Establishing Integrated Water Resource Management

IWRM PLANNING GUIDELINES

Disclaimer
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work are those of the writer and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank. The information in this work is not intended to
serve as legal advice. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this
work and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of the use of such data. These IWRM
Planning Guidelines may be reproduced in full or in part for non-profit purposes without prior
permission provided proper credit is given to the publisher, The World Bank Office Manila:

The World Bank Office Manila

26th Floor, One Global Place
5th Ave. corner 25th St. Bonifacio Global City,
Taguig City Philippines 1634 Metro Manila, Philippines

1
Preface and acknowledgement

The IWRM Planning Guidelines have been developed in 2015 / 2016 within the ‘Philippines:
Establishing Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) Planning Tools and Guidance;
and Capacity Building’ project to support IWRM planning and sustainable investment in the
river basins. This IWRM Planning Guideline builds on the main project report on IWRM in the
Philippines. In this report the following topics are included:

· Description of major river basins in the Philippines;

· Review of international good practices and lessons learned on IWRM;
· IWRM in the Philippines;
· Current practices and the need to improve IWRM planning and implementation;
· A new guideline for IWRM in the Philippines and
· IWRM Training.

Although this IWRM Planning Guideline describes a structured planning approach the reader
is referred to the Project completion report for all background information on above topics.

The partnership closely worked with the Department of Public Works and Highways DPWH
(and its IWRM-Coordinating Team), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DENR (i.e. the River Basin Control Office RBCO and the National Water Resources Board
NWRB), The National Irrigation Administration NIA under the Office of the President (OP),
National Economic & Development Authority NEDA, the UP National Hydraulics Research
Center NHRC and the UP National Engineering Center NEC.

Deep appreciation is extended to the following for the cooperation and support given
throughout the ‘Philippines: Establishing Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM)
Planning Tools and Guidance; and Capacity Building’ project:

Mr. Rogelio L. Singson – DPWH Secretary

Ms. Maria Catalina E. Cabral – Undersecretary, DPWH
Ms. Dolores M. Hipolito – Project Coordinator / IWRMCT-TWG, DPWH
Dr. Florencio F. Padernal –Administrator, NIA
Dr. Sevillo D. David, Jr. – Executive Director, NWRB
Mr. Jacob F. Meimban, Jr. – Executive Director, RBCO
Dr. Roberto S. Soriano – Director, UP-NHRC

For the realization of this IWRM Planning Guidelines and Project Completion Report we also
extend our gratitude to all involved staff of the above listed organizations.

The team would also like to express profound thanks to the following for their invaluable
support:

Mr. Christopher C. Ancheta, Task Team Leader, World Bank

Ms. Mari Anne DL. Trillana, Support staff World Bank
Mr. Dindo Taberna, Support staff IWRMCT team DPWH
Mr. Joop Stoutjesdijk, Water Resources Management Support and Peer Reviewer World Bank
Dr. Bill Young - Peer Reviewer World Bank

2
Finally, acknowledgements are extended to the Water Partnership Program (WPP), which
made funds available for the development and publication of this IWRM Planning Guideline
report.

1
Mr. T. Albert Nauta – Team Leader and WRM specialist (Deltares )
Prof. Eelco van Beek – IWRM specialist (Deltares)
Ms. Laura Basco Carrera – WRM specialist (Deltares)
Mr. Thijs Stoffelen – IWRM student (Wageningen University)

1
Dr. Jessica Salas – IWRM specialist (Philippine Water Partnership )

1
Dr. Ilyas Masih – training specialist (UNESCO-IHE )
Dr. Erik de Ruijter – training specialist (UNESCO-IHE)

1
Deltares (an internationally operating independent knowledge institute on water, soil and
infrastructure) in association with UNESCO-IHE (a water resource management training and capacity
building institute) and the Philippine Water Partnership PWP (an implementer of IWRM in the
Philippines that builds on the leading role of the Global Water Partnership) were commissioned by the
World Bank to carry out this project.

