INTRODUCTION

The Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) has recently submitted to the World Health Organization its Water Safety Plan (WSP) which gained a very satisfactory approval. Thereby, ready to take off its implementation. Part of the process in concretely realizing and achieving what is written in the plan, is for the MCWD-WSP team to prepare the details of the action plan and its estimated budgetary requirements. The Water Resources Knowledge Center along with its three (3) Divisions are members of the WSP Team. After the recent meeting that was conducted by the team, one of the agreed items is for each team member to prepare their budget. Henceforth, the Environment Division, is being directed to submit a budget proposal for the following components, namely: 1. Catchment Management and Protection Program 2. Security and Enforcement Program 3. Eco-tourism Program Thus, this document will tackle the components that have been discussed herewith. It is, however, to be understood that the indicated budget is of its ball park figures considered as estimates; such that, in any case of budget adjustments, it shall be requested for reconsideration.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF CONCERNS

The Metropolitan Cebu Water District serves four (4) cities and four (4) municipalities within its franchise area with a total number of one hundred eighteen (118) wells excluding the bulkwater suppliers. Such wells traverse the whole span of the Metropolitan. The four (4) cities includes Talisay City, Cebu City, Mandaue City and Talisay City; likewise, the four (4) Municipalities are Consolacion, Liloan, Compostela and Cordova. On the other hand, believing in the principle that for environment, everything interconnects, the Environment Division, other than the eight Local Government Units served, also have included the municipalities of Balamban, and Asturias and Toledo City as part of our commitment in organizing the three (3) major and critical river systems of Central Cebu which also covers the Central Cebu Protected Landscape. These interventions are part and parcel of MCWDs being a signatory to the Memorandum of Cooperation of the Central Cebu River Basins Management Council and being a bona fide member of the Protected Area Management Board. The total program area coverage is 68, 133 hectares with a total of 214 barangays. Beginning in 2008, MCWD implemented its new core program which is the localization of the integrated water resources management (IWRM). As a background, the Philippines is a signatory to the 1992 Rio de Janiero Conference and has since then adopted IWRM as its national policy on water. To picture out IWRM, we see the river basin as the planning unit. The river basins identified are as follows: the Buhisan River System, the Butuanon and Mahiga River Systems, the Mananga-Kotkot-Combado-Lusaran Basins, the Guadalupe River System and the Bulacao River Systems.

ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Mananga River Basin:

Validated Problems Based on the IWRM Elements 1. There is no RBO; there are POs but not designed as RBOs; LGUs not prepared to take on functions of RBOs; there are apprehensions why RBOs should be formed when theres already the CCPL PAMB and other organizations 2. Upland and lowland POs take responsibility only in their areas; STAKEHOLDERS: BLGUs also take responsibility only in their respective areas; the business group, academe, and religious organizations have limited or no coordination as to participation; MCWD coordinates with DENR and LGUs but limited; no coordination between BLGUs and other water providers 3. Absence of a river basin plan; no strategy designed for river basin planning; some POs have general strategic plans but these are not incorporated in barangay development plans; other stakeholders are sector, sponsor, or donor based 4. Very limited IEC programs for IWRM 5. Some upland and midstream areas do not have a centralized water distribution system - mostly relying on level I or II water systems; water conflicts are resolved through BLGU mediation; there is no water allocation program 6. Upland areas complain about why they should protect the watershed when they do not have an efficient water distribution system; water is taken from the watersheds but they have difficulty in accessing water or they are not provided with piping systems 7. Business permits and ECCs are provided by LGUs / DENR to companies but there is limited regular monitoring system; not all businesses/industrial companies have wastewater/discharge permits 8. No government budget or private sector financing for IWRM; no budget for IEC/advocacy 9. Absence of economic instruments for raw water pricing; lack of information on water demand and supply; absence of coordination mechanism for Payment for Environmental Services (PES); mechanisms for water revenue sharing are not wellunderstood (Talisay City), limited coordination for joint meter reading in extraction wells. 10. There are water regulatory frameworks with LGUs and MCWD, but there is absence of regulatory framework for IWRM; environmental policies are not properly enforced; need for sharing of regulatory frameworks in a collaboration process to make IWRM effective 11. Presence of water education programs in schools but these are not sustained and not yet included in the regular school curriculum; water education outside of the formal educational system is limited or not sustained 12. Watershed management cannot be fully implemented because of limited funds within DENR; dependence on external funding for watershed management; upland residents are not keen in protecting forestal areas because of limited alternative sources of income 13. Absence of policy and implementation framework for introducing environmental flows 14. Limited investments for disaster management; lack of investments in midstream and downstream portions for flood mitigation

