the house stood broke into two. This then was filled up with water and became a lake. derived – drinking, cooking, When the couple’s friends visited, they could not find Pina and Maloy and their house but instead they found a huge lake. They then named the lake Pinamaloy after the names of the couple. There was also a very washing, bathing, fishing. small lake where the dog laid when it died but it dried up. Excerpt from a story of Ernesto Butardo, an early settler in the lake Lake Pinamaloy is important not only as their source of Box 1. The legend of Lake Pinamaloy water but also their pride as it is the trademark of the municipality of Don Carlos. It is also a historical site as a battlefield when the US and Philippines liberating forces ended the Japanese rule in 1945. As a remnant of a
146 historical battle in the 1940’s, a respondent revealed that people found buried bombs by Japanese
troops. Thus, Lake Pinamaloy is declared a national park in the 1960’s and a municipal tree park
and tourist zone in 2003.
According to an early settler and a
respondent in the interview, the Manobo (a
Lumad group) are the original settlers in the lake
who took care of the lake. In fact, the origin of
the lake is a historical account based on the
Manobo story (see box). The Manobo performed A private well constructed by some Households as source of water ritual in the lake very year. But when migrants
started to dominate the place, the Manobo left and
moved to the uplands. In the past, residents claim
that the lake was the favorite place for both domestic (washing, bathing) and recreation of residents and non-residents alike. People fished in the lake while some have gardens around the lake. Residents expressing their sentiments on the policy that restricts them to use the On the part of the Don Carlos Water District lake
(DCWD), lake is important as source of water for the urban center of Don Carlos municipality.
The Don Carlos LGU, on the other hand, establishes and manages the lake as a tree park and an ecotourism zone. In fact, LGU has a plan to construct amenities inside the lake but such proposal was is shelved due to financial limitations. DCWD also opposed of the plan due to its potential impact to the water source.
147 The value of the people towards the lake was more on its use but present institutions prevent and/or restrict residents surrounding the lake from using it, particularly for bathing, washing, large scale fishing and gardening (see discussion that follows). To obtain water supply, some households initiated to construct their own well. . A community of about 20 households within Barangay Pinamaloy relies on a well constructed by the LGU in 2007. But accordingly, these wells dry up during summer. In the interviews conducted, residents expressed feelings of disappointment and resentment. “Kami nga mga tawo dinhi sa lake dili unta hikawan… Kung ang among atabay mamalhan, asa man mi paingon? Lain kaayo huna-hunaon nga ang tubig gi- negosyo apan kami dinhi walay tubig. Naa dire ang tubig pero dili mi makagamit” (We, the people here in the lake should not be deprived [of the water]… If our well dry up, where will we go? It is absurd to think that the water is used for business but us here have no water. We have the source of water here but we cannot use it). These sentiments are echoed by other residents who are respondents in the interview What residents find it ironic is that DCWD is extracting so much water (approximately 23,000m3/month based on DCWD record), of which a considerable volume supplies water to huge tracts of pineapple plantations of the DAVCO. But their small community has no adequate and potable water supply. Because of this, residents prefer more the ecotourism project of the Don Carlos LGU to preserve the beauty of the lake.
Governance actors, institutions and institutional mechanisms
Pinamaloy Lake is shared by three main users: DCWD which extracts water to supply its consumers; the Don Carlos LGU which provides recreational area; and the communities surrounding the lake for their domestic needs. The interaction of these users describes complexity of governance in the lake. Physically, there is an imaginary boundary in the lake that delineates DCWD and Don Carlos LGU areas. The entire lake is surrounded with communities
148 under the two barangays – Pinamaloy and Norte. However, involvement of Barangay Councils is
only through monitoring of the activities in the lake. According to a former Barangay Secretary,
“wala natagaan ug pagtagad ang lake” (we have not put attention to the lake) and there is
barangay policy because much of the BC effort is focused on other priorities like health and road
concerns.
A water organization was created by the Don Carlos municipal mayor in 1981/82 but this
organization was under the Provincial Government. After 4 years of operation, the Provincial
Government turned-over the organization to the Municipal Government. It was in 1986 when the
DCWD was created. DCWD availed of the loan from LWUA to expand and improve its
operations. Thus, DCWD is under the supervision and abides by the policies of LWUA, which is
basically the PD 198: Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973 and its amendments. DCWD
extracts potable water supply for Don Carlos urban center and maintains its pumping station on
the southern end of the lake. DCWD claims its authority over the lake by virtue of its water right
issued by the NWRB.
On the other hand, the Don Carlos LGU has also a stake in the Lake Pinamaloy. LGU
establishes the tree park and ecotourism in the lake, as part of its responsibilities as embedded in
the 1991 Local Government Code. Rest and picnic areas are installed in the northern end of the
lake. The LGU also links with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) of the
Department of Agriculture (DA) in the production of fingerlings.
Despite the value and attachment residents have on the lake, these are affected by the
restrictions imposed by the DCWD and the Don Carlos LGU. In the late 1993, LGU formulated the ordinance # 015-s.93 that restricts people to use the lake for bathing and washing to maintain the cleanliness of the lake. Pasturing, animal pools and cutting of trees inside the lake are also
149 prohibited. Even the small vegetable farms are ordered to be abandoned. But these ordinances have not been properly disseminated according to residents in Pinamaloy. They only learned of the policies when security guards inside the Lake Pinamaloy Park reprimanded them. Lacking water supply especially during dry season, residents sneak out and even cut the interlink of the fence to gain entry into the lake. On the point of view of both DCWD and the Don Carlos LGU, ordinances are necessary since the lake is a source of potable water supply and as a public recreation area.
During the consultation done by Don Carlos LGU in August 2008, DCWD and LGU agreed to shoulder the expenses in the installation of three communal water systems to serve the households in Lake Pinamaloy. But residents fear that they cannot afford to pay the monthly bill of 172 pesos for 10m3`consumption. DCWD water is expensive because it uses electricity to pump water from production to distribution. In an interview conducted in November revealed that some residents decided to discontinue the use of the water system because of the high cost of water (according to some reports, DCWD has the highest water rate in Bukidnon).
Management interventions
For DCWD, management involves the provision of clean and potable water 24 hours a day through the sound operation of the water system. Management is done as its responsibility to
DCWD concessionaires. Don Carlos LGU sees management as that which involves people in management activities such as beautification, tree planting, cleaning, information dissemination and monitoring. Barangay officials express their concern to be included in the planning and development of the lake, including ensuring the cleanliness and security of the area. For the respondents who are residents in the lake, management means to maintain the cleanliness and
150 beauty of the lake. The goal of management is to provide clean, potable water as well as to
protect the lake as a the pride and landmark of the people in Don Carlos.
Management activities are mainly done by the two major users – DCWD and the LGU.
DCWD takes the initiative to clean-up the lake from the massive proliferation of a macrophyte
identified as Salvinia natans around the lake. It also conducts tree planting around the lake. All
expenses are shouldered by the DCWD. The Don Carlos LGU, for its part, conducts annual tree
planting activity and supports tree planting projects of other organizations. Through provincial
and congressional funding, LGU fenced the area of the park for protection and security
measures. From 1995 to 2005, LGU receives four awards for being cited as the cleanest and
greenest lake. In 1995, the lake was a national finalist in the Presidential Awards for the Cleanest
Inland Bodies of Water.
When resident respondents were asked about their participation in the management of the
lake, they commented that “ngano maapil man mi nga sila ra man naka benepisyo? Kung tagaan
mi ug tubig, magbayad man mi mao na dili mi magtabang kay wala man mi natagaan ug pabor.
Ang nagdumala mao ra ang naka pahimulos” (Why should we participate in the management
when only them get the benefits? If they provide us with water, we will also pay so we will not
help because we are not given favor in return. Those who manage are those who get the benefit).
According to them, if they will be given free water then they will participate in management,
“Mag apil man gani mi ug pahina sa barangay para maglimpyo unsa na kaha kung maglimpyo
sa lake” (We even participate in pahina for clean-up in the barangay, how much more for the lake). Residents also favor the ecotourism of the LGU because the water will not be used for business and it will not decrease the level of the lake due to extraction. A village leader commented that in management of the lake “wala maapil ang mga tawo” (the people are not
151 included. According to interviewed residents, the BC just relies on the municipal local
government. Barangay officials concur to this comment. The Barangay Council has no
involvement in management, except for monitoring of the activities in the lake. According to a
Barangay Councilor, the barangay has no allocation for lake development due to its meager
budget allocation from the municipal government.
The biophysical dimension of water resource governance at Barangay Pinamaloy
According to an elder and an early settler in the lake, the entire area was then forested in
1950’s. After the lake was used as a camp of the Japanese militia in WW2, the lake became a log
pan of the sawmill owned by a politician. There was also a ranch. The lake was then surrounded
with huge trees like Balete (Ficus species). In late 1950’s, migrants started to squat the area and opened the remaining forest for farming. This further attracted other migrants looking for land, which led to an increase in migrant population. When the area was still forested, people get their drinking water from the center of the lake using a raft while other people dug wells. The water was then clean and fresh. In the early morning, the area gets foggy and the water was warm
(which indicates that the lake was then very deep). According to an early settler, the deepest part
of the lake then measured 13 meters in the portion where the DCWD installs its pumping station.