3
Table of Content

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 IWRM basics – achieving water security ................................................................. 5
1.2 IWRM planning guidelines for the Philippines – 5 steps .......................................... 7
1.3 The participatory process ........................................................................................ 9
1.4 Set-up of this guideline............................................................................................ 9
2 Step I - Inception .......................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Ascertaining enabling conditions ........................................................................... 11
2.2 Setting-up stakeholder involvement process ......................................................... 11
2.3 Analyzing conditions ............................................................................................. 12
2.4 Defining objectives and criteria ............................................................................. 12
2.5 Work plan and decision-making ............................................................................ 14
3 Step II – Situation Analysis .......................................................................................... 15
3.1 Describing the Water Resources System .............................................................. 15
3.2 The need for a structured quantified analysis process........................................... 15
3.3 A supporting computation framework (tools and databases) ................................. 17
3.4 Decision making on step II .................................................................................... 18
4 Step III - Strategy building ............................................................................................ 20
4.1 The strategy building process ............................................................................... 20
4.2 Water allocation planning ...................................................................................... 21
4.3 How to deal with an uncertain future – adaptive management .............................. 22
4.4 Preferred strategy ................................................................................................. 24
4.5 Decision making on step III ................................................................................... 24
5 Steps IV and V - Action planning and Implementation .................................................. 26
5.1 Investment and Action Plan .................................................................................. 26
5.2 Feasibility studies and Environmental Impact Assessment ................................... 27
5.3 Institutional framework for implementation ............................................................ 28
5.4 Promotion ............................................................................................................. 29
5.5 Implementation ..................................................................................................... 30
Annex A Enabling conditions.............................................................................................. 33
Annex B Stakeholder engagement in IWRM planning in the Philippines ............................ 39
Annex C Illustrative river basin case ................................................................................... 44
Annex D Example Implementation Plan .............................................................................. 46
Annex E Example of Table of Contents of a River Basin Plan ............................................. 47

4
1 Introduction
1.1 IWRM basics – achieving water security

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is defined by GWP (2000) as a process

which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related
resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable
manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.

IWRM is based on four principles, known as the Dublin Principles:

Principle 1: Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life,
development and the environment.
Principle 2: Water development and management should be based on a participatory
approach, involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels.
Principle 3: Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of
water.
Principle 4: Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be
recognized as an economic good as well as a social good.

The ultimate goal of IWRM is to achieve ‘water security for all’. Water security is the capacity
of a population to safeguard sustainable access to adequate quantities of acceptable quality
water for sustaining livelihoods, human wellbeing, and socio-economic development, for
ensuring protection against water-borne pollution and water-related disasters, and for
preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability2 (UN-Water, 2003).

IWRM planning, and its proposed application for the Philippines, is a cyclic process in which
a set of logical sequence phases are driven and supported by a continuous management
support and stakeholder involvement events. The expected outcome of the process is an
IWRM plan, endorsed and implemented by the government (i.e. decision-makers) and
stakeholders. Throughout the process decision makers and stakeholders will get a better
insight in the system and its performance, as well as on the importance and benefits from
jointly addressing sustainable development of Water Resources. The plan may be more or
less detailed depending on the country, basin or region but will serve as a roadmap for
longer term steps required to continue along a path to sustainable environment, social equity
and economic growth. Figure 1 illustrates the planning cycle for developing and adjusting an
IWRM plan in order to achieve water security.

1
UN-Water (2013). Analytical Brief on Water Security and the Global Agenda

5
 Figure 1 IWRM planning cycle to achieve Water Security

To enable the implementation of IWRM and to achieve water security three basic conditions
need to be met. These conditions, also referred to as the three pillars of IWRM are: (i)
management instruments should be available; (ii) to have an enabling environment and (iii)
an institutional framework should be in place. This is illustrated in Figure 2. In a later stage a
fourth basic condition for IWRM was
set: (iv) sound investments in water
infrastructure with adequate financing
available – to deliver progress in
meeting water demand and needs for
flood management, drought resilience,
irrigation, energy security and
ecosystem services3.

The IWRM process aims to find a

balance between using the resource
now for socio-economic purposes and
to protect the resources in such a way
that the water can also be used in
Figure 2 The three pillars of IWRM
future. Evaluation of alternative

2
Lenton R., Muller M. (2009). Integrated Water Resources Management in Practice: Better Water
Management for Development, Earthscan, London.

6
strategies will be done by considering criteria that express Social Equity, Environmental
Sustainability and Economic Efficiency (sometimes also referred to as People, Planet and
Profit).

