Content uploaded by Juan M. Pulhin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Juan M. Pulhin on Jul 24, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Philippine Journal of Science
144 (2): 197-208, December 2015
ISSN 0031 - 7683
Date Received: ?? Feb 20??
Key words: customary laws, participatory governance, Philippines, private-community partnership,
water governance
Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
1College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines Los Baños and
National Academy of Science and Technology, College, Los Baños, Laguna, 4031, Philippines
2College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines Los Banos,
College, Los Baños, Laguna, 4031, Philippines
3College of Engineering, University of the Philippines Diliman and
National Academy of Science and Technology, Diliman, Quezon City, 1101, Philippines
4College of Management, University of the Philippines Visayas, Iloilo City, Iloilo, 5000 Philippines
5Gender Center, University of the Philippines Los Baños, College,
Los Baños, Laguna, 4031, Philippines
*Corresponding authors: jmpulhin@up.edu.ph
acrola@up.edu.ph
Agnes C. Rola1, Juan M. Pulhin2, Guillermo Q. Tabios III3,
Joy C. Lizada4, and Maria Helen F. Dayo5
Using a multi-dimensional framework of governance, this paper analyzed the state of water
governance in the Philippines from the legal, organizational, and operational perspectives at
various governance levels. Data were taken from secondary sources and case studies done by
the authors. Results showed that the many legal documents for water are a source of confusion;
that water data for planning are inadequate; that there are numerous water agencies, these
are not connected vertically nor horizontally; and, that these various institutions do not have
sufficient human and financial resources and presence at the local level to be effective in their
mandates. The authors recommend: 1) to review the legal and institutional framework for
water; 2) to improve on planning and decision making mandates; and, 3) to study and implement
more participatory models of water governance fitted to the Philippine context.
INTRODUCTION
Development practitioners all over the world have
recognized the role of water governance in addressing
future water scarcity. In 2001, Kofi Anan of the United
Nations and in 2002, Tadao Chino, former Asian
Development Bank (ADB) President, have both declared
that the water crisis is a governance crisis. An ADB report
further stated that if some Asian countries will face a water
crisis in the future, it will not be because of physical scarcity
of water, but because of inadequate or inappropriate water
governance (including management practices, institutional
arrangements, and socio-political conditions), which leave
much to be desired (ADB 2007). For the Asia-Pacific
region, the literature contends that water shortage will
become a major constraint in the economic and social
development of the region's individual countries unless
equitable and efficient water allocation policies and
mechanisms are developed (UNESCAP 2000).
Globally, the supply of water may not be limited as
gleaned from projections data of Rosegrant et al. (2002)
where only 10 percent of total renewable water shall have
been withdrawn in 2025. In the Asia-Pacific region, in
particular, only a small portion of the renewable water
sources can be tapped, even if statistically, the per capita
197
annual use of 400 cubic meters (m3) is only 12 percent
of the 3,360 m3 per capita renewable water resources
in the area (Webster & Le-Huu 2003). Focusing on
the Philippines, it was noted that the annual water use
accounts for only 12 percent of available supply (FAO
2002). Viewed in isolation, this figure tends to suggest
that the need to manage water use and conserve water
resources is not a pressing concern.
However, several facts quickly dispel this notion in the
case of the Philippines (Rola & Francisco 2004). First,
the per capita water availability has been declining over
the years (Webster & Le-Huu 2003) brought about by
increased water demand arising from economic growth
and population increases and by decreased water supply
associated with degradation of watersheds in the country.
Second, the data on aggregate availability are illusory in
that they indicate the average supply per capita per year,
without regard to the distribution of available supply. True
availability is contingent on time, place, quality, and cost.
In terms of spatial differences across the country, the
projections for 2025 show that in a high-economic growth
scenario, the water balance, which is the difference
between the amount of water resources potential and the
water demand, will be negative for some regions in the
Philippines due to rising water demand in Metro Manila.
All Mindanao regions have positive water balances (JICA/
NWRB 1998). In the low-economic growth scenario,
Central Luzon region is still projected to have a negative
water balance.
This same study shows that 17 of the 20 major river
basins in the Philippines will experience water shortage
in 2025. This is projected to happen in the high-economic
growth scenario and on the assumption that there is no
water resources development program. The river basins
in the Luzon region will face the most serious shortages
by the year 2025.
Finally, the Philippine freshwater ecosystem faces severe
problems of pollution and rising costs of potable water
supply. Surface water accounts for about three quarters
of freshwater supply, but many of the major rivers and
lakes, particularly those passing through or close to urban
centers, are heavily polluted. Fifty of the major rivers are
now considered biologically dead, a term used to describe
places that no longer support any life form because of over
pollution. While the main river systems in Metro Manila
are “biologically dead”, the siltation and chemical residues
pose a serious problem to major lakes, including Laguna
Lake, Lake Danao, Lake Lanao, and Lake Leonard (Rola
& Francisco 2004). This situation shows that ensuring
potable water supplies to households will become
more costly as water treatment requirements increase.
The increase in population and economic activities has
considerably increased the effluents being discharged to
water bodies. Domestic sewage has contributed about 52
percent of the pollution load while industries account for
the remaining 48 percent (NSCB 2006). Other sources of
water pollution are inefficient and improper operation of
landfills or incinerators and inadequate public cooperation
on the proper disposal of sewage and solid wastes. Toxic
red tide outbreak in Manila Bay occurs regularly, which
simply shows the extent of degradation of this resource.