Tree planting started in the 1980’s which replace indigenous trees with fast growing plantation
species like Gmelina and Mahogany. In 1986, the DCWD started water extraction to supply
water to the urban center of Don Carlos.
Lake Pinamaloy is actually the drainage of two catchments – Maramag (12,926 has) and
Muleta (42,409 has). This somehow relates to the legend of the Lake Pinamaloy where the land
broke into two and the center is filled up with water. Maramag catchment land cover is
dominantly sugarcane (44%) and grassland (21%) while 29% of the landcover in the Muleta
152 catchment is trees and 23% sugarcane (see Fig. A.16 and Table A.6). Combining the two
catchments, sugarcane accounts for 28%, land with tree cover is 25% and grassland is 19% of the
total land area. Topographic map show a river from the Muleta watershed that drains to the lake,
the other as an outlet which is within the Maramag watershed. However, a survey around the
lake did not find these rivers, except for an ephemeral creek. It might be that the other river is
buried with the road and drainage canals constructed on the south-west side of the lake.
Apparently, the lake source is largely groundwater that drains into it. A survey in the 26-hectare
lake indicates that the highest depth is only 11 meters located near the pumping station of the
DCWD. Twenty depth sampling points resulted to an average of only 5 meters.
Residents of the Lake Pinamaloy agree that the extraction of DCWD causes a major
decline in the depth of the lake. It is also apparent to them that the size of the lake is decreasing.
They blamed this massive decrease of water to DCWD, specifically the water supplied to
DAVCO. DAVCO uses water of about 2870m3 per month. But according to DCWD, DAVCO also pays a higher rate which allows DCWD to continue its operations even without increasing the water rate for domestic consumption.
Considering the present scenario, the decrease in both volume and size of the lake is due, not only to massive extraction but also to the increasing built-up and agricultural area surrounding the lake that affects water infiltration and retention. Add to this is the extent of sedimentation considering the topography and land cover of the lake’s watershed. The water absorption rate of the dominant fast-growing plantation species could not be neglected as a as a major management contributing factor. The greater population of Barangay Pinamaloy also
153 Figure A.16 . Land cover map of Lake Pinamaloy
154 Table A.6. Area per land cover type in the Pinamaloy catchment
Land cover AREA (has) % Sugarcane 15346.8613 27.734% Other land with tree cover 13906.4224 25.131% Grassland 10717.4343 19.368% Shrubland 8043.8201 14.537% Corn 2022.6135 3.655% Rubber 929.5772 1.680% No data 864.1690 1.562%
Irrigated ricefield 700.1909 1.265% Secondary forest 577.0694 1.043% Road 577.0046 1.043% River/Lake 483.5235 0.874% Pineapple 462.2639 0.835% Banana 361.7778 0.654% Built-up area 323.0000 0.584% Plantation species as buffer strip in Lake Lake Pinamaloy 26.2370 0.047% Pinamaloy Mango 16.1016 0.029% Primary forest 2.3406 0.004% Mossy forest 0.8729 0.002% TOTAL 55335.0430 100.000%
The extensive Salvinia natans covering the lake’s water Farms surrounding Lake Pinamaloy
155 pumps groundwater for its water system, which will decrease the volume of ground water
entering the lake.
Management activity in the lake is apparent in the existing land cover surrounding the
lake. Gmelina and mahogany trees dominate the perimeter and bank allowance of the lake
covering about 12 hectares of the total 65 hectares of the declared municipal tree park. However,
beyond the fenced park, farms and residential land uses dominate.
In the 6-month sampling, the Figure A. 17. PINAMALOY LAKE BACTERIAL ANALYSIS July to December 2008 months of July, September and October 80 70 60 have satisfactory results for bacterial 50 40 30 analysis (see Fig. A. 16). But 20 MPN (org/100ml) 10 0 bacteriological contamination has Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Months dramatically increased in November Notes: MPN - most probable number :for the water supply to be considered potable, the MPN should not be more than 3 org/100ml and negative to E. coli. All the results show negative to E. coli : 0-excellent; 1-3-satisfactory;4-10-suspicious;>10-unsatisfactory when the MPN is 75org/100ml. Bacteria : points indicate acceptablity value of >3org/100ml :laboratory test conducted by CMU College of Veterinary Medicine isolated include Shigella, Enterobacter,
Arizona, Citrobacter and Proteus, which are common to humans, animals, plants, soil and water.
Some species of Shigella cause disease to humans. In fact, the World Health Organization
(WHO) and the Philippine National Standards for Drinking Waters (PNSDW) in 2007 listed
Shigella as a water-borne pathogen with high health significance. TSS is highest in November at
8.5mg/l while nitrates highest value occurs in October at 0.8mg/l (see Fig. A.18 and A.19). The
low TSS value is because the lake is a lentic ecosystem which allows sediments to settle.
156 Figure A. 18. PINAMALOY LAKE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) July to December 2008 60
40
20 TSS (mg/l)
0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Result 0 7 2.5 2.4 8.5 1.8 Standard 50 50 50 50 50 50
Months
Notes:laboratory test conducted by DOST Region 10 : points indicate the accepted value of 50mg/li for Class A water based on DENR DAO 90-34
Figure A. 19. PINAMALOY LAKE NITRATE CONCENTRATION August to December 2008 15 Wa 10 ter 5 Nitrates (mg/l) res 0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec our Result 0 0 0 0.8 0.6 0 Standard value 10 10 10 10 10 10 ce Months Notes: laboratory test conducted by DOST Region 10 gov : points indicate the standard value of 10mg/l based from DENR DAO 90-34 ern ance in Barangay Pinamaloy: linking social and biophysical dimensions
157 The social dimension of governance in Lake Pinamaloy exemplifies a complex of interaction between values, institutions and management. The lake is important to users because of its historic, cultural and use values. With the current situation, the historic and cultural values come in conflict with the heavy extraction of water which affects the volume and size of the lake, as perceived by the users. In addition, these values pose in conflict with the institutions implemented. In terms of the use, residents in the lake are restricted to use the lake to maintain the cleanliness and safety of water for the greater number of DCWD water consumers. With very limited option of water source, residents express their resentment to the imposed municipal ordinance. Although wells and level 2 water system were installed, residents still face problems because wells dry up during dry season and the water rate is too costly. The Don Carlos LGU is still looking The level 2 water system, shared by 10 households, out for ways on how to resolve this problem installed by the DCWD free of charge and the personnel is positive this will be resolved through more consultations. The resentment of residents greatly affects their desire to participate in the management of the lake and achieve their goal of management which is to protect the pride and landmark of the Don Carlos and to provide potable water 24 hours a day.
The somehow conflicting situation of values and institutions is evident in the lake’s water quality and volume as well as the land cover of its watershed. There are many contributing factors to the declining volume and extent of the lake, very notable is the rate of extraction.
Regulation is not only the responsibility of the DCWD but also by the Don Carlos LGU. With
158 the growing agri-industrialization of Don Carlos due to the expanding sugarcane and pineapple
plantations, it will endanger the capacity of the lake to supply the water needs in a water-scarce
Don Carlos landscape. Considering that input to the lake is largely groundwater, tree planting along the buffer strip may not have a considerable impact in terms of water infiltration, retention and filtration. The extent of Lake Pinamaloy watershed calls for integrated management, beyond the political jurisdiction of Don Carlos LGU. Considering Don Carlos as the major user of the lake, Don Carlos LGU should take the lead to initiate watershed rehabilitation efforts with other municipalities within the lake’s watershed, i.e. Lantapan and Maramag. This will also require the involvement of the Bukidnon Provincial Government through the Bukidnon Environment and
Natural Resources Office (BENRO).
Another management aspect to look at is the water quality. Although TSS and nitrates are below the accepted standard values, bacteriological results are very alarming. It is imperative that the water filtration and chlorination of DCWD should maintain its functionality and efficiency in order for the water to pass the required standards of potable water. In addition to these technological fixes, water quality should be improved at the source itself. This is where the involvement of communities surrounding the lake comes in. Aside from provision of potable water, DCWD and LGU should work out health and sanitation programs as well as the provision of potable water for communities around the lake.
The conflict between values and institution pose a risk to the management of the lake as evidenced in the biophysical condition of the lake. Lake Pinamaloy is a very important water resource for Don Carlos as the only accessible water source for its water system. There is a plan of tapping another water source but is very costly because of its remote location. With the existing governance dynamics and the biophysical condition of the lake, concrete actions are
159 necessary to arrest further degradation. There is a need for DCWD and the Don Carlos LGU to
agree on their use and create a joint management initiative for the protection of the lake. As the
major users of the lake, their coordination and partnership should be institutionalized within the
management program of the Lake Pinamaloy. Coordination includes management actions on
appropriate land use zoning, particularly around the lake. Plans on constructing amenities in the
lake as an ecotourism area should be subjected to assessment as the effects could further
endanger the quality of the lake, for instance, bacteria and pollution contamination, water
infiltration, security of the water facilities, etc. Built-up area/ residential contribute to the higher
bacteria in the lake. The concern of communities surrounding the lake should be responded by
DCWD and Don Carlos LGU to encourage them to participate in the monitoring and protection
of the lake and the park. One critical issue to be responded is the establishment of water and
sanitation facilities as well as health and livelihood to restore the quality of the lake. The
community should be seen as a co-manager rather than as culprit in sustaining the uses of the
lake.