1.2 IWRM planning guidelines for the Philippines – 5 steps

The IWRM guidelines described in this document have been developed based on existing
IWRM documents, handbooks and tools developed by international agencies and NGO’s.
The guidelines have been adapted to the local situation and conditions from the Philippines4.
The IWRM planning guidelines should be seen as a supporting tool that allows involved
national and regional agencies and consultants to identify the key elements that should be
addressed in a good IWRM or Integrated River Basin Management Plan (IRBMP). Moreover,
it supports the identification of the sequential and parallel steps that need to be followed.

The IWRM guidelines identify five main steps in which the analysis should be carried out:
I Inception – sets the boundary conditions for the analysis
II Situation analysis – describes the present and future Water Resources (WR)
problems
III Strategy building – develops alternative strategies for decision making
IV Action planning – prepares schedule / training of implementation and investment
plans
V Implementation – actual implementation of measures, monitoring and guidance.

Planning and decision making should

be seen as an adaptive process in
which decision makers and involved
stakeholders can continuously assess
the situation and options and
determine the best way to proceed,
either moving forward or coming back
to a previous step. This can be done
within the specific process of making a
plan or in the process of cyclic
planning. This is best illustrated by the
spiral of IWRM planning presented in
Figure 3 in which subsequent plans
(e.g. each 5 years) build upon the Figure 3 Spiral of IWRM planning
previous version and experience
gained in the past period (data, events,
experience).

In Figure 4 a graphic overview of the five steps is given. Each step will be described in more
detail in the subsequent chapters of this guideline. These steps are in line with the IWRM
planning cycle as illustrated by Figure 1. For each of the steps the main outcomes are

4
The process followed for deriving these guidelines and the reports upon which the guidelines are
based is described in the final report of the IWRM project ‘National Guidance for IWRM planning in
the Philippines’ (Deltares, 2015).

7
defined. In all steps stakeholder involvement and reaching consensus is critical. It is
important to stress that the development and implementation of a good IWRM plan will
depend on the enabling conditions including political commitment, as well as cross-cutting
issues, such as gender equality, partnership development, capacity building, community
empowerment, data & information management and sharing, and alignment with other basin
planning activities. The five steps are presented in Figure 4 as a sequential process. But
realistically this will never be the case.

Figure 4 IWRM Guidelines - the steps

8
1.3 The participatory process

Stakeholder engagement is of key importance in the planning and decision making process
of IWRM. Specifically, stakeholder participation is recognized as one of the principles of
IWRM (see IWRM principles in Section 1.1). For each of the steps, it should be determined
which stakeholders are relevant to involve and to what extent. A good planning and decision
making process should have a defined participatory process in line with the content-based
process. However, the role and level of participation for each group of stakeholders can
differ from step to step.

Involving stakeholders in the identified steps will include four (idealized) phases:
· common knowledge – the phase in which the stakeholders generate a common level
of knowledge about the subject;
· divergence – the phase in which the various views of the stakeholders are
expressed;
· convergence – the phase, where a common view is developed on how to proceed
by means of analysis and discussion; and
· decision making – formalization of that common view at decision making level.

The divergence-convergence process for involving stakeholders in decision making is

illustrated in the rhombus approach of Figure 5.

Figure 5 Divergence - convergence process in decision making

1.4 Set-up of this guideline

This document gives a short and concise description of the steps that should be followed in
carrying out river basin planning and implementation. The first four steps involve the
planning (drafting the IRBMP). The last step is the actual implementation of the proposed
(and agreed upon) measures. The guideline is kept rather concise and will focus on the main
activities only. Where additional information is needed references will be made to other
documents which give more detail on the activities to be carried out.

9
Illustrative river basin case
The quantified approach as explained in this guideline will be illustrated by an application on
a simple river basin. In this river basin all common issues related to IWRM are present:
people need access to clean water and sanitation facilities; they need the water for
economic purposes (agriculture, industry, etc.); there are environmental concerns (water
quality and erosion) and the people should be protected against flooding and drought. The
score card presented in Annex C is the ultimate result of the application of the guideline on
this illustrative river basin. The various steps taken to develop this score card will be
explained in the next chapters.

10
2 Step I - Inception

The first step is the Inception phase. In this step the bound-
ary conditions for the study are set. The four main activities
are: (i) creating the enabling conditions for the IWRM
planning exercise, i.e. ‘organize’ the planning exercise, (ii)
setting-up the stakeholder involvement process, (iii) defining
the analysis conditions, and (iv) defining the objectives that
the water resource developments should support.