Relatedly, available data also point to an increasing
incidence of water-borne diseases, such as typhoid and
paratyphoid, diarrhea, H-fever, malaria, schistosomiasis,
and cholera (Rola & Francisco 2004). In sum, therefore,
the current state of water resources in the Philippines
should be a cause for concern among policymakers.
Given the above, this paper surveyed the literature to
understand the current water governance environment
in the Philippines guided by the frameworks developed
by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) (2011) and by Malayang (2004). These
frameworks are discussed in Section 2. Section 3 discusses
the results of the review on the state of water governance
in the Philippines; while Section 4 offers ways to move
forward. Section 5 contains brief conclusions and
recommendations.
METHODOLOGY
Analytical Framework
Rogers & Hall (2003) define 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”.
Araral and Yu (2013) argue that this definition is
problematic because practically the entire literature on
water policy, economics, finance, politics, regulation,
law, and management would fall under this definition.
To these authors, the mechanisms to develop and manage
water resources are often not well specified and thus their
operational implications for research and governance
reform are unclear. They provide an alternative operational
definition of water governance in terms of various
dimensions of water law, policies, and administration that
have been commonly regarded in the literature as important
determinants of performance. These include water rights,
pricing, decentralization, accountability, integration,
private sector participation, user group participation, and
organizational basis of water management among others
(Araral and Yu 2013). Furthermore, according to the same
authors, water governance has largely been studied in
terms of disciplinary orientations. As a result, the literature
Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 144 No. 2, December 2015
198
Figure 1. Three dimensions of water governance (Malayang 2004).
has not evolved into a multi and inter-disciplinary agenda
despite the fact that water governance should be inherently
multidisciplinary in orientation.
The framework used in this study deepens the multi-
disciplinarity of water governance as proposed by Araral
and Yu (2013). It recognizes that water governance is
a very complex process, because of the nestedness and
interlocking set of decisions about water (Malayang 2004).
Decisions about policies, laws, institutional structure,
incentives, and capacity development are made by a
multi-layer of decision-makers: national, regional, local,
and even ethnic authorities.
The FAO (2011) framework used in the study expressed
governance according to principles and pillars. The
principles of governance include accountability,
effectiveness, efficiency, fairness and equity, participation,
and transparency. These principles can be expressed
through three pillars. Pillar 1 includes policy, legal and
institutional regulatory framework. Pillar 2 relates to
planning and decision making processes. Pillar 3 relates
to implementation, enforcement, and compliance.
A second governance model which is a three-dimensional
model is expressed by Malayang (2004). He argued that water
decisions and actions in the Philippines are a product of the
interplay among multiple institutions operating in different
hierarchies of authority (multilevel), and from different
sectoral perspectives (multisectoral). In addition, because
concerns on water may conceivably include a number of
issues over its uses and features, it is multi-thematic as well
(that is, it covers a range of technical, social, economic, and
political concerns on water). The three- hierarchy, sectors, and
themes define a “governance space”, where water decisions or
actions occur, or which can be located at any given time (see
Figure 1). Further, Malayang (2004) also observed that water
decisions and actions are not events that occur by themselves,
but are a product of complex competition and collaboration
among institutions and their concerned constituencies in
different hierarchies of governance. Institutions and their
constituencies will either compete or collaborate to address
water concerns. While collaborative mechanisms maybe
instituted to accommodate the different interests over various
concerns, actors will nonetheless seek to have their interests
upheld eventually. Thus, water decisions and actions are
actually shaped by the dynamics of institutional competition
and collaboration occurring within an area (not a point) in the
governance space (Malayang 2004).
This paper used the FAO (2011) model in the analysis of
water governance in the Philippines, discussing each of
the pillars from the point of view of the multi-dimensions
presented in the Malayang (2004) model.
The variables under study can be classified as 1) policy,
legal, and institutional dimensions of Philippine water
governance; 2) planning and decision making processes;
Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 144 No. 2, December 2015
199
and, 3) implementation, enforcement, and compliance
processes. These variables are studied across the governance
space in terms of hierarchy, sectors, and themes.
Data Sources
Data were taken from secondary information, review
of related studies and two case analyses: the Metro
Iloilo Water District governance of the province of
Iloilo, Philippines and the conflicts of the Mt. Banahaw
water allocation in the province of Quezon also in the
Philippines.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Policy, Legal and Institutional Regulatory
Frameworks
National Level
There are at least 8 legal frameworks that govern the water
sector in the Philippines. These are the Presidential Decree
1067 Water Code (1976); Presidential Decree 198 Provincial
Water Utilities Act (1973); Presidential Degree 522 (1974)
Prescribing Sanitation Requirements for the Travelling
Public; Republic Act 7586 National Integrated Protected Area
System Act (1992); Republic Act 8041 National Water Crisis
Act (1995); Republic Act 8371 Indigenous Peoples Rights
Act (1997); Republic Act 9275 Clean Water Act (2004); and
Republic Act 8435 Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization
Act (AFMA). According to the study of Hall et al. (2015), the
laws address several themes including: (1) legal treatment of
water resources (ownership, rights and distinction between
types surface or ground and sectors/uses); (2) property
rights (basis, i.e. permits/license/franchise for collection
and distribution; private rights granted to individual versus
collective; whether rights can be leased, transferred, recalled
by granting authority; right to water quality) and their
enforcement; (3) legalized inter-sectoral prioritization and
basis for prioritization; (4) legal linkages between land and
surface water, and between land and forest/environment; (5)
inter-governmental responsibility on water law; (6) integrated
treatment of water law with other laws on land, forest and
environment, and for water planning and development; (7)
favorability to private sector and NGO participation in water
planning and development; and (8) openness to market
solutions (as opposed to state/government ownership or
intervention).