CASE 5 (NATIONAL). WATER RESOURCE GOVERNANCE IN BARANGAY LALIGAN
The social dimension of water resource governance in Barangay Laligan: values, institutions and management
Water users’ values
Respondents value water as the “kinabuhi sa tawo” (life of the people) because of its big
help as the source of need for drinking, washing, cooking and for animal pools and farm
production. Before the National Irrigation Administration dam was constructed in 1979, the river
was the source of water for drinking, bathing, washing and as an animal pool. There were also
small fishponds. Farmers made use of the abundant and strong flow of the water by organizing a
160 communal system of irrigation based on voluntary labor, pahina and informal rules on use. The existence of this informal irrigation system and the huge quantity of water from Laligan river also prompted the NIA to include Laligan as one of its irrigation projects in Bukidnon.
Respondents acknowledge the importance of Laligan as source of water for ricefields and for irrigation, especially for ricefields located at a distance of the river. Majority of the respondents agree that the on (NIA) dam is a big help to farmers by allowing water from Laligan
River to irrigate even those farms away from the river. This leads to an increase in farm production. However, there are also side effects of the establishment of the dam. The benefit of the use of the NIA dam is only to those farms located in the downstream of Laligan, relative to
the location of the dam. Those in the upstream use the river to irrigate their ricefields by tapping
the river and diverting it to their lands, which lessens the amount of water going into the dam. As
observed by barangay officials interviewed, the establishment of the dam also causes migrants to
settle and farm in Laligan. In fact, the population of Barangay Laligan is dominated by migrant
group from provinces in the Visayas region. According to a tribal leader and elder, Laligan is
now dominated by ricefields, brought about by the NIA dam. His family owns the land where the
dam is constructed. The construction of the NIA dam had once caused disagreement from
members of his family but this was settled when NIA agreed to hire a member of the clan as a
Gatekeeper who controls the opening and closing of the dam gates and monitors the problems in
the dam operations. Although there are still “unfulfilled” promises of NIA, it is now difficult to
pursue because his family lacks the title of the land (since water is owned by the state by virtue
of the Water Code) and the agreement between his family and the NIA was verbal and there was
no document to substantiate their claim.
161 Farmers all agree that there is scarcity of water especially during the dry season. Their
preference on the Laligan River is for it to be the source of irrigation water so that they express
their desire to do tree planting in the headsource and along riverbanks. There should be a
partnership between the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the
Laligan residents to restore the forest in the upstream. Water has to be shared and distributed equally among all farmers/members of the Laligan Irrigation Association (LIA).
The governance actors, institutions and institutional mechanisms
NIA was created by virtue of RA 3601 passed in 1963 to investigate, develop, construct
and operationalize irrigation facilities primarily for, but not limited to, agriculture. According to
a NIA personnel, the role of NIA is to “investigate, develop, construct and operate irrigations
systems at a national level, i.e. above 500 hectares of agricultural area; below that is the
responsibility of the Provincial Irrigation Office” (PIO is created based on the Local Government
Code). The project of NIA in Bukidnon is actually the Pulangi River Irrigation System (PRIS).
But during the course of its survey, they discovered the informal irrigation system in Laligan and
decided to develop it into a formal irrigation system under its program. Thus, the construction of
the irrigation system in Laligan started in 1979 and became operational in 1986. A series of
negotiations were conducted particularly with farmers and landowners regarding the construction
of the dam and the irrigation canals. In 1986, the irrigation association was organized where
farmers are trained through a series of seminars and trainings. In 2000, the Laligan Irrigation
Association (LIA) was formally recognized by NIA. The organization of irrigation association is
embedded in NIA’s RA 3601 as amended by Presidential Decree (PD) 552 and PD 1702:
to delegate the partial or full management of national irrigation systems (NIS) to duly organized cooperatives or associations; ;charge and collect from the beneficiaries of the water from all irrigation systems constructed by or under its administration, such fees or administration charges as may be necessary to cover the cost of operation, maintenance, and insurance.
162
Thus, the primary function of the LIA is to collect ISF and maintain the structures of the irrigation system. LIA members are also obliged to maintain and clean up the turn-out canals.
Any major repair are shouldered by the NIA.
Farmers/members are aware of their obligation to pay for the Irrigation Service Fee
(ISF) to the NIA which is coursed through the
LIA. When a farmer pays the ISF, he/she will be issued a water permit. The payment of water use during wet season is 100 kilos of palay (unmilled LIA policies strategically posted for the awareness rice) per hectare or cash of 1000 pesos per of all members hectare. During dry season, the cost is 150 kilos of palay or 1500 pesos per hectare. The higher rate is because of the higher demand of water. If the member can pay within 1-2 weeks after his/her harvest, a 10% discount is given as incentive. The Board of Directors (BOD) of the LIA imposes the “no water permit, no planting” policy, which means that if a farmer/member does not pay the ISF, then he/she is not allowed to plant for the next season. Aside from the payment of ISF, LIA members are also oblige to participate in the pahina for the maintenance and cleanliness of irrigation canals. According to respondents, members follow policy because they understood that policies are for their own benefit, i.e. so they can use the water. One tenant claimed that even if he is not the owner of the land, he still participates in the pahina because that is the policy. According to a LIA BOD, members obey the policies to promote harmony.
NIA gives LIA BOD the power to formulate its operational rules as long as these do not contradict with NIA policies. For instance, LIA decides on the system of distribution of water
163 and scheduling in a weekly basis to all members, especially during the dry season when water is in low supply but has a high demand. This is to minimize conflict among members.
Management interventions
According to respondents, management involves the maintenance of the functionality of the dam structures, including passable roads for accessibility of transport of farm produce; 100% collection of ISFs; water scheduling; and the improvement of the livelihood of farmers. The goal of management is to improve the irrigation system and ensure sufficient and continuous flow of water in the irrigation canals. This is important to also improve the farm production and livelihood of farmers who depend on the Laligan river for farming.
Management of the irrigation system is a joint undertaking of NIA and LIA, though there are delineations in terms of their responsibilities. NIA takes charge of the functional operations of the dam and the main and lateral canals while the LIA maintains the cleanliness of the turn- out canals (these are the canals that carry water to individual farms). LIA members do the desilting as well as brushing of weeds along the NIA canals. The flow and distribution of water is also controlled by the LIA BOD. The rotational basis of water scheduling is a management strategy of LIA to avoid conflict among users. Major repairs and maintenance of the irrigation system is undertaken by NIA which includes removal of sediments in the dam, fixing canals and maintaining passable roads along the main canals.
LIA imposes and monitors the day-to-day rules to all its members. LIA BODs all agreed they have the capacity to take-over the operation and management of the irrigation in Laligan.
“Ang mga farmers ang tagaan ug responsibilidad sa pagdumala, inay ang NIA, kay dili man ang
NIA ang nag-gamit” (The farmers should have the responsibility to manage, instead of NIA, because NIA is not the user), according to a respondent. This desire is based on LIA’s experience
164 in the delay of NIA’s response to their problems like broken canals and siltation, probably due to lack of funds or due to bureaucracy in NIA’s operation. From the collection of ISF, 40% goes to
LIA while 60% goes to NIA but NIA’s coverage is not only in Laligan but to the bigger Pulangi
River Irrigation System in Bukidnon. The complete turn-over of management to LIA is allowed only when the loan is totally paid up.
It is obvious that management of NIA and LIA focus more on the operations and maintenance of the dam structures as well as on the collection of fees. But there is no local policy or activity done on the source of the water itself. Members express the importance of planting trees at the headsource, as reasoned out by one respondent, “kung walay tubig sa tinubdan, unsa man ang atong gamiton para patubig sa atong uma?” (if there is no water at the headsource, what will we use to water our farms?). A wife of the farmer attested that “ang among kinabuhi nag-uswag tungod sa dam pero kung ang suba naa kanunay tubig. Kung mamadhan ang suba, dako kaayo nga problema” (our lives improve because of the dam but only if there is water in the river. If rivers will dry up, it will be a big problem). Thus, as suggested by a farmer, the government must force people to plant trees. As reported by respondents, there was actually tree planting sponsored by the Laligan Barangay Council while some landowners plant trees along sloping areas of their lands. But trees planted were mostly Gmelina and Ipil-ipil which, according to some respondents, became the source of livelihood of people like charcoal making.