2.1 Ascertaining enabling conditions

In order to successfully implement IWRM certain conditions should be met. Most of these
conditions are external to the project activities. This means that they should have been set
before the planning exercise starts. A generic description of the enabling conditions is given
in Background Paper no. 4 on IWRM (GWP, 2000) and is illustrated in Figure 2:
· Enabling environment at national level:
o national water legislation and national policies that guide the planning
process and enables enforcement;
· Institutional framework:
o existence of water institutions at national and regional level with qualified
staff;
o existence of some kind of river basin organization (RBO) at river basin level;
· Management instruments:
o availability of data, information and tools that enables informed decision
making.

An overview of the existing elements of the ‘enabling conditions’ in the Philippines is given in
Annex B. In the Inception phase it should be determined which elements are relevant for the
specific planning exercise. This depends on the issues involved.

2.2 Setting-up stakeholder involvement process

The very first step is to set-up the stakeholder involvement process. Which stakeholders to
involve and how will depend on the specific basin and the issues involved. In general two
categories of stakeholders can be identified:
· the people and organizations that will be affected by the plan; and
· the people and organization that are needed to implement the plan.
In many cases a stakeholder analysis will be needed to determine the best stakeholder
involvement process. More detail on this is given in Annex B.

11
2.3 Analyzing conditions

In addition to the more institutional oriented conditions as described in the Inception phase it
is necessary to define the analysis conditions for the planning study. This includes:
· The base year for the study:
o the most recent year for which basic data on the present situation is available;
· The time horizon(s) for the study:
o this may include short term (e.g. 5 years), medium term (e.g. 20 years) and
long term (>25 years);
· The discount rate to be applied in the economic analysis:
o taken as specified by (e.g.) the Department of Finance and NEDA, or by the
financier of the planned investments (e.g. ADB, World Bank and JICA);
· System boundaries - the components and the level of detail that will be included:
o e.g. will the coastal zone be included?
o are the results to be presented at Local Government Unit level?

2.4 Defining objectives and criteria

National and regional development objectives

An essential component of an Integrated River Basin Management Plan (IRBMP) is the

connection of the plan and its objective of IWRM to national development goals as well as to
common international goals (e.g. the Sustainable Development Goals - SDGs). The plan
should refer to national policy priorities and indicate the contribution the plan will make to the
various development goals. Required information is described in various national policy
documents, in particular:
· Philippine Development Plan (PDP) – specifying the national socio-economic
objectives;
· Philippine National Environmental Health Plan 2010 – 2013;
· Philippine Energy Plan (2005 - 2014);
· Philippines Energy Sector Plan (2012 – 2030);
· NIA Corporate Plan 2010-2020 – on irrigation development;
· National Climate Change Action Plan 2011-2028 (NCCAP);
· Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap 2010.

In addition to the national policy documents any existing regional / provincial policy
documents need to be taken into account.

An IRBMP needs to have an agreed objective that not only focuses on the main issues
related to the water sector in the river basin, but also expresses the relation with above
mentioned national and other sector plans, as well as the contribution the basin can make in
realizing these higher level plans.

12
Operational objectives, criteria and targets

If needed, the general objectives as stated in the

national policy documents have to be translated into
operational objectives for the specific river basin. This
should be done by specifying them in socio-economic
terms, amongst others, which are meaningful to the
decision makers and stakeholders. For each objective
evaluation criteria should be defined as a measure of
how far the defined objectives have been achieved. If
possible clear targets should be specified. Monitoring
will indicate how far the objectives have actually been
achieved. This process is illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Making objectives operational

The evaluation criteria need to be comprehensive (i.e. sufficiently indicative of the degree to
which the objective is achieved) and measurable. The criteria do not all have to be
expressed in a single measurement scale. Criteria can have monetary and non-monetary
terms.

To incorporate sustainability as an objective in the IRBMP evaluation criteria must be

selected that can make a link with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the
indicators, that have been selected to monitor the SDGs.