The Water Code of the Philippines (NWRB 1976) is the
over- arching law that governs water access, allocation and
use. It stipulates rules on appropriation and utilization of
all waters; control, conservation and protection of waters,
watershed and related land resources; and, administrative
and enforcement of these rules. It defines requirements
for application of water permits and conditions of its use.
It also sets charges per rate of withdrawal based on the
permits. During periods of drought or water scarcity, the
Water Code prioritizes the use of water for domestic use,
followed by irrigation, and other uses.
The laws above can sometimes be conflicting. For
instance, while the Water Code stipulates that the state
owns all the water in the country, the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act protects the rights of indigenous peoples with
respect to resources contained in their ancestral domain.
Therefore, water is not freely shared with the other
community members. The National Integrated Protected
Area System (NIPAS) Act provides for watershed
protection so water supply can be sustained. This overlaps
with the provisions of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act.
Similarly, AFMA provides that all watersheds that are
sources of water for existing and potential irrigable
areas and recharge areas of major aquifers identified by
the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources shall be preserved as
such at all times,which is consistent with the NIPAS Act.
Local Water Governance
The Philippines legal framework allows some dichotomy
in terms of functions and jurisdiction in water resource
governance. Local governance functions by the Local
Government Units (LGU) include Community-based
Forest Management, waterworks system and water quality
monitoring. The LGUs decisions and actions are still
bounded by powers at the national level. This has been
a source of conflict between the national and local water
governance.
Conflicts Between National Policies and Local Agree-
ments in Provisioning Domestic Water Supply
The current institutional regulatory framework is weak
in terms of clarity of purpose. For instance, the domestic
water supply in Metro Iloilo (one of the city centers south
of Metro Manila) is taken from a watershed that contains a
smaller watershed which is a Protected Area and managed
by the National Government. On the other hand, this larger
watershed is managed by the locally organized Watershed
Management Board. This board is composed of more than
20 representatives of government, non-government, and
academic institutions. Due to its sheer size, it is quite
difficult to really point out who is ultimately responsible
for the stewardship of this watershed. There is therefore
a need to clarify the relationship between the Protected
Area Management Board of the smaller Watershed,
established by an Act of the National Government, and
the Watershed Management Board, established under
the Local Government Code. In the meantime, this
issue poses challenges for the sustainability of the water
Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 144 No. 2, December 2015
200
supply in the province, manifested in the following: 1)
deforestation in the upper watershed, landslides, flooding
or drying up of water source especially during the summer
months (non-availability of water); 2) conflicts due to the
competing uses of the water; and, 3) degradation of the
riverbed caused by sedimentation and quarrying which is
improperly regulated.
Conflict between ICCs and local governments in domes-
tic water supply provisioning
The current conflict for the rights to the use of water
between the indigenous cultural communities (ICC) and
the local governments (LGUs) representing the state is
a concrete example of tensions in water governance in
the Philippines (Rola 2011). As example, ICC residing
near the mouth of the river and other water sources are
not willing to share the water for an LGU project on
rural water supply that is meant for lowland household
consumption. The State enforced its stewardship of
natural resources citing the provisions of the Water
Code that anybody can apply for a water permit for the
use of the resource beyond household needs. While the
law provided public information about water permit
application, mechanisms for doing this has not been
instituted. Thus, in practice, an entity securing a water
permit does not necessarily ask the permission of local
communities who use said resource. This practice runs
counter to the customary laws and other national laws.
For example, as supported by the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 and implemented by the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP),
any use of resources within the ancestral domain of the
IP should get permission from the community following
the principle of free and prior informed consent or FPIC
(RA 8371).
Conflicts on Water Uses: Sacred Use of Water versus
Other Uses
This case showed the conflicts arising from the policy
of commoditization of water in the rural areas and the
customary water laws. Water is used differently in the
sacred area, mostly to meet spiritual needs of the locals
and pilgrims.
Ciudad Mistica is one dominant religious group in this
municipality of “sacred waters”. This organization has
become the water elite because they control the most
abundant water source in the area. The Ciudad Mistica’s
exclusive water access to this source and its members’
relatively better position creates tension with other
religious groups as water supply from other sources are
decreasing.
On the other hand, drawing water from the major water
reserves in Mt. Banahaw, in the province of Quezon,
settlers on its slopes have felt that while they are closest to
the water resource base, their own supply from the water
district is threatened by two phenomena: 1) diversion of
supply to where demand is high, and 2) pricing of water
beyond the financial capability of many traditional users.
The increasing pressure on the water resources of Mt.
Banahaw has made it apparent that water is finite and has
a cost. It must therefore be managed for sustainable and
equitable use by its many stakeholders.
The indigenous hierarchy of uses of water in this area is
consistent with the Water Code of the Philippines except
for one most important use in this village: water use for
rituals or sacred activities by women (Table 1). The second
step in the hierarchy ladder is the household use which
is also predominantly done by women. Men will also
use the water for gardening and other commercial-based
activities. The local government and institutions are just
one among the many users of the resource, according
to the local people, who also say that there has to be a
local initiative to clarify the water allocation in the area.