Both NIA and LIA agree that the management of the Laligan river, its headsource and watershed are unattended. A NIA personnel admits that watershed is beyond the scope of NIA operations due to lack of budget. In fact, watershed protection for “watersheds that are sources of water for existing and potential irrigable areas and recharge areas of major aquifers” as stipulated
165 in the 1997 Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act specifies the coordination between the
Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). NIA’s role is “to continue to plan, design, develop, rehabilitate, and improve the NISs
(National Irrigation Systems)”. At present, this coordination is absent in Laligan. A concern expressed by a LIA BOD and a community organizer deals with political boundary, i.e. the headsource is under the jurisdiction of another barangay. There was an initiative of the DENR to form a watershed task force but this was not materialized. There is also no coordination between
DENR and the NIA regarding watershed management.
The biophysical dimension of water resource governance in Barangay Laligan
Based on accounts of respondents, the area upstream of the dam is still forested in
1970’s. Laligan River was then big and clean. According to an elder interviewed, the flow of
Laligan is strong but this is “balanced” by the barriers along the river like the Guka tree which made some portion of the river relatively stagnant. There were abundant springs which were sources of water for drinking as well as for farming.
The strong flow of Laligan River prompted NIA to see the potential of the Laligan River as source of irrigation water. When the NIA dam became operational in 1986, this paved the way for the increase of migrants looking for lands to farm. Dam also facilitated the conversion of lands along riverbanks and irrigation canals into ricefields. The headsource is stripped of its trees and the upstream is now planted with crops. Water flow becomes relatively slow, except when there is rain. However, rain also makes water very turbid. Yet despite all these changes, farmers do not oppose of the irrigation system because of the benefits they get from it – increase in farm
166 production, continuous cropping season because irrigation canals contain more water and water is available even during dry season although the amount is insufficient.
The quantity of water is the main Figure A. 20. LALIGAN RIVER ESTIMATED DISCHARGE concern of Laligan farmers so that the July to December 2008 4 /s) goal of management is to sustain the 3 3
2 flow of water in the irrigation canals. 1 Discharge (m 0 According to NIA personnel, discharge Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Months of Laligan should not be less than 1 Note: points indicate the minimum required discharge to irrigate all ricefields m3/sec to supply water to the 8.43 km dam canals that flow to the 532 hectares of ricefield. Based on the monthly discharge of Laligan
River from July to December 2008, the highest occurs in July at the onset of the rainy season wherein the discharge is 3.54m3/sec (see Fig. A.20.). Average discharge in the 6-month sampling is 1.53 m3/sec. But discharge declines reaching its lowest value of 0.74m3/sec in September.
Note that sampling was done within the wet season (June to November). It is expected that there will be a further decline during the dry season. The decline, according to farmers is because of the absence of trees in the upstream and the increasing area of ricefields. Although the dam benefits the farmers, it also encouraged the conversion of lands to ricefields. Land cover along the river is dominantly ricefield with patches of trees and bamboos along the riverbank. In a catchment scale, Laligan is dominated with planted trees like Ipil-Ipil and Gmelina, shrubs and grassland particularly along the watershed divide. Land with tree cover accounts 25% of the catchment, shrubland is 19% and grassland is 18%. Irrigated ricefield covers 14% which are confined downstream of Laligan River (see Fig. A. 21 and Table A.7).
167 Figure A. 21. Land cover map of Laligan catchment
168
Table A.7. Area per land cover type in Laligan catchment
LAND COVER AREA PERCENT Other land with tree cover 2332.9156 24.814% Shrubland 1757.7922 18.696% Grassland 1679.7814 17.867% Irrigated ricefield 1286.5201 13.684% Mossy forest 1060.8728 11.284%
Secondary forest 901.0881 9.584% Corn 221.0459 2.351% Sugarcane 58.6215 0.624% Road 50.6715 0.539% River/Lake 29.9451 0.319%
Primary forest 15.2960 0.163% The Laligan catchment showing the mixture Built-up area 6.4465 0.069% of trees, shrubs and agricultural crops No data 0.6006 0.006% Coconut 0.1636 0.002% TOTAL 9401.761 100.000%
Landcover upstream of the dam The NIA main canal delivers water to extensive ricefields
169 Erosion is inevitable considering the hilly
topography of the upstream. This is enhanced
by the largely agricultural land use, especially
along the riverbank. Water quality sampling
showed a high TSS of 32mg/l in August 2008
although it is way below the standard value (see
Fig. A. 22). But surveys in the area showed the
extensive sedimentation near the dam – from The extent of sedimentation in the NIA dam in Aug 2008 gravel to becoming silt deposited along the riverbank near the dam. In the monthly surveys conducted, sedimentation becomes more extensive forming an island at the center of the river of about 30 meters from the dam (see photo). Sediments cause barrier in the flow of water and make water more turbid. Silts enter the canals despite the closing of the dam gate Gravel extraction becomes a source of livelihood of residents. Note the land cover on the background during heavy downpour. Enterprising residents take this opportunity of the massive sediment deposition by collecting the gravel for sale or for household use (see photo).
Highest concentration of nitrates is only 3mg/l that occurs in November (see Fig. A. 23).
Based on DENR DAO 90-35, there is no standard value for nitrates for rivers used for irrigation.
But it is interesting to note the gradual increase of nitrates from August to September and then
rise rapidly by November and declines to 0mg/li in December.
170 Figure A. 22. LALIGAN RIVER TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) Figure A. 23. LALIGAN RIVER NITRATE CONCENTRATION July to December 2008 July to December 2008
250 3.5 3 200 2.5 150 2 100
TSS (mg/l) TSS 1.5
50 Nitrate (mg/l) 1 0.5 0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Months Result 0 0 0.4 0.8 3 0 Notes:laboratory test conducted by DOST Region 10 Months : points indicate the accepted value of 200mg/l for Class D water based on DENR DAO 90-35 Notes: laboratory test conducted by DOST Region 10 : No standard for nitrate for Class D water based from DENR DAO 90-35
Water resource governance in Barangay Laligan: linking social and biophysical dimensions
The value of Laligan River stems from water as an important raw material for farming.
Laligan river supplies water to farms while the NIA irrigation system provides access of water to all farmlands, even at a distance from the river. These values facilitate the creation of institutions to ensure that water is distributed, especially during dry season. Majority of the members agree and follow the rules imposed by LIA because it is the policy and they see the benefit of the payment of ISF. NIA and LIA have clear demarcations in terms of the operations and management of the irrigation system. NIA imposes the general policies in the supervision and maintenance of the irrigation system while LIA act as the “doer” at the local field setting. NIA provides flexibility to LIA in terms of the implementation of the operational rules, particularly on water distribution and scheduling, which makes sense because it is LIA who confronts the daily and realistic concerns of farmers on the irrigation system. As such, there is minimal case of conflict between values and institutions.
A critical aspect to look at is in terms of management. NIA and LIA focus their management to the irrigation system itself – the structures, fees. But the source of water itself is neglected in their respective program of work and operations. To achieve the goal of continuous flow of water means that management has to be balanced with efforts to sustain the supply of
171 water that goes to the river and not to the irrigation canals only. Heavy downpour increases flow
of water but it also brings with it sediments and silts; thus the gatekeeper closes the gates of the
dam during heavy flow. Water during heavy flow stored in the dam contains sediments and silts,
which over time are deposited in the dam itself. The opening and closing of the dam gates is not
only for the distribution of water but also in response to the quality of water going into the dam.
Closing of the gates during heavy flow prevent sediments from going into the irrigation canals
but this also results to massive sediment deposition, which affects the flow and quality of water.
The alarming problems on extensive sedimentation and insufficient water in Laligan
require management to be directed to watershed rehabilitation. LIA has managed the compliance
of its member particularly on the maintenance of irrigation structures and payment of ISFs as
their responsibilities to NIA but this has to be extended to the water source itself, particularly
upstream of the dam. However, this requires a concerted effort with the Barangay Council, NIA
and DENR. NIA, for its part, should have a regular removal of sediments while LIA, who has
more control of the flow and distribution of water, has to consider the extent of sediment deposition.
What is important in the management is to go beyond what is required or stipulated in their policies. Management has to respond to the deteriorating condition of the river and its watershed as evidenced in the existing land cover, water quality and discharge of Laligan River.
172 CASE 6 (NATIONAL). WATER RESOURCE GOVERNANCE IN BARANGAY PANADTALAN
The social dimension of water resource governance in Barangay Panadtalan: values, institutions and management
Water users’ values
Water is valued as the source of life of people. According to an elder and tribal leader,
“sa wahig yan sa langusa hu etaw, iyan sa kinabuhi” (water is the blood of people, it is life).
Water includes those used by farmers in ricefields, water for fishing, water for electricity,
including the trees surrounding the body of water. Respondents recalled the use of the river for
drinking, washing, bathing and fishing for household consumption. As narrated by the Lumad
elder and leader, this portion of the Pulangi River is also important in the context of Lumad
culture and history. According to a Lumad story, it is in this portion of the Pulangi River where a
number of lives were saved by Wali from a human-eating monster Ikugan who lived in the river.