Illustrative river basin case

Annex C presents a scorecard which will be one of the results of the analysis for the
illustrative river basin case. The results of the Inception step (i.e. the objectives and criteria),
for the illustrative river basin are given in the first two columns of the table in Annex C. They
show that for this case five objectives were formulated. For each objective 2 or 3 criteria
were identified that expresses in how far the objective is or will be achieved:
· Objective 1: Provide safe water and sanitation for the people;
o % people access to safe drinking water;
o % people access to sanitation facilities;
· Objective 2: Increase food production;
o Irrigation area (ha);
o Number of animal water points (#);
· Objective 3: Support economic sectors - industry and energy;
o Water supplied to mining (% of demand);
o Water supplied to industry (% of demand);
o Hydropower generated (MWh);
· Objective 4: Protect the Environment;
o Protected watershed area (km2);
o Number of springs/sources protected (#);
o Average class water quality rivers (DENR class AA to D);

13
 · Objective 5: Decrease vulnerability to floods and droughts;
o Vulnerability to floods - average damage (PhP/yr);
o Vulnerability to droughts - average damage (PhP/yr).

In addition two implementation related criteria were formulated to evaluate the strategies:
o Required investments (PhP);
o Benefit/Costs ratio of economic categories (</>).

The table given in Annex C shows also two other results of the Inception step:
· The year the analysis is based on is 2010;
· The two time horizons that will be explored are 2020 and 2030.

2.5 Work plan and decision-making

Based on the results above, a work plan should be made for the remainder of the study,
specifying the activities that will be carried out in the next steps and the process that will be
followed to interact with the decision makers and stakeholders.

The final activity in this step is the formalization of the results in a document (Inception
Report) that should be discussed and approved by the decision makers and stakeholders.
After the document has been approved the second step can begin.

-----------------------------------------------
Additional reading for step 1
· GWP (2000), Integrated Water Management, TEC Background Paper no. 4, GWP,
Stockholm;
o Part II, How to implement IWRM, pages 32-67;
· GWP (2005), Integrated Water Resources Management Plans – Training Manual and
Operational Guide, GWP, Stockholm;
o chapters 2 till 5, pages 17-42;
· GWP, INBO (2009), A handbook for IWRM in basin, GWP/INBO, Stockholm/Paris;
o chapter 3 (pp 25–32), chapter 6 (pp 57–64) and section 7.1 and 7.2 (pp 65–
68);
· UNESCO-IHP, NARBO, WWAP (2009), IWRM Guidelines at River Basin level;
o chapter 5 with good examples;
· ADB, GIWP, UNESCO, WWF (2013), River Basin Planning, Principles, Procedures
and Approaches for Strategic Basin Planning;
o chapter 6 (Process of developing a basin plan) and chapter 8 (enabling
environment and implementation).
· Asian Water Development Outlook 2013: Measuring water security in Asia and the
Pacific.

14
3 Step II – Situation Analysis

A good IWRM plan should show the uniqueness of the

Water Resources System (WRS) of the particular river basin.
The IRBMP should contain a complete description of all
elements of a water resources system. Moreover, the major
problems and issues in terms of WRM faced by the national
and regional authorities and stakeholders should be
extensively described for the present situation (Base case)
and future situation (Reference case). As the future situation
is unknown, uncertainties need to be addressed by defining
alternative scenarios that describe possible future conditions.
A collection of potential measures should be formulated
based on the results of the description of the WRS, the
problem analysis, and the scenario analysis.

3.1 Describing the Water Resources System

A WRS comprises:
· Natural (Resources) System (NRS);
· Socio-Economic System (SES); and
· Administrative and Institutional System (AIS).

Each of the three systems is embedded within its

own environment. The Natural Resources System
is bounded by climate and (geo)physical conditions.
The Socio-Economic System is formed by the
demographic, social and economic conditions of the
surrounding economies. The Administrative and
Institutional System is formed and bounded by the
constitutional, legal and political system. The Figure 7 Systems components of a WRS
inter-linkages of the three systems are
illustrated in Figure 7.

It is important that the IRBMP includes a good description of the integrated elements of the
WRS. Most decision-makers and stakeholders will be non-technical or only know about a
limited part of the overall system. To be able to make balanced decisions they should
understand how the overall system functions and how interventions in one part of the system
will impact other systems elements.

3.2 The need for a structured quantified analysis process

Decision making on measures and strategies to improve the performance of the WRS
should be based on quantified information about the present problems (e.g. average flood
damage) and the impacts of proposed measures (e.g. the reduction in flood damage) and

15
the costs of these measures. To be able to produce this quantified information the following
is needed:
· a structured analysis process (this section); and
· a computational framework (see next section).