According to the community members, the state rule from
the Water Code needs to be modified to accommodate
the local priority water use, which is for spiritual needs.
Given the above, there seems to be no “singular” water
Table 1. Hierarchy of water use in Mt. Banahaw, Philippines
Water Use Water Users
Ritual/Sacred Use Mostly Women
Household Use Mostly Women
House Use and Gardening Men and Women
Commercial/Industry Institutions/LGUs
policy to speak of but highly localized and perhaps
politically-contingent legal bases varying from one area
to the other.
Planning and Decision Making Processes
National Level
To respond to the increasing demand and competing use of
water, the Philippines has come up with a National Water
Resources Management Master Plan based on a JICA/
NWRB 1998 study. The plan has two components: a)
development of water resources to meet increasing water
demand; and, b) strengthening of the water institutions.
For purposes of planning, the NWRB, the regulatory
arm of the Philippine government for water, has divided
the country into 12 water resources regions. A water
resource region divides the country by hydrological
boundaries for comprehensive planning of water resources
development. The Philippines has 343 principal river
Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 144 No. 2, December 2015
201
Table 2. Fragmented and overlapping range of functions of key Philippine water-related agencies (Rola et al. 2012).
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Functional Area N
W
R
B
L
W
U
A
D
E
N
R
L
G
U
S
D
P
W
H
D
O
H
N
I
A
N
A
P
O
C
O
R
P
A
G
A
S
A
D
O
F
M
M
S
S
D
I
L
G
D
O
E
M
M
D
A
D
O
T
L
L
D
A
Policy Planning
Data Monitoring
Scientific Modeling
Infrastructure and
Program Dev't
Operations of Water
Facilities
Regulatory Functions
Financing
Public Relations,
Capdev't and IEC
Local RBO Dev't
NWRB-National Water Resources Board; LWUA-Local Water Utilities Administration; DENR-Department of Environment and Natural Resources; LGUs-Local Government Units; DOH-Department
of Health; NIA-National Irrigation Administration; NAPOCOR-National Power Corporation; PAGASA-Philippine Atmoshperic, Geophysical and Astronomical Administration; DOF-Department of
Foreign Affairs; MWSS-Maninal Water-Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System; DILG-Department of the Interior and Local Government; DOE-Department of Energy; MMDA-Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority; DOT-Department of Tourism; LLDA-Laguna Lake Development Authority. (Source: Tabios and Villaluna 2012)
basins that have at least 40 square kilometers (km2) of
basin area. Of these, 20 river basins with at least 990
km2 of basin area are identified as major river basins.
These 20 major river basins account for 37.1 percent
of the total land area of the country and 55.7 percent of
the total area of the principal river basins (JICA/NWRB
1998). Politically, meanwhile, the country is divided
into 18 administrative regions. These, however, are not
congruent with the water resource regions. As such, there
is no administrative unit that manages the water resource
regions. The operationalization of planning at the water
resource regions thus remains elusive, at best a plan.
Furthermore, the JICA/NWRB plan only considers the
physical aspect of water. Certain socio-cultural aspects
can impair the plan. Customary rules still guides water
use in most places within the country as discussed
below. The formal system of water management used
by the government is based on a paradigm where
water is priced and assigned rights to access. On the
other hand, indigenous communities perceive natural
resources as a communal resource and an integral part
of their everyday life, culture, and traditions. Water is a
central element in the varied and complex social relations
of production and consumption within which conflicts
between individuals and groups arise. Far from being
clearly delimited and mutually exclusive, the customary
and statutory are usually intertwined in complex mosaics
of resource ownership systems (Cotula & Chuveau 2007).
Precisely because they are community based, customary
rules are inherently unique to the locality in which they
operate, they frequently entail complexities not found
in formal systems that address more general principles
and concerns.
Water governance in the Philippines needs to recognize
both sets of rules because as customary systems are
undermined, they leave a void that statutory systems
are ill-equipped to fill, given the limited administrative
capacity in the country. There are cases where statutory
and customary systems co-exist in harmony and provide
a reasonable degree of stability (Rola et al. 2015).
In reality, there are 30 public sector agencies (national
and LGU-based) managing the water resources in
the Philippines (Rola et al. 2012) (Table 2). Their
regulatory mandates cover water quality and quantity,
water resource, and water services. Institutional
concerns as expected are also varied: water sanitation
and quality, watershed management, integrated area
development, data collection, flood management,
irrigation, hydropower, water supply, research, and
cloud seeding. While not all are present at every locality,
the sheer number of potential actors and the assumed
plurality of mandates (no mandate is deemed a priority
over the others) make for serious political inertia in terms
of getting the job done (Hall et al. 2015).
Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 144 No. 2, December 2015
202
Figure 2. An example of a nested and interlocking water governance model (Rola 2011).
Mt. Kitanglad Range Nature Park Management
Upper Pulangui Watershed Cluster Management
MANUPALI WATERSHED
Lantapan Watershed Management
Local Level
Most national water institutions have regional counterparts,
governed by national laws. Without the provincial or
municipal counterparts, local water planning and decisions
are not formally done. This can explain the proliferation
of customary rules and local specific rules governing local
or community water use.