This is the reason why Lumad offer panalawahig (water ritual) every year in this portion of
Pulangi River. Panadtalan is also the site of battle between Manobo indigenous group and the
Muslims in the early 1300’s which resulted into a tampura hu balagun (a ritual where bamboo
pole is cut to signify the resolution of the conflict). Majority of the respondents, however, value
Pulangi for its present use, i.e. for fishing and as source of hydropower, although one respondent
claimed he has sentimental value of the river as a part of his life for being an early settler there.
As narrated by an early settler, the construction of the hydropower started in 1978. In the
following year, the mayor informed the residents about the construction of the dam and the
people and farms affected by the construction will be transferred. With the help of a priest, about
300 people barricaded. A series of negotiations occurred between NAPOCOR and residents who
refused to vacate their lands in favor of the dam. A MOA obliged NAPOCOR to pay the
173 landowners 45,000 pesos per hectare for agricultural lands and 12,000 pesos per hectare for
residential lands. Some landowners were wise enough to invest their money to buy lands but
some spent money in material things. In the
end, some became squatters in other
barangays. Some farmers became fishers.
With the construction of the dam, this
portion of the Pulangi River was diverted and
utilized as a water reservoir to store huge
quantities of water that eventually flows into
NAPOCOR’s turbines. Since its operation in Fishing for household consumption
1986, the reservoir turns into a lake which people refer to as Pulangi Lake. Aside from being a source water to produce hydropower,
Pulangi Lake is used for fishing and transportation of communities surrounding the lake. Respondents express that their preference for the lake is for it to have water that people can use, e.g. fishing, washing. A fisherfolk showing his catch for the day which he will sell in the nearby market Thus, the water and its watershed should be protected to have a clean Pulangi like it used to be. Others, however, suggested building water-
based recreational facilities.
174 The governance actors, institutions and institutional mechanisms
Republic Act 6395 signed in 1974 institutionalized the charter of NAPOCOR to undertake the development of hydroelectric generation of power and the production of electricity. The Pulangi IV hydroelectric power plant in Bukidnon was established in 1975 and became operational in 1986. This hydropower plant generates a total capacity of 255 MW (three turbines producing 85MW each with a capacity of 96 m3/s) from its Pulangi IV hydroelectric power plant in Maramag. NAPOCOR sourced its power from the Pulangi River. In the lower portion of the river, NAPOCOR installs its Pulangui IV reservoir, which now is known as Pulangi Lake.
Pulangi Lake covers 1151 hectares surrounded by 5 barangays in two municipalities. The lake and the bank allowance are entirely the domain of NAPOCOR.
NAPOCOR coordinates with other agencies and the Barangay Council in its monitoring and management activities. The lake serves both as a reservoir and a source of livelihood of 260 households that depend on fishing. NAPOCOR extends assistance to these fisherfolks, in coordination with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) of the Department of
Agriculture (DA). To avail of this assistance, the fisherfolks organized themselves and formed the PANTUBADOL (Panadtalan, Tubigon, Bayabason and Dologon) Fisherfolk Organization.
BFAR provided fingerlings to the organization. In turn, PANTUBADOL formulate its policies regarding fishing, upon the recommendation of the BFAR. Designated Fish Wardens monitor the fishing activities to avoid illegal and overfishing. Aside from Fish Wardens, Watershed Task
Force was also organized by NAPOCOR in coordination with the Barangay Councils. Bantay
Tubig (Water Guards) were also selected from members of the barangays. The function of the
Task Force and the Bantay Tubig is to monitor illegal activities, like tree cutting, within the
NAPOCOR jurisdiction.
175 Implementation of policies in the reservoir is primarily done by PANTUBADOL, the
Fish Wardens and Bantay Tubig. Policies include the use of approved fish nets and fishing method. Only fish net #5 (refers to the size of the hole of the net) is allowed. Other fishing methods and fish cages are prohibited as these obstruct the flow of the water going to
NAPOCOR dam. Trees around the perimeter of the reservoir should not be cut. Fisherfolks and residents are cautioned to stay away from the “no entry” zone of NAPOCOR, which is about
100m from the dam. Although members of PANTUBADOL obey the policies, there are non- members who violate them.
Management interventions
Although local organizations are not involved in the operation of the hydropower, they
are involved in the management of the reservoir. The PANTUBADOL, Fish Wardens and
Bantay Tubig are provided with assistance by NAPOCOR, particularly on its monitoring
activities. Within the NAPOCOR, 2 main divisions are directly involved in the management of
Pulangi and its watershed. The Pollution Control Division conducts a regular quarterly
monitoring of water quality in accordance to Clean Water Act and DENR-EMB regulations. The focus of the Watershed Management Division is in the reforestation and rehabilitation of watersheds of Pulangi River and its tributaries. This division works with barangays and/or individual landowners to encourage tree planting and reforestation.
To sustain the use of the reservoir for NAPOCOR and for residents, respondents agree to
implement management. The goal of management is to sustain fishing as their means of livelihood and to protect the lake. Management means the protection of the water and its watershed to have a good water quality. Laws and regulatory requirements as well as the local policies have to be strictly imposed. On the part of NAPOCOR’s Pollution Division,
176 management means compliance to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-
Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) on maintaining and monitoring of water quality of the lake based on approved standards. Garbage problem is minimized through a municipal ordinance on no-dumping and waste segregation. The biggest problem of turbidity and sedimentation was responded when NAPOCOR hired a company to dredge the reservoir. In addition, watershed protection is strengthened through reforestation in the uplands and the monitoring of illegal cutting inside the NAPOCOR jurisdiction. NAPOCOR’s Watershed
Management Division undertakes these activities.
Protection of the reservoir and the watershed are institutionalized in NAPOCOR policy and management activities. NAPOCOR’s watershed management program was established in
1989 by virtue of Executive Order 224 whose major activity is reforestation projects within the reservoir. Section 65 and of the RA 9136: Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA) provides for environmental protection, in coordination with the DENR. Thus, NAPOCOR has a
MOA with DENR to rehabilitate 16,584 hectares of the 30,000 hectares of NAPOCOR land.
Section 34 stipulates a charge of .0025/kWh of the total electricity sales that will accrue to environmental fund for watershed rehabilitation and management, including health and environment enhancement projects. Local LGUs like barangays submit a project proposal for
NAPOCOR’s approval. This is how Barangay Panadtalan obtained funding to construct its health and nutrition centers and water system. NAPOCOR also established coordination with
DA- BFAR for continued assistance to fisherfolks.
Yet despite these management activities of NAPOCOR, the quality of the water in the reservoir deteriorates due to sedimentation, turbidity and wastes from surrounding households and industries. These problems also largely affect the livelihood of residents who now depend on
177 fishing for livelihood. This is in contrast to the desire of the people for a clean Pulangi – water
source that they can use and will not deprive them of their source of living.
NAPOCOR institutionalized its management by undergoing activities like tree planting
and reforestation and rehabilitation of the watershed, and at the same time, create or assist in the
formation specific groups internal (e.g. Watershed Management Division and Pollution Control
Division) and external (e.g. PANTUBADOL, Fish Wardens, Bantay Tubig) to the agency.
However, the huge coverage of the Pulangi watershed and even the size of the reservoir of about
1151 hectares make the management quite difficult.
The biophysical dimension of water resource governance in Barangay Panadtalan
Interviews with elder and early settlers in the area revealed the condition of the once
clean, deep and fast flowing Pulangi River before the dam. The surrounding area is largely
forested in the 1950’s. The now reservoir was once wetlands and ricefields that dominate along
the riverbank. The river was like a huge canal with a ridge along the riverbank. Farming was the
dominant source of living although fishing was practiced even before, but only for household
consumption. Fishes were big and diverse.
Residents noticed the biophysical change sometime in the 1990’s when the water
becomes turbid and the lake started to be filled up with mud. According to some respondents,
this is normal due to erosion caused by the denuded upland. As a result, the depth of the lake
becomes shallow. The massive sediment deposition became apparent in the late 1990’s which
resulted to island formation within the lake.
The change in water quality affects the livelihood of fisherfolks. This exacerbated in
2003 when there was a report of toxic chemicals coming from a sugar milling company located
178 upstream of the reservoir, which caused fish kill. The company was ordered by DENR to clean up its mess.
Land cover along the bank of the reservoir shows a thin line of planted trees of about 200 meters. But beyond this is the extensive agricultural area planted with sugarcane and corn.
The extent of sugarcane plantation interspersed with grassland and other trees dominate along the The created island due to sedimentation becomes a dwelling place of a family area of the reservoir. The delineated catchment of the lake indicate that the dominant land cover is sugarcane (36%), trees (15%), grassland (15%) and shrubs (14%) (see Fig. A. 24 and Table A. 8).
Heavy sedimentation created patches of small islands within the reservoir itself. In fact, these islands are now inhabited by people while some
Grazing area along the Pulangi Lake portions are used as grazing areas (see photos).
Dredging operation in 2006 dredged about 26 million cubic meters of silt and sediments which cost NAPOCOR 218 M pesos. Of the 255 MW capacity, NAPOCOR only operates about
200 MW due to sedimentation. Fishers also complain of the impact of turbidity and sedimentation to fish production. They observed that the fish they catch now are smaller so that it is difficult for them to comply with the policy of using the #5 fish net.