15. No warming systems in upland, midstream, and downstream areas during typhoons / heavy rains. 16. Wetlands in downstream areas are being reclaimed / covered for commercial or residential purposes 17. Absence of measures to protect fisheries and other life forms in the river; river in downstream portion is biologically dead 18. Absence of knowledge and technical capability for groundwater management among LGUs; salt water intrusion in coastal areas; groundwater has gone deeper in coastal areas; technical capability and information inadequately shared and disseminated 19. Policies and implementation framework for water use, conservation, and recycling are only available in urban areas but weakly enforced 20. Limited information mechanisms for promoting IWRM; absence of plans for information sharing

Kotkot River Basin:

Validated Priorities Based on the 25 IWRM Elements Water

Quality of water polluted, poor quality of potable water Improper waste management improper waste disposal (human, animal, agricultural, toxic/hazardous, industrial waste) Limited access to potable water Limited water-related infrastructures Lack of equity of resources (water rights)

Institutional Development Low awareness/lack of knowledge on IWRM Lack of coordination among LGUs, government line agencies, POs, NGOs, private sector Lack of financial resources at barangay level to implement projects within the river basin area Lack of disaster risk reduction and management and preparedness plans Policy / Law Enforcement Poor implementation of environmental laws Non-conformity with the MOA Watershed Management Siltation of river beds Cutting of trees in river basin area, especially within protected areas Illegal extraction of sand and gravel Tenurial problems, e.g. security of tenure (uplands) land ownership Increased population growth and illegal settlements Lack of alternative sources of income/no social equity Zones not properly managed Non-delineation of protected areas

Combado-Lusaran River Basin:

Validated Priorities Based on the 25 IWRM Elements 1. River basin organization Absence of an RBO; some local organizations have weak institutional capability and limited coordination processes with the government 2. Stakeholder participation Stakeholders are not mobilized for river basin planning and management; limited capability building activities for stakeholder participation 3. River basin planning No activities for river basin planning; planning is sector-based, not integrated with other sectors

Cebu City River Basins Core Problem Analysis Causes (Roots) Core Problem (Stem)
Built-Up Areas Denudation/ Illegal cutting of trees Poor enforcement of Regulations and Ordinances Quarrying Presence of pests requiring pesticides and chemicals Organic farming not practiced Safe farming technology not practiced Cutting of trees for charcoal making Improper sanitation (Lack of toilets and septic tanks) Improper Garbage Disposal (Lack of discipline) Irregular schedule of garbage collection and Frequency of garbage collection insufficient Improper/ poor drainage system Prioritization system of barangay (low priority for the environment) Lukewarm acceptance by public of " No Segregation, No Flooding Landslides

Eco-Zone
Forested/ Upland Areas

Effects (Branches and Fruits)

Landslides Contamination of water sources Destruction of properties of lowland settlers Health hazard/ diseases caused by chemicals Limited agricultural production/ Livelihood of Farmers

Agricultural Areas

Water Contamination

Flooding Water Scarcity

Health hazard (Dengue and cholera epidemics, liptosphyrosis) Destruction/ loss of properties of lowland settlers, including infrastructure Water contamination Dislocation/ Displacement of families Water and Air pollution Landslides

 Waterbodies

Collection Policy" Over population No relocation site No Political will to implement environmental laws Lack of information and education Housing Project/ subdivision development Mountain Subdivision Development requiring Earthmoving/ Bulldozing Spraying of Chemical Inputs/ Pesticides Presence of structures along the riparian zones Sand and Gravel extraction/ quarrying Improper disposal of garbage, animal, and human wastes, including plastics Clogged-up Waterways Backyard piggeries/ hog raising Poor drainage Siltation Non-implementation of laws and ordinances Poor governance No available land for relocation site Poor groundwater recharge

Siltation Flooding and Landslides Informal Settlers along Coastline, and Riparian Zone (rivers, creeks)

Coastal Areas

Poor Drainage System No barangay Ordinance on disposal of garbage Presence of structures along the seaside (coastline) Lack of public toilets (or rehabilitation of existing ones) Improper disposal of fish gills and internal organs Lack of barangay cooperation during cleanup drive