For example, despite the existence of formal rules on the
use of water resources in the country, the use of water and
natural resources by the indigenous people of the rural
Cordillera Region and Northern Luzon are guided by
customary laws and practices. For instance, the activities
of the Zanjeras cover the construction of dams and
maintaining and managing the irrigation system in order
to ensure that water is adequately and regularly delivered
to its members (Yabes 1992).
Nested and Interlocking Water Resource Planning at
the Watershed and Local Levels
Multiple decision makers at the national, watershed, and
local levels constrain the planning and decision making
of the water resource. Figure 2 shows an example of the
water decision dynamics in a watershed governance space.
One town’s water planning and decisions are influenced by
decisions to protect the forest, and manage the watershed
where this town belongs. These are also relevant actions
for water supply sustainability. Furthermore, the town’s
decisions are also affected by the management decisions of
the watershed cluster where it belongs. This shows a maze
of peoples and institutions, sometimes with competing
concerns to agree on water governance in this local area
(Rola 2011).
In particular, figure 2 illustrates the various actors and
institutions that had to converge to plan on the water for
one municipality. The first step is to draw a municipal
plan. Then the plan will have to be consistent with three
other plans: that of the watershed where the town belongs;
the Mountain Range Nature Park Management Plan; and
the Upper Watershed Cluster Management Plan, which
is part of the provincial watershed cluster. It will indeed
take a lot of transactions cost to be able to really define the
three other plans and to connect to the town’s water plans.
Following Francisco & Salas (2004), the watershed
management approach in managing the water supply is
likely to work in an area when the following contributing
factors are present: relevant community and the resource
managers understand fully well the ecological inter-
relationship within the system; with a community having
high level of social capital that supports the watershed
management initiatives; with adequate financial resources
and capable technical expertise of resource managers; and
supporting legal and institutional support to undertake
those watershed management initiatives.
Implementation, Enforcement, and Compliance
National Level
The Water Code is implemented by the NWRB. The
NWRB is housed at the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR). The NWRB is a central
agency of 120 people with PhP 50M ($1=PhP45) budget
with limited capacities for water resources management
(Paragas 2012, personal communication). The lean
institutional set-up constrains the agency to act on its
Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 144 No. 2, December 2015
203
mandate. Building institutional and human capacity for
implementing regulatory laws remains a challenge.
NWRB confers water rights. But there is a large proportion
of water rights freely held by public institutions such as
that for irrigation and for domestic water supply, both in
Metro Manila and the areas outside this metropolitan city.
Also, several other agencies perform the various mandates
for water. For instance, the mandate of watershed
conservation is with the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), domestic water supply is
with the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA),
irrigation water supply is with the National Irrigation
Administration (NIA), and flood control management
is with the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH). This problem of multiple institutions with
overlapping mandates came about because as one agency
is established, the remaining agencies were not abolished.
Elazegui (2004) highlights the high cost of coordination
given this set-up and the fact that some national agencies
have no field presence in many localities.
Local Level
As noted by Elazegui (2004), devolving watershed
management functions from water districts to LGUs
could be done through a presidential proclamation or
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
DENR and LGUs. Government owned and controlled
corporations (GOCCs) could also be assigned to exercise
jurisdiction and control over certain watersheds. They
must coordinate, however, with the LGUs in the localities
where their projects are to be undertaken. A MOA on
project implementation could thus also be drawn up
among the GOCCs and the LGU.
To implement projects, including those in small
watersheds serving as source of potable water or irrigation
to the community, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
has to be forged among national agencies concerned
with the environment (DENR) and the interior and local
government (DILG) and the concerned local government
unit. Meanwhile, the Protected Area Management Board
(PAMB), composed of the DENR, relevant LGU and NGO,
and a community representative, is mainly responsible for
the implementation of the National Integrated Protected
Areas Act (NIPAS) at the local level. Co-management
of certain watersheds supporting facilities of local water
districts has also been made possible through an agreement
between NWRB and LWUA (Elazegui 2004).
A Water District’s Saga: Weakness in Enforcement and
Compliance of Water Laws
A water district (WD) in the Philippines is a local
corporate entity that operates and maintains a water supply
system in one or more provincial cities or municipalities.
It is established on a local option basis and is classified
as a government-owned and controlled corporation
(GOCC). A WD is run by a five-man Board of Directors
through a General Manager. The members of the board
of Directors are appointed by the local government unit
where it is located. In some instances, the WD board has
conflicts with the local government units, especially in
instances that the water district is not effectively governed.
Administrative weaknesses will actually impede the
delivery of water to the clients.
One recorded case is that of the Metro Iloilo Water
District (MIWD). The MIWD, a waterworks system, has
undergone several evolutions since it was established
in 1926 as Iloilo Metropolitan Waterworks (IMWW)
authorizing the Provincial Government of Iloilo and
selected municipalities to be covered by the proposed
service area. From 1928 to 1954, the IMWW was
administered and controlled by the Provincial Government
of Iloilo.
In 1955, the administration of the IMWW was transferred
from the Provincial Government of Iloilo to the National
Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA), a
public corporation existing as an independent agency.
In 1971, the Iloilo waterworks system was under the
administration of Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System (MWSS) during the creation of the MWSS
and abolition of the NAWASA, and aimed for proper
operation and maintenance of waterworks system. This
was also to insure an uninterrupted and adequate supply
and distribution of potable water for domestic and other
purposes and the proper operation and maintenance of
sewerage systems.