179 Figure A. 24. Land cover map of Pulangi Lake
180
Table A. 8. Area per land cover type in the Pulangi Lake catchment
LAND COVER AREA (has) % Sugarcane 7060.1988 34.377% Other land with tree cover 2970.7576 14.465% Grassland 2932.9641 14.281% Shrubland 2642.3456 12.866% River/Lake 1335.0679 6.501% Pulangi Lake 1151.1502 5.605% Irrigated ricefield 554.7991 2.701% Rubber 464.0134 2.259% Corn 439.8219 2.142% Secondary forest 277.3566 1.350% Built-up area 265.2906 1.292% Road 207.9733 1.013% No data 137.0604 0.667% Banana 86.9674 0.423% The Pulangi Lake and its landscape Photo courtesy of NAPOCOR-Pulangui IV Pineapple 6.0598 0.030%
Mossy forest 4.3868 0.021% High value crops 0.5563 0.003% Primary forest 0.4734 0.002%
Pine plantation 0.1600 0.001% TOTAL 20537.403 100.000%
Line of tree plantation as buffer strip at some Pulangi Lake and the extensive corn and portion of the lake sugarcane dominating its landscape
181
Figure A. 25. PULANGI IV DAM/RESERVOIR TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) October 2006-July 2008 160 140 Station 1 120 100 Station 2 80 60 Station 3 TSS (mg/l) 40 20 Station 4 0 Standard Oct Dec Apr Jul Oct July Months Notes:laboratory test conducted Univ of Immaculate Concepcion Science Resource Center : points indicate the accepted value of 70mg/l for Class A water based on DENR DAO 90-35. But reservoir can qualify as Class D where the accepted value is 200mg/l; But its use for fishing qualifies it as Class C where the accepted value is 70mg/l . Per DENR DAO 90-34 water quality criteria that affects aesthetics and oxygen demand, accepted value for TSS is 50mg/l for class A; not more than 30mg/l increase for Class C and not more than 60mg/l increase for Class D
Figure A. 26. PULANGI IV RESERVOIR/DAM NITRATE CONCENTRATION October 2006 to July 2008
12
10 Station 1
8 Station 2
6 Station 3 4 Station 4 Nitrates (mg/l) 2 Standard 0 Oct Dec Apr July Oct July Months Note:laboratory test conducted Univ of Immaculate Concepcion Science Resource Center : standard value is based on DENR DAO 90-34 for Class A waters, value that affects aesthetics and oxygen demand for freshwaters. Class C (fishing) standard value is also 10mg/li, Class D has no classification
In the water quality monitoring report of NAPOCOR within the period October 2006 to July
2008, TSS reached as high as 140mg/l that occur in December 2006 (see Fig. A. 25). It is also in this period when TSS values are higher compared to 2007. Turbidity reached a maximum value of 117 NTU in July 2007 sampling. The high TSS and turbidity values results from dredging operation of NAPOCOR in 2006-2007. The reservoir could have allowed sediments to settle but the high TSS and turbidity is the result of heavy sedimentation in the entire reservoir. The
182 presence of agricultural areas intensifies the problem. NIA also drains its irrigation water from
the Kulaman watershed to the Pulangi Lake. In addition, there are two sugar milling industries
and water-based recreational facilities surrounding the lake. Results of nitrate show that July
2008 has the highest value at 4.1mg/l (see Fig. A. 26). Based on DENR DAO 90-34, the recommended value for nitrates as nitrogen (i.e. amount of nitrate which can affect aesthetics and biological oxygen demand of freshwater) for class C water (fishery) is 10mg/li. There is no set standard yet for for class D water (industrial, irrigation).
Water quality results alarms the Pollution Control Division who is tasked to conduct the monitoring per DENR-EMB requirement. TSS and turbidity cannot qualify to the standards set by DENR-EMB which classifies the Pulangi River as Class A (see DENR-DAO 90-34 on Water
Classification). But considering the present condition and uses of the Pulangi River, it is impossible for it to be considered as Class A. Based on its present use, it is difficult to justify which classification should be used for Pulangi Lake. If the beneficial use is classified as industrial/irrigation, it falls under Class D. But if fishing is considered, it would fall under Class
C. This is crucial because the accepted value for TSS differs per classification, i.e. 70mg/li for
Class A and C; 200mg/li for Class D. However, National Water Resources Board (NWRB)
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) dated March 21, 2005 categorically indicate that:
Section 1. Water may be appropriated for the following descending purposes and uses:
a. Domestic d. Power generation g. Industrial b. Municipal e. Fisheries h. Recreational, and c. Irrigation f. Livestock raising i. Other purposes
Use of water for domestic purposes is the utilization of water directly drawn from a source by a household for drinking, washing, bathing, cooking, watering of gardens or animals and other domestic uses. Use of water for municipal purposes is the utilization of water for supplying the water requirements of a community, whether by piped or bulk distribution for domestic and other uses, direct consumption, the drawer or abstractor of which being the national government, its subsidiary agencies, local government units, private persons, cooperatives or corporations. Use of water for irrigation is the utilization of water for producing agricultural crops. Use of water for power generation is the utilization of water for producing electrical or mechanical power.
183 Use of water for fisheries is the utilization of water for the propagation and culture of fish as a commercial enterprise or any other aqua-culture ventures. Use of water for livestock raising is the utilization of water for large herds or flocks of animals raised as a commercial enterprise. Use of water for industrial purposes is the utilization of water in factories, industrial plants and mines including the use of water as an ingredient of a finished product. Use of water for recreational purposes is the utilization of water for swimming pools, bath houses, boating, water skiing, golf courses and other similar facilities in resorts and other places of recreation.
Conflicts arising from this rule still remain to be seen. It seems that users are not yet aware of
this directive as this concern did not transpire during the interviews conducted.
Water resource governance in Barangay Panadtalan: linking social and biophysical dimensions
This portion of the Pulangi River holds cultural, historical and use values although most respondents now recognize the value of the lake in terms of the major use of the lake, i.e. for hydropower and fishing. With this change in use, institutions were formulated that govern how people will use the lake. Organizations were also created to focus specific concerns on the lake –
watershed protection, water quality and fishing. As a major user of the lake, NAPOCOR
institutionalized its management activities primarily on watershed management and pollution
control in compliance with EO 224 and DENR-EMB regulations. NAPOCOR also coordinated
with another agency, the Department of Agriculture, to assist the fisherfolks through the
provision of fingerlings and the organization of a local group – the PANTUBADOL.
PANTUBADOL activities focus more on the monitoring of fishing and activities within the lake
but it is the NAPOCOR who is tasked to manage the entire lake and its watershed.
The construction of the hydropower plant changed the landscape surrounding the Pulangi
River – from a flowing river to a lake- which also changed the use values from domestic
(drinking, washing, bathing, fishing) and farming to a large scale industrial and fishing.
Respondents’ accounts of the biophysical changes are evident in the existing biophysical
184 condition of the lake and its riparian. As a reservoir with controlled flow of water, denuded
watershed and the loss of riparian vegetation, problems on sediment deposition and turbidity are
inevitable. This resulted to a loss of income of fisherfolks who depend on the lake for livelihood.
The management goals of protecting the lake and sustaining fishing as means of livelihood
should be the guiding principle in both institutional mechanisms and management interventions
in the lake.
There are different groups that conduct specific the management activities in the lake, i.e.
NAPOCOR, PANTUBADOL, Watershed Task Force, Bantay Tubig, DA-BFAR. But the current management actions need to be re-evaluated. As a major user, NAPOCOR has a bigger stake in the lake because of its responsibility in producing hydroelectric power for Mindanao. Thus it is important that its watershed management and pollution control should be more intensive in action and extensive in area coverage. The activities of these two divisions should be more closely coordinated through sharing of the results of their activities and monitoring. It will be helpful if NAPOCOR will be able to include in management the map of the location of their watershed rehabilitation/reforestation projects and assess its potential impact to the water quality of Pulangi. NAPOCOR can formulate a MOA with the recipients of user fee to set aside project that will ecologically benefit a portion of the watershed within their barangay. There is also a need to institutionalize the formed organizations – PANTUBADOL, Fish Wardens, Bantay
Tubig – to be partners in management not just in monitoring but also information campaigns.
The value that people have towards Pulangi should be taken as an opportunity to inculcate the importance of watershed protection. But this has to be complemented with concrete actions that involve the users themselves, including the industries.