The analysis process starts with a quantified Box 1: Definitions

problem description. The analysis of the pre-
sent situation is called the Base Case · Base year: present situation;
analysis. To be able to predict possible · Time horizon: future situation for which the
decision makers want to be prepared;
future problems scenarios should be defined
· Base case: performance of the WRS in the
on how this future might develop. The present situation;
computational framework will calculate the · Reference case: performance of the WRS in
impacts (the future problems) of these future if no additional measures are taken;
possible external developments. This is -------------------------------------
· Measure: intervention within the WRS;
often called the Reference Case analysis.
· Strategy: logical combination of measures;
For more information refer to Box 1. · Scenario: developments outside the control of
the WRS managers that might have important
Base case impacts on the WRS (demand, supply, etc.);
The performance of the WRS is studied for
the infrastructure and water demands in the base case. The base case is based on the base
year, which is the most recent year for which a complete set of data can be collected. The
base case describes thus the performance of the WRS in the present situation. A
comparison of the base case with the criteria (and possible targets) specified in the WRM
objectives will result in a quantified problem statement.

Scenario conditions
A good IRBMP should also address the expected water related problems in the future. The
analysis for the future time horizon(s) should include different scenario conditions. Possible
scenario conditions for WRM are socio-economic developments (change in demand and
pollution) and climate change (including sea level rise).

Reference case
The reference case addresses the future situation by considering the present infrastructure,
to which measures are added that have already been decided or are being executed,
together with selected scenario conditions. In the reference case an analysis of the
performance of the WRS is undertaken if present policies and regulations are continued and
followed by the government and the water users.

Problem description – present and future

The problem description should be carried out based on the results obtained from the base
and reference case analyses in combination with the problems and issues perceived by the
decision makers and stakeholders. A problem analysis should be expressed as far as
possible in terms of the socio-economic and environmental impacts that have a meaning to
the decision makers and stakeholders. An integrated approach is crucial for a solid
understanding of the system and its associated problems. The integrated approach can only
be achieved if the IRBMP defines the main problems and issues in the basin and its inter-
linkages. For this, it is important that the IRBMP is aligned with other related plans such as

16
Watershed Plans (erosion), Flood Risk Management (FRM), and Integrated Coastal Zone
Management (ICZM), amongst others.

Inventory of potential measures and selection of promising measures

Once the present and future problems are known measures (including ‘no regrets’ that can
immediately be implemented) can be identified that will address these problems. An
inventory should be made of all the measures that the stakeholders are planning or
considering. Based on the quantified problem analysis additional measures might be
developed. The computational framework can be used to determine the impacts of these
measures. The most promising measures will be kept for detailed analysis in the next step:
Strategy Building.

The above described structured analysis process is illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8 Structured Analysis Process

Quantitative contribution to the illustrative case

Step II will provide the information about the present and future problems. The scores in the
column Base 2010 must be filled into the score-card (see Annex C). If needed one could
decide to also include also the scores of 2020 and 2030 in separate columns.

Another contribution of this step II is the collection of information on the measures that can
be included in the alternative strategies.

3.3 A supporting computation framework (tools and databases)

The problem analysis and evaluation of measures will require some kind of computational
framework. Such computational framework can be simple (e.g. based on a spread sheet) or
rather detailed by using sophisticated computer models. Typical elements of a computational
framework address:
· the water demand (drinking water, agriculture, etc.);
· the supply (rainfall, surface water, groundwater);
· the water balance and water allocation, balancing supply and demand;
· impacts of measures and (economic) evaluation of alternatives.

17
 The core model for an IRBMP is
often a water balance and allocation
model. Standard software is
available for this (WEAP, RIBASIM,
Mike-basin, MODSIM, etc.) but in
principle these kinds of models can
also be developed in Excel spread
sheets or by means of System
Dynamics. Figure 9 illustrates the
user-interface of the RIBASIM
programme for a water allocation
analysis for Metro-Cebu, linking
demand and supply.

Figure 9 Example of a water balance model (Central Cebu)

What kind of computational tools

should be used for an IRBMP de-
pends on the complexity of the
basin and the issues that should
be addressed. Additionally, an
important boundary condition is
the means available for the
project to develop such
computational framework in terms
of money and capacity of skilled
staff. The Philippines might prefer
to concentrate the development
and maintenance of this kind of
computational framework in a few
(academic) institutes. These
institutes can support the
consultants in the application of
the models for specific river
basins. More comprehensive
computational frameworks such
as those presented in Figure 10
require often the support of Figure 10 Typical comprehensive computational framework for a
academic institutes. An overview river basin study
of models to be used in water
resources planning is given in Loucks and Van Beek (2005). See the additional reading list
below.