In 1973, Presidential Decree No. 198 was promulgated,
authorizing the formation of autonomous water districts
and the creation of the Local Water Utilities Administration
(LWUA), a government corporation aimed at providing
water districts financial, technical and skill-training
assistance. In accordance with the provisions of P.D. 198, in
1978 there was a simultaneous turn-over of the waterworks
system from the MWSS to Iloilo City Government.
Visualizing local water utilities as being locally-controlled
and managed while simultaneously receiving support from
the national government in the areas of technical advisory
services and financing, the MIWD was established in 1978,
as GOCC. As GOCC now, the Board of Directors is the
policy making body of the WD.
Part of its functions is to hire the General Manager and
personnel for the day to day operations of the WD. The
General Manager is responsible for the supervision and
control of the maintenance and operation of water district
facilities. But the cessation of water supply in Iloilo City
for three months in 2000, and the subsequent ongoing
Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 144 No. 2, December 2015
204
shortages during the following dry seasons up to the recent
times due to non-existent flow in the river near the city’s
off-take, has generated controversy and arguments for
MIWD over who and/or what has been responsible for
the water shortage and what the solution is.
On the water supply side, MIWD extracts its water supply
from a river for domestic use through an intake dam with
a capacity of about 30,240 cubic meters of water per
day. In 2002, a decrease in the volume of water in this
river and in another river was experienced resulting in
shortage of potable water in its service area. Watershed
degradation was blamed as one factor of this drying up
of the river. In the early 1980s, on account of its critical
role to the water supply of Iloilo City, MIWD assumed the
responsibility of protecting the said watershed as part of
the franchise agreement. Unfortunately, MIWD was not
able to protect the area effectively for there were about
10,000 people maintaining farms within the reserved area
by 1992. This is the weakness in the compliance of the
law, that reservation area should be maintained as a natural
park. This is beyond the MIWD mandate and within the
mandate of another national agency. Since then, numerous
watershed conservation projects and activities such as
tree planting and livelihood projects were implemented
in the watershed. However, these were uncoordinated and
unsustainable.
In the meantime, legal issues and controversies have beset
the management and employees of MIWD relative to the
appointments of the Board of Directors (Lizada 2012). In
the General Administration, the concerns are as follows:
lack of Corporate Strategic Plans, ineffective budget
process, absence of proper internal control mechanism,
low morale of employees, absence of staff development
program, lack of personnel reward system, mismatch of
job requirements and hired personnel, non- availability
of baseline information on assets, and lack of Corporate
Social Responsibility Program. In light of the experiences
of this WD, water decisions and actions are complex,
ultimately affecting water service delivery. Thus, a need
for integrated and interdisciplinary approach is seen as
imperative.
CONCLUSIONS
Water is a basic human right. Yet many, especially the poor,
have limited access to it even if annual available resources
far exceed total withdrawals. Inappropriate water governance
at various levels contributes to “artificial scarcity”.
In discussing the major challenges for water governance
at the national and local levels, and from national to local
levels, significant issues found were: 1) the multiple
and fragmented water institutions in the country; 2) the
nested and interlocking mechanisms in spatial water
governance; 3) conflicts between national policies and
local agreements; and, 4) conflicts between customary
rules and formal state laws.
Results showed that the many legal documents for water
are a source of confusion; and water data for planning are
insufficient. While there are a multitude of water agencies,
these are not connected vertically nor horizontally. These
various institutions do not have sufficient human and
financial resources and presence at the local level to be
effective in their mandates.
The findings in this study reinforce previous studies that
governance depends to a large extent on the underlying
economic and social conditions and that there is no one
prescribed approach to governance that will work in
all cases (Rogers 2002).The one size fits all economic
solutions are also inadequate (Sampford 2009). While
hierarchical governance seems to be the prevailing
arrangement in the Philippines, poly- centric governance
mechanisms (Ostrom 2009) may be contextually relevant.
Instituting good water governance including responsive
policy and institutional arrangements, appropriate planning,
and effective implementation are the keys in addressing
water crisis in the Philippines. The following strategies are
therefore recommended to move things forward:
RECOMMENDATIONS
Review Legal and Institutional Framework
The Philippine Water Code defines the legal framework
for the extraction, allocation, and management of
water resources in the country. A proposal for a central
regulatory office has been studied. The National Water
Regulatory Board has also been transferred to the DENRs
jurisdiction. At the local level, LGUs can establish water
councils or watershed authorities which may not require
legislative action.
There is proposal for an institutional body that will govern
the watershed unit for its water resources and other
environmental services. Since the watershed transcends
administrative units, the need to have a watershed council
or authority seems to be a move in the right direction to
bring about a truly watershed-based water resource planning
and implementation. Such a legal mandate must define who
should have the power and how power and accountability
must be shared among the various entities with interest in
water resource concerns. It should also clearly define how
water must be shared among recognized users and what
priorities must be established across uses.
Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 144 No. 2, December 2015
205
A legal system of this nature must include a discussion
of the institutional requirements and accepted procedures
for determining new uses, reviewing existing uses,
and resolving disputes on water access (UNESCAP
2000). Unfortunately, the lack of a comprehensive legal
framework and unclear institutional responsibilities
remain outstanding issues in the water governance in
most developing countries, including the Philippines. An
institutional framework through which all water users will
understand their roles is thus imperative.
Improve Planning and Decision-Making Processes
There is currently a proposal to establish a central body to
manage water resources in the country (Tabios & Villaluna
2012) that has been submitted to the water sector agencies.