185 APPENDIX 5. Table A.9. Summary of governance dynamics across all levels
LEVEL OF GOVERNANCE
KEY BARANGAY CITY/MUNICIPALITY NATIONAL VARIABLE Case 1: Guinuyuran Case 2: Dagumbaan Case 3: Kibalabag Case 4: Pinamaloy Case 5: Laligan Case 6: Panadtalan
VALUE* (value): KNOWLEDGE*
Water: life; source of Water: life; health; Water: life; basic Water: life Water: life; basic Water: life and everything; health basic necessity; gift necessity basic necessity necessity; animal pools; : blood River: ritual from God River: water for Lake: pride and farming Lake: hydropower; :land ownership Water River: source of Malaybalay trademark of Don River: water for livelihood (fishing)
system: comfort and potable water Water system: free Carlos; ritual ricefields and irrigation; Dam: livelihood and Importance convenience Water system: no and accessible water : historical site; water domestic uses; gravel electricity more fetching; for Don Carlos collection accessibility :gift from Irrigation system: water Well: water resource for all farms; farm but dry up during dry production; season improvement of ivelihood
Source of potable water Source of potable Source of potable Fishing for household Domestic, animal pool; Fishing;; Present use of Ritual water for downstream water for Malaybalay consumption; source of irrigation transportation; the water consumers water for Don Carlos; hydropower resource ecotourism/recreational
Plant trees to restore the Tree planting, Watershed Stop water extraction; Tree planting at the Protect water and its forest; buy the land in reforestation and rehabilitation; ecotourism headsource; watershed; a cleaner Preference for the headsource fencing planting of usable involvement of DENR Pulangi; usable water the water Abandon and look for trees and residents to restore ; recreational resource other water resource forest facilities
Sharing and equal distribution of water
186 INSTITUTION (organization) KNOWLEDGE
RWSA (local) DWSA (local) BC(local) DCWD (local) LIA (local) NAPOCOR BC (local) BC (local) MCGWSS (local) DC LGU (local) NIA (national) (national) TC (local) LGU (local) LWUA (national) PANTUBADOL Water LWUA (national) BUHITA (local) BFAR-DA (national) (local) organizations/ NWRB (national) MCWD (local) Task Force groups Watershed (local) Bantay Tubig (local) BFAR-DA (national)
Use of water meters Use of water meters No cutting of trees No bathing, washing, Collection of ISFs Use of approved fish Disconnection upon Disconnection upon and charcoal making animal grazing or “No water permit, no nets (#5) non-payment of water non-payment of Maintain cleanliness pools; fishing only for planting” No fishing methods Local bill water bill No animal pools consumption Distribution of water that obstruct the flow rules/policies No animal pool Water only for according to LIA of water to the dam
household scheme No cutting of trees consumption Participation of Observe the no-entry Pahina is not allowed members in the pahina zone
MANAGEMENT (Technology) KNOWLEDGE
Protection of water Protection of water Watershed Provision of clean, 100% collection of Compliance to laws and resource resource rehabilitation potable water ISFs regulatory requirements Monitoring of the water Cooperation and Production of Beautification of the Functional structures Protect water and system community work potable, safe and lake and passable roads watershed
Involvement of people, Responsibility of clean water Involvement of people Efficiency of the dam Protection of the lake Sense of management consumers, the Lumad DWSA Upholding the rights to deliver water to all against illegal fishing Responsibility of Paying water bill of Lumad farms Maintenance of good RWSA Protection of the river Livelihood water quality Paying water bill and its watershed improvement based on policies Water quality according to standard values
Sustain the flow of Sufficient and River will not dry up Protect the lake as the Sufficient water for Sustain fishing water continuous flow of Sustain the pride and trademark of everybody Protect and sustain the Goal Balance the distribution water cleanliness, beauty Don Carlos Continuous flow use the lake
187 of water and good quality of Clean, potable water 24 Improvement of (e.g. upstream and water of the river hours irrigation system, downstream) farm production and Peace, harmony, unity life of the farmers
Annual water ritual Land ownership of Planting of bamboos Tree planting Collection of ISFs Monitoring of illegal Tree planting BC around the and fruit trees Fencing Maintenance of the fishing and cutting of MOA with landowners headsource Establishment of Clean-up of the lake cleanliness of turn- trees Cleaning and Tree planting nursery Monthly bacterial and out canals and Organization of local
monitoring Maintenance and Monitoring of forest annual physico- brushing of weeds groups Activities Bacterial tests and repair of water activities chemical tests Repair of irrigation Dredging monitoring in system structures Monthly bacterial Water treatment structures and roads Reforestation compliance to LWUA and annual physico- Water scheduling law chemical tests Water treatment
Extension of water Inappropriate intake No concrete budget Restrictions on the use No watershed Turbidity affect fishing service connections box technical design allocation from water of the lake by residents rehabilitation Few and small fishes No RWSA policy on Insufficient supply user fees (e. g Wells dry up during dry Siltation in canals Garbage, wastes from water resource Turbid and dirty livelihood, education) season Water shortage industries
protection water Lack of coordination during dry season Hydropower plant
Management Farms near water between DCWD and Dam led to migration displaces some farmers; concerns/ resource DC LGU and increase of change of livelihood problems Low collection from Lack of involvement of farms/ricefields from farming to fishing water bills BC No regular funding for Not much Decreasing depth and local groups for maintenance of the size of the lake due to monitoring water resource DCWD extraction
BIOPHYSICAL CONDITION KNOWLEDGE (Environment)
RWSA water system DWSA water system There is no effect of Loss of forest due to Loss of forest due to Loss of forest does not cause any does not cause any the water system logging and farming logging and farming Formation of change. change. Farms project. Extensive ricefield due islands/grassland Loss of forest due to already exist Forest is the remnant to dam within the lake Land cover logging Loss of forest due to of logging in the Expansion of farms in Abundance of water
logging; 1960’s. the upstream lilies Extensive grassland
188 due to 7-month drought
Water quantity Supply reduces during Low flow of river No change Decreasing depth and Insufficient supply due Lake is extensive but dry season but creek due to loss of forest size of the lake due to to loss of forest and shallow never dries up Low flow during dry extraction of DCWD farms upstream Depth decreased due season and DAVCO Low supply during dry to erosion, season sedimentation and flow regulation of NAPOCOR
None Turbidity due to high Turbidity due to high Dirty Turbidity, Turbid, muddy, dirty, Water quality RWSA uses chlorine to rainfall and flooding rainfall and flooding Abundance of water sedimentation and stinky clean water as a LWUA Accumulation of lilies (Salvinia natans) siltation due to high Flowing river to policy gravel during high rainfall and flooding stagnant lake rainfall Dirty due to fertilizers and pesticides.
189 APPENDIX 6: Table A.10. Implications of national institutions to the different levels of governance
LEVEL OF GOVERNANCE
BARANGAY CITY/MUNICIPALITY NATIONAL
Case 1: Guinuyuran Case 2: Dagumbaan Case 3: Kibalabag Case 4: Pinamaloy Case 5: Laligan Case 6: Panadtalan
Water Code of the Local Government Local Government Water Code of the NIA Charter: turn-voer DENR DAO 90-34: Phils: conflicts with Code: In reality, there Code: provision of Phils: DCWD insists its of management only does not address de facto landownrs is no technical and basic services, rights over the lake upon full payment of competing uses of and Lumad’s concept financial support at including water since it has the permit the loan; management is water. Based on its of ancestral domain the local (barangay) which is complied LWUA Law under NIA which is use, Pulangi Lake : water permit from level with by the : (Amend. PD 1479) sometimes constrained falls either class C NWRB disregards de Provincial Local Malaybalay LGU management, by budget and (fishing) or D facto landowners Water Utilities Act : sharing of benefits administration, bureaucracy (industrial), which : easements needs and National Water to host communities operation and : no provision on leads to confusion on declaration from Crisis Act: prohibits complied with by the maintenance of watershed protection which standard value DENR at present is illegal tapping and LGU through the watersheds within its and management to follow. not involved in the connection but people payment of water user boundary strengthens Agriculture and River classification of area are not aware and fee the “right” of DCWD Fisheries DENR for Pulangi is LWUA Law there is no local LWUA Law: MCWD over the LGU in terms Modernization Act: Class A which is : (Amend. PD 1479) policy to support is the current holder of management protection of watersheds unrealistic management, these laws; of water permit DENR DAO 90-34: of irrigable areas is considering the extent administration, Letter of Instruction waives its right over standard values for under the Department of of Pulangi River and operation and No. 683 in Malaybalay LGU water quality Agriculture and the its diverse uses maintenance of 1978:creation of : (Amend. PD 1479) parameters are for Department of NWRB IRR 2005: watersheds within its water associations MOA between LGU pollutants contributing Environment and creates conflict in boundary leaves like DWSA; DWSA and MCWD reserves to aesthetics and oxygen Natural Resources. terms of current uses water districts to is not subject to the right of watershed demand of freshwater. This, however, does not of the lake; settle potential LWUA laws management to LGU DCWD uses technology happen in Laligan EO 224: Pulangi is conflicts on land DENR DAO 90-34: Indigenous People’s for complete water DENR DAO 90-34: not included as a ownership standard values for Rights Act: LGU treatment before standard values for reservation area; DENR DAO 90-34: water quality allows participation delivery to its water quality Electric Power standard values for parameters are for and sharing of water consumers parameters are for Industry Reform Act: water quality pollutants user fee to BUHITA : does not address pollutants contributing complied with by parameters are for contributing to DENR DAO 90-34: competing uses of to aesthetics and oxygen NAPOCOR pollutants aesthetics and oxygen standard values for water. Pinamaloy Lake demand of freshwater. Department of
190 contributing to demand of water quality falls under 2 classes: A NIA has no water Energy: complied aesthetics and oxygen freshwater. Agutayan parameters are for (source of water) and C quality monitoring and with by NAPOCOR demand of River falls under class pollutants (recreation) is only concerned of but this has to extend freshwater. A but in reality, there contributing to NWRB IRR 2005: discharge to communities Manggipanaw Creek is not even a water aesthetics and oxygen creates conflict in terms upstream of the dam falls under class A treatment of DWSA demand of of current uses of the as well, considering but in reality, there is DOH DAO 2007- freshwater. Kibalabag lake the extent of Upper no complete water 0012: Phil National River falls under class DOH DAO 2007-0012: Pulangi watershed treatment of RWSA Standards for A; MCGWSS uses Phil National Standards DOH DAO 2007- Drinking Water: technology to treat for Drinking Water: 0012: Phil National Water quality tests water before it is Complied with but no Standards for are not complied supplied to MCWD regular sampling at Drinking Water: sets with by DWSA due DOH DAO 2007- point source accepted This is to financial 0012: Phil National complied with by constraints Standards for RWSA Drinking Water: MCGWSS only takes samples after water undergoes treatment and not from point sources
191
APPENDIX 7: Table A.11. Water system levels applied in the Philippine potable water system
LEVEL DESCRIPTION Level I Point sources (such as rain collector, wells and springs); generally for rural areas where houses are scattered too thinly to justify a distribution system.