Flooding

Pollution Soil Erosion Contamination of water sources Poor Water Quality and Poor sanitation Drying-up of springs/ water sources Health hazard (respiratory, dengue, cholera epidemics, liptosphyrosis, and other water-borne diseases) Informal Settlers along Coastline, and Riparian Zone (rivers, creeks) Dislocation/ Displacement of families Destruction of infrastructure and properties of lowland settlers Water contamination Loss of lives and properties Health hazard Air pollution

CrossCutting Concerns

No appropriate Office for environmental concerns (at the City and Bgy levels) Uncooperative landowners Lack of political will (to implement environmental laws) No available land for relocation site Contamination of water sources Destruction of marine life Contaminated coastlines

The Butuanon River System

Problem tree analysis Major problem B

Loss of lives and property

To health hazard

Poor water supply

Drought

Reduced biodiversity

Flooding

Changing river flow patterns; hampered water flow/diminished water supply (B)

Structures

Poor infiltration capacity

Sedimentation/e rosion

Poor drainage

Informal Illegal quarrying Encroachment by land owners

Poor garbage and solid waste management

POOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT i.e. No soil and water conservation measures, deforestation, land conversion

Weak enforcement of water laws and weak monitoring and evaluation (Ecogovernance)

Weak political will Inadequate Environmental Ethics (Ignorance, Values, Attitudes and Habits)

Loss of revenue

Problem tree analysis Major problem A

Loss of tourism opportunities Reduced sense of place/pride

Poor potable water supply

Lower income

Low real property value

Health hazrd

Low Biodiversity

Contaminated Water (A)

Ground water mining

Improper solid waste management

Informal settlers

None or inadequate treatment prior to discharge

Inadequate education/ IEC program

Absence of ordinances eg CLUP

Industry

Agricultural al

Domestic

Commercial Inadequate Environmental Ethics (Ignorance, Values, Attitudes and Habits)

Weak enforcement of water laws and weak monitoring and evaluation; no local water laws (Eco-governance)

Weak political will

The Buhisan River System Environmental Priority Problems

Priorities 1. Degradation of forest cover -Planting of exotic species -Illegal cutting of trees

Rationale -Dwindling water reservoir -Siltation / sedimentation -Less wildlife due to exotic species of forest trees

Hindrances -Unaware public - Absence of integrated watershed management plan -No proper orientation on tree growing -No tax incentives for planting trees -Absence of management information system (decision-support tool) -Communitys refusal to cooperate -Political accommodation -Limited government resources -Limited livelihood opportunities -Funding constraints

Facilitating Factors -Environmental awareness campaign -Multi-stakeholder coordinated efforts -Buhisan River Management Core Group -M&E mechanism (community-based) -Tax incentives to owners (tree-growing)

2. Illegal structures along the midstream and downstream portion of the river

-Throwing of garbage near the river -Obstruction of river flow -Risk to lives and properties -Water pollution -Weather condition -Health and sanitation problems

-Policies/IRR -Community-based reforestation

3. Inappropriate waste management

-Fragmented governance

-Massive growing of native trees -Adoption of appropriate technology -Re-greening/ reforestation policy of the government -Reproductive health program -Livelihood skills training

4. Informal settlements -Encroachment of squatters

-Weak law enforcement

-Conflict of interest (personal vs. community) -Inadequate knowledge on proper sanitation

5. Water scarcity

This is the overall effect of the problems identified.

Socio-Economic Priority Problems

Priorities 1. Population boom Rationale -Over-population Hindrances -Lack of cooperation Facilitating Factors -Presence of health

increases the demand for water and other basic needs

-No proper family planning -Strong opposition from the church towards artificial methods -No logistics or insufficient funds

workers -On-going reproductive health programs

2. Lack of proper information on environmental protection and management 3. Unemployment

-Wrong information results to environmental degradation

-Presence of NGOs -Availability of data from concerned government agencies

-Promotes illegal activities, which are destructive to the environment such as: *charcoal making *cutting trees *sand and gravel extraction -Increased pollution -Causes poor sanitation and health problems

-In-migration -No alternative livelihood

-Livelihood programs of government agencies and NGOs

4. Illegal squatting along river banks

-Poverty -Lack of government support -Presence of professional squatters -No appropriate site for relocation -Attitude problems -Lack of resources -Time consuming