This central body aims to be an efficient and effective
agency to manage the country’s water resources and have
a coherent decision-making process. Its proposed mission
is to manage and protect the country’s water resources for
domestic water supply, sanitation, irrigation, hydropower,
fisheries, aquaculture, flood control, navigation, and
recreation including the enhancement and maintenance
of water quality, conservation of watersheds, control of
water pollution, and environmental restoration without
compromising the natural ecosystem functions and
services. Table 3 enumerates the functions of this proposed
agency.
The proposal is to strengthen the leadership and capacity
of the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) and
transform the agency to a structure that will enable the
agency to become the management authority of the
country’s water resources. The transformed NWRB, is
fundamental to manage the country’s water resources,
optimize the use of this resource and ensure water security
for the different purposes/uses of water.
In addition to sector governance, the priority policy
imperatives were also identified to facilitate the creation
of enabling environments, institutional arrangements
and management instruments to enable the NWRMO
to implement a decentralized framework of good water
governance at river-basin level. This would include
recommendations on the planning, development and
implementation of an integrated water resources
management (IWRM) approach based on quality data and
scientific analysis. Most importantly, the proposal features
integrated and accurate data collection and analysis and
the use of scientific decision support systems for water
resources management including flood modeling and
warning system.
Study and Implement Participatory Water
Governance Models
Local communities are the frontline consumers of
environmental “good and bad,” resulting from either
water resource rehabilitation or degradation. As such,
it is in their best interest to be directly involved in the
governance of this resource. Their involvement in fact
can spell the difference between the success and failure of
governance efforts. Equating governance with government
is a common practice (ADB 1999). But governance is
also about the way stakeholders in society shape their
relationships to order their affairs (Cleaver & Franks
2005). Local governments also play a major role in
water governance. In the Philippines, local governments
are empowered to manage natural resources within their
spheres of influence and are in a position to make residents
comply with best practices in water resource management.
On the other hand, there is need for alternative
strategies to deliver water to communities. Such good
practice of cooperation and coordination among the
different stakeholders in the water delivery in poor
urban communities was reported by one of the water
concessionaires in Metro Manila. This is a case of a private
sector-community partnership.
Table 3. Major functions of the proposed national water resources management office.
1. Planning and Policy Recommendation 6. Regulatory Functions- economic and
resource regulation including extraction
and water permits, quantity, monitoring
and enforcement and conflict resolution
2. Data Collection and Monitoring 7. Water Economics Studies
3. Scientific and Decision Support Systems 8. Public Relations and Capacity
Development
4. Infrastructure and Program Development 9. River Basin Organization Development
5. Strategic Development of Water Facilities
and Operations
(Source: Tabios and Villaluna 2012)
Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 144 No. 2, December 2015
206
The problem as stated is that the poor are most vulnerable
to limited water access because of their economic condition.
The solution is a community based strategy where the
community participates in the water delivery services,
even becoming co-owners of the project, “Tubig Para
sa Barangay” (Water for the Community). Among their
engagements with the project was the establishment
of livelihood opportunities (a cooperative) where they
supply services for the maintenance of the water system.
The report of the water firm in terms of impacts showed
high economic benefits for the community members and
especially reduction in incidence of water borne diseases
and improved overall health and sanitation conditions (Rola
& Francisco 2004). The biggest lesson in this case study
is that with stakeholder participation, both the consumers
and the suppliers benefit. This example shows that the
water governance can indeed be improved if programs are
inclusive, participatory, and community- based.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for paper preparation was sourced from the
Emerging Interdisciplinary Research Program (EIDR)
of the University of the Philippines System (OVPAA
–EIDR Code 2-003-121010). The authors also thank the
Philippines’ Department of Science and Technology-
National Academy of Science and Technology (DOST-
NAST) for organizing the Round Table Discussion to
discuss these important issues. The final manuscript
benefitted from research assistance of Ms. Aira Mendoza
of the University of the Philippines Los Baños.
REFERENCES
[ADB] ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK. 1999.
Governance: Sound Development Management.
Manila, Philippines: ADB. 63p.
[ADB] ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK. 2007. Asian
Water Development Outlook. Manila, Philippines:
ADB. 66p.
ARARAL, E., & YU, D. J. (2013). Comparative water
law, policies and administration in Asia: Evidence
from 17 countries. Water Resources Research 49(9):
5407-5316. doi: 10.1002/wrcr.20414
CLEAVER F, FRANKS T. 2005. Water governance and
poverty: A framework of analysis. Bradford Centre
for International Development (BCID) Research
Paper No.13. Bradford, BD7 1 DP, United Kingdom:
University of Bradford. 18p.
COTULA, L., & CHAUVEAU, J. P. (2007). Changes in
customary land tenure systems in Africa. Retrieved
from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/9305IIED.pdf. on 10
July 2012.
ELAZEGUI D. 2004. Water resource governance:
Realities and challenges in the Philippines. In: Winning
the water war: Watersheds, water policies and water
institutions. Rola AC, Francisco H, Liguton JPT
(eds). Makati City, Philippines: Philippine Institute
of Development Studies and Philippine Council for
Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research
and Development. p. 85–104.
[FAO] FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION
OF THE UNITED NATIONS. 2002. Aquastat
database. Retrieved from http: //www.fao.org/ag/agl
/aglw/aquastat Accessed on 1 October 2014.
[FAO] FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION
OF THE UNITED NATIONS 2011. Framework for
Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance. Rome:
The Program on Forests. 36p.