Level II Communal faucet systems; generally for rural areas where houses are clustered densely enough to justify a piped distribution system with a faucet provided for a number of households.
Level III Individual house connections; generally for urban areas.
192 APPENDIX 8: Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No. 34 Series of 1990
Subject: REVISED WATER USAGE AND CLASSIFICATION/WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AMENDING SECTION NOS. 68 AND 69, CHAPTER III OF THE 1978 NPCC RULES AND REGULATIONS
Section 68. Water Usage and Classification. - The quality of Philippine waters shall be maintained in a safe and satisfactory condition according to their best usages. For this purpose, all waters shall be classified according to the following beneficial usages:
(a) Fresh Surface Waters (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, etc.)
Class AA Public Water Supply Class I. This class is intended primarily for waters having watersheds which are uninhabited and otherwise protected and which require only approved disinfection in order to meet the National Standards for Drinking Water (NSDW) of the Philippines.
Class A Public Water Supply Class II. For sources of water supply that will require complete treatment (coagulation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection) in order to meet the NSDW.
Class B Recreational Water Class I. For primary contact recreation such as bathing, swimming, skin diving, etc. (particularly those designated for tourism purposes).
Class C 1) Fishery Water for the propagation and growth of fish and other aquatic resources; 2) Recreational Water Class II (Boatings, etc.) 3) Industrial Water Supply Class I (For manufacturing processes after treatment).
Class D 1) For agriculture, irrigation, livestock watering, etc. 2) Industrial Water Supply Class II (e.g. cooling, etc.) 3) Other inland waters, by their quality, belong to this classification. ______1 In general, this refers to current best beneficial use that is expected to last, at least, for the next 10 to 20 years. In special cases when dictated by political, economic, social, public health, environmental and other considerations, certain waters may be classified according to the intended or future beneficial use (e.g. Pasig River, Tullahan-Tenejeros, etc.)
193 APPENDIX 9: NWRB Amended IRR 2005
Republic of the Philippines NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD WATER CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Amended Implementing Rules and Regulations (UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED AT THE 29th MEETING OF THE NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD ON MARCH 21, 2005.
Pursuant to the Water Code of the Philippines (the “Water Code”) vesting upon the National Water Resources Board (the NWRB) the administration and enforcement of the provisions thereof, the following rules and regulations are hereby promulgated:
RULE I. APPROPRIATION AND UTILIZATION OF WATERS Section 1. Water may be appropriated for the following descending purposes and uses: a. Domestic d. Power generation g. Industrial b. Municipal e. Fisheries h. Recreational, and c. Irrigation f. Livestock raising i. Other purposes
Use of water for domestic purposes is the utilization of water directly drawn from a source by a household for drinking, washing, bathing, cooking, watering of gardens or animals and other domestic uses.
Use of water for municipal purposes is the utilization of water for supplying the water requirements of a community, whether by piped or bulk distribution for domestic and other uses, direct consumption, the drawer or abstractor of which being the national government, its subsidiary agencies, local government units, private persons, cooperatives or corporations.
Use of water for irrigation is the utilization of water for producing agricultural crops.
Use of water for power generation is the utilization of water for producing electrical or mechanical power.
Use of water for fisheries is the utilization of water for the propagation and culture of fish as a commercial enterprise or any other aqua-culture ventures.
Use of water for livestock raising is the utilization of water for large herds or flocks of animals raised as a commercial enterprise.
Use of water for industrial purposes is the utilization of water in factories, industrial plants and mines including the use of water as an ingredient of a finished product.
Use of water for recreational purposes is the utilization of water for swimming pools, bath houses, boating, water skiing, golf courses and other similar facilities in resorts and other places of recreation.
194 Section 2. When Permit/Authority from the National Water Resources Board Must be Secured – As required under the provisions of P. D. 1067, a permit/authority shall be secured from the Board in the following instances: a) Appropriation of water for any purpose stated under Section 1, except for “purely domestic purpose”, provided that such use shall be registered with the Board. “Purely domestic purpose” as used in these rules is defined as the use of not more than 250 liters/capita/day of water by a single household; b) Change in purpose of the appropriation; c) Amendment of an existing permit, such as change in point or nature of diversion, amount of appropriation, period of use, etc; d) Transfer or lease of water right, as evidenced by a water permit; e) Temporary permit to appropriate and use of water; f) Developing a stream, lake or spring for recreational purposes; g) Lowering or raising the level of the water of a lake, river or marsh, or draining the same; h) Transbasin diversion; i) Dumping of mine tailings or wastes into a river or a waterway; j) Such other instances that will require a permit as determined by the Board.
195 RESUME
PERSONAL DATA
Name: ANGELA GRACE TOLEDO-BRUNO (JING)
Residence: Lot 18, Blk 3, NHA Phase 3, Malaybalay 8700, Bukidnon, Philippines Office: College of Forestry, Central Mindanao University, Musuan, Bukidnon
Email address: [email protected]; [email protected] Phone : +63 88 2212705
Birthday: February 16, 1970 Birthplace: Surigao City, Philippines
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Elementary: Surigao City Pilot School, Surigao City
High School: San Nicolas College, Surigao City
College: University of the Philippines Cebu College Degree: BS Biology
Graduate (MS): School of Environmental Science and Management (SESAM) University of the Philippines at Los Baños (UPLB) Degree: MS in Environmental Science Area of Specialization – Env’tal Planning and Management Thesis: Biodiversity and Resources Management Among Bukid-nun Pulangiyen in Bukidnon, Philippines
(PhD): State University of New York (SUNY) College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF) Syracuse, New York, USA Degree: PhD in Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Dissertation: Linking Social and Biophysical Variables of Water Governance: An application of the model
196
CAREER/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Assistant Professor Environmental Science Dept., College of Forestry Central Mindanao University (CMU) October 2001 - present
Research Associate Environmental Science for Social Change (ESSC) May 1994 – September 2001
Research Biologist Philippine Wetland and Wildlife Conservation Foundation, Inc. (PWCF) July 1992 – August 1993
Researcher (Special Project) Asian Wetland Bureau (AWB) – Philippines November 1991 – July 1992
PUBLICATIONS
Co – author, “The Conservation Status of the Birds of Negros, Philippines” Bird Conservation International December 1992
Co – author, (The Conservation Status of the Birds of Mindoro, Philippines” Bird Conservation International December 1992
Co-author, “Vertebrate Faunal Diversity and Relevant Interrelationships of Critical Resources in Mt. Malindang” Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA) 2006
MEMBERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS
Member, International Water Association (2009)
Member, Canadian Water Quality Association (2009)
Member, International Society of Ecological Economics (2007-2008)
Member, American Water Resources Association (2007-2008)
197
Member, National Scholars Honors Society (2006)
Member, Oriental Bird Club (1991 to present)
OUTREACH
CMU Coordinator, Year of Service (YOS) Program Xavier University 2002-2006 Volunteeer, EarthSavers Movement November 1993 – May 1994
Facilitator/contributor, Literacy Program Cultural Empowerment Center, Bukidnon May 1995-1997
Forestry Ecological Society (FES) Adviser, 2001-2005
Environmental Science Students Society (EnviROSS) Adviser, 2001-2005
AWARDS
Academic Achievement Award, ESF Multi-cultural Affairs, 2009
International Tropical Social Forestry Award, SUNY-ESF, 2007
Fellow, International Fellowship Program-Ford Foundation, 2006
Ten Outstanding Students of Surigao, Jaycees International – Surigao City (TOSS), 1987
198