- Relocation site from local government -Housing projects of NGOs (e.g. Gawad Kalinga)

5. Absence of integrated approach in water resource management

-Need for unified effort to monitor water resources

-Presence of DENR and CUSW -Willingness towards integration

Politico-Legal Priority Problems

Priorities Rationale Hindrances Facilitating Factors

1. Poor implementation of environmental laws -Nonimplementation of easement laws -Nonimplementation of forestry laws

-Important to implement brgy. ordinances -Uncontrolled and unregulated activities lead to environmental neglect and pollution of Buhisan River

-Absence of political will -Fear of antagonizing violators who are voters -Unregulated drilling of water -Proliferation of illegal structures along creeks and rivers -No local NWRB office - Limited manpower and financial resources -Poor resource allocation to key concerns -Laws are not integrated and comprehensive

-Relocation sites and assistance -Partnership with other stakeholders -Environmental law subject in law colleges -Brgy. Council apprehending illegal loggers -Monitoring of activities -Restriction of water extraction

2. Unclear territorial boundary

-Brgy. ordinance cannot be imposed due to conflicts -Brgy. projects cannot be implemented due to conflicts

-Difficult to identify who is responsible for a particular area -People are dependent on government officials -Inaccessibility to funding for the implementation of laws -Lack of information

-Availability of hazard maps from DENR -Territorial expansion increases brgy. income and voter population

3. People do not know their role in implementing environmental laws

-People could create or add to problems instead of contributing what is good for water management -People should be active participants in governance

-Lack of community involvement -Apathy -No information how to access royalty fees

-Values formation and team building seminars -Existing education activities re: environmental laws

THE PROGRAM COMPONENTS

There are numerous issues and concerns affecting our river basins. For this proposal, the proponent will only focus on issues affecting water quality and water quantity. The program under the Water Safety Plan of the Environment Division will be called, HEALTHY WATER, HEALTHY PEOPLE. Component 1. Catchment Protection Program The Key Result Areas: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. Solid Waste Management Interventions Mapping/GPS/GIS/Remote Sensing of the Entire Project Area Identification of all natural waterways, tributaries, creeks, rivulets, brooks and streams Monitoring of Water Quality of the Natural Water Ways e.g. e.coli testing Inventory and Assessment of Chemicals and Pesticide Uses in the River Basins Integrated Pest Management Interventions/Organic Farming Promotion Septage Management Interventions e.g. Communal Toilets and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Social Marketing Activities Reforestation and Riparian Zone Regeneration Strategies

Ball Park Figure: (subject for detailed work and financial planning) Budget Proposed: Two-Million Pesos (PhP 2,000,000.00) for the first two years (20122014)

Component 2. Security and Enforcement Program The Key Result Areas: i. Strengthening of the environmental enforcement and judiciary components for security and safety that includes police officers, prosecutors, justices of environmental courts. Capability-building activities and trainings of security personnel both for MCWD blue guards, forest wardens, and tanods who will be involved in the security and enforcement interventions Crafting of the Manual of Water Resources and Environmental Violations and Penalties Mainstreaming of the security and enforcement programs in the Local Government Units Annual Investment Plans. Entering into multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral Memoranda of Cooperation to ensure the protection of our water resources through security and enforcement. Crafting of a security and enforcement plan

ii.

iii. iv. v. vi.

Ball Park Figure: (subject for detailed work and financial planning)

Budget Proposed: Two-Million Pesos (PhP 2,000,000.00) for the first two years (20122014) Component 3: Eco-tourism Program The Key Result Areas: i. ii. iii. iv. v. Resource Inventory Activities Eco-tourism Planning and identification of Eco-tourism Products Product Development and Marketing of Eco-tourism Areas and Products Resource Mobilization Activities Social Marketing Activities for Water Orientations and Community Education and Public Advocacy (CEPA)

Ball Park Figure: (subject for detailed work and financial planning) Budget Proposed: One Million and Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 1,500,000.00) for the first two years (2012-2014)

AFTERWORD
This budget proposal for the water safety plan as the deliverable of the Environment Division looks forward to the detailed planning to be participated by the entire WSP Committee Team Members. Likewise, the basis for MCWDs strategic directions in undertaking water safety plan deliverables are the various stakeholder workshops conducted in the previous years. Thus, plans are products of the peoples observations and facts that need for MCWD to focus and to keenly ensure its realization.