FRANCISCO HA, SALAS JC. 2004. Realities of
watershed management in the Philippines: The
case of the Iloilo Maasin watershed. In: Discussion
Paper Series No. 2004-22. Makati City, Philippines:
Philippine Institute of Development Studies. 26p.
HALL RA, LIZADA JC, DAYO MHF, ABANSI CL,
DAVID ME AND ROLA AC (2015). To the last drop:
The political economy of the Philippine water policy.
Water Policy 17:946-962.
[JICA] JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
AGENCY / [NWRB] NATIONAL WATER
RESOURCES BOARD.1998. Master plan study on
water resources management in the Republic of the
Philippines. Tokyo, Japan: Nippon Koei Co. Ltd. /
Nippon Jogesuido Sekkei Co., Ltd. 257p.
LIZADA, J.C. 2012. Water Resource Management in
Practice: Iloilo Case Study. In: Roundtable Discussion
on Water Rights and Water Wrongs: Toward Good
Water Governance for Development, Social Sciences
Division- NAST PHL, 26 January 2012; Hyatt Hotel
and Casino Manila, Philippines. 9p.
MALAYANG BS III. 2004. A model of water governance
in the Philippines. In: Rola AC, Francisco HA, Liguton
Winning the water war: Watersheds, water policies and
water institutions. JPT (eds) Makati City. Philippines:
Philippine Institute of Development Studies, p. 59–84.
[NSCB] NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION
BOARD. 2006. Compendium of Philippine environment
statistics. Makati City, Philippines: NSCB. 447p.
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD (NWRB)
(1976). Water Code of the Philippines and the
Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 144 No. 2, December 2015
207
Implementing Rules and Regulations. Quezon City,
Philippines. 27p.
OSTROM E. 2010. Beyond markets and states:
Polycentric governance of complex economic systems.
American Economic Review 100(3):641-672.
PARAGAS, VICENTE S. 2012. Water Regulatory
Policies. In: Roundtable Discussion on Water Rights
and Water Wrongs: Toward Good Water Governance
for Development, Social Sciences Division- NAST
PHL, January 26, 2012, Hyatt Hotel and Casino
Manila, Manila, Philippines.
ROGERS PP, HALL AW. 2003. Effective water
governance, TEC (Technical Committee) Report
No. 7. Hantverkargatan 5, Stockholm : Global Water
Partnership, GWP Secretariat. 48p.
ROGERS PP. 2002. Water governance in Latin America
and the Caribbean. Retrieved from http://atl.org.mx/
files/Water%20governance%20in%20LA(1).pdf on
1 October 2014.
ROLA AC, FRANCISCO HA. 2004. A model of water
governance in the Philippines. In: Rola AC, Francisco
Winning the water war: Watersheds, water policies and
water institutions. HA, Liguton JPT (eds) Makati City,
Philippines: Philippine Institute of Development Studies/
Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines: PCARRD. p. 1–26.
ROLA AC, PULHIN JM, DAVID CC, WENSLEY
C, PARAGAS VS, TABIOS GQ, III LIZADA JC,
GAZMEN PG, AND DAYO MHF. 2012. Towards
Good Water Governance in the Philippines. Trans.
Nat. Acad. Sci. & Tech. (Philippines) 34(2): 299-323.
ROLA AC 2011. An Upland Community in Transition:
Institutional Innovations for Sustainable Development
in Rural Philippines. Singapore: Southeast Asia
Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in
Agriculture (SEARCA) and the Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies (ISEAS) 235p.
ROLA AC, ABANSI CL, ARCALA-HALL R., LIZADA
JC, SIASON IML & ARARAL EK JR. 2015: Drivers
of water governance reforms in the Philippines,
International Journal of Water Resources Development
DOI: 10.1080/07900627.2015.1060196
ROSEGRANT MW, CAI WX, CLINE SA. 2002.
World water and food to 2025: Dealing with scarcity.
Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research
Institute. 338p.
SAMPFORD C. 2009. Water rights and water governance:
A cautionary tale and the case for interdisciplinary
governance. In: Water ethics: Marcelino Botin water
forum 2007. M Ramon Llamas, Martinez-Cortina L,
Mukheiji A (eds) London: CRC Press, Taylor and
Francis Group. p. 1–26.
TABIOS GQ III, VILLALUNA RAL. 2012. Development
of the implementation and operational plan for the
National Water Resources Management Office.
Submitted to the Interagency Committee on Water.
Quezon City, Philippines: NEDA. 96p.
[UNESCAP] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE
PACIFIC. 2000. Principles and practices of water
allocation among water use sectors. In: Water
Resources Series No. 80. New York, USA: United
Nations Publication, 10p.
WEBSTER D, LE-HUU T. 2003. Guidelines on strategic
planning and management of water resources. United
Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific. Retrieved from http://www.unescap.
org/esd/water/spm/2003/waterpercentSPM-rev7-30-6-
03-rev2.pdf. on 1 October 2014.
YABES R. 1992. The Zanjeras and the Ilocos Norte
irrigation project: Lessons of environmental
sustainability from Philippine traditional resource
management systems. In: Grassroots environmental
action: People’s Participation in Sustainable
Development. Ghai D, Vivian J (eds) London, England:
Routledge Publishing. p. 106-140.
Rola et al.: Challenges of Water Governance in the Philippines
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 144 No. 2, December 2015
208