3.4 Decision making on step II

Step II should result in a good understanding of the decision makers and stakeholders of the
WRS system, the present and future problems and which measures are promising enough

18
for the analysis during the next step. In particular the problem description requires some
formal agreement between all stakeholders that these are considered the most urgent
problems, which need to be solved.

---------------
Additional reading for step II
· On computational frameworks
o Loucks and Van Beek (2005), Water Resources Systems Planning and
Management, an introduction to methods, models and applications, UNESCO
Publishing, Paris;
o GWP, DHI, UNEP, SIWI (2013), The role of decision support systems and
models in integrated river basin management, GWP, Stockholm;
· On scenario conditions;
o ADB, GIWP, UNESCO, WWF (2013), River Basin Planning, Principles,
Procedures and Approaches for Strategic Basin Planning;
§ chapter 10, Engaging trends and uncertainty;
· Examples of good systems description;
o Central Cebu WRM study
§ http://kennisonline.deltares.nl/product/30809 (Cebu, main report)
§ http://kennisonline.deltares.nl/product/30810 (Cebu, annexes)

19
4 Step III - Strategy building

Strategy design is the development of coherent

combinations of potential measures to satisfy the objectives
defined in Step I. Intensive interaction with the decision
makers and stakeholders is needed to develop strategies
that are supported by them. A good IRBMP includes
several alternative strategies from which the decision
makers and stakeholders can select their preferred strategy.

4.1 The strategy building process

An IRBMP can only be considered as a good and implementable plan if the effectiveness of
the proposed measures is evaluated in terms of how they improve the present and future
situation. The steps to be taken in the analysis are illustrated in Figure 11. The left side of
the figure deals with the present situation
and the future developments that are quite
certain such as population growth. The right
side of the figure addresses future
developments that are more uncertain such
as climate change. For those more uncertain
futures an adaptive management approach
should be followed.

Design of alternative strategies

In this step promising measures are
combined into strategies. There is no
straightforward procedure for strategy design.
Finding the best strategy is an art which
requires a good understanding of the
technical, economic and social components
of the WRS. It is a learning process with a lot
of iteration. Strategies proposed by the
stakeholders will be evaluated in terms of Figure 11 Development of alternative strategies and
selection of preferred strategy
their impacts. If these impacts are insufficient
to achieve the objectives of the plan, the strategy will have to be adjusted, for instance, by
adding specific measures.

Impact Assessment
The promising alternative strategies are evaluated using the computational tools developed
in the previous step. Particularly, these impacts will be expressed in terms of the criteria that
are defined to measure how far the objectives as stated in step I are being achieved. Such
quantitative analysis of the performance of the WRS is crucial. The computational tools allow
decision makers and stakeholders to assess the forecasted response of the WRS to the
proposed alternative strategies (measures). Preferably, the decision makers and
stakeholders (or their representatives) should be involved in the development of these

20
models, the collection of data and the schematization of the system. By involving them in
these activities (sometimes called collaborative modeling) the stakeholders will gain trust in
these models and the results of the calculations.

Comparison of strategies
Generally, there will not be a single strategy
that is superior to all other strategies with
respect to all criteria. For this reason an
evaluation has to be carried out to rank the
strategies and/or determine the preferred
strategy. In general the comparison of
alternative strategies can be done best by
using score cards. Score cards are
understandable for the decision makers and
stakeholders and enable a good comparison
with the present situation and the objectives.
An overview of some evaluation tools can be
found in Box 2.
Box 2: Overview of some evaluation tools
Intuitive evaluation
The evaluation can be intuitive. This implies that decision
makers and stakeholders give implicit weights to the various
criteria depending on the identified objectives, and
depending on these weights the preferred strategy is
selected.
Multi-criteria evaluation methods
In these methods formal decision rules are used to obtain a
ranking. The weighted summation is one simple method.
The best alternative is the one that gives the best weighted
score.
Scorecard
The comparison of alternative strategies can be done in
matrix form on a score card. The columns of the score card
represent the impacts of different alternatives with respect to
a given criterion. Score cards can contain values only, or the
relative value of the criteria can be expressed by a colour or
shading.

4.2 Water allocation planning

Despite the measures that will be taken to alleviate shortages, it can be expected that under
certain circumstances shortages will occur. These shortages can also be permanent when
average demand is larger than the supply. In those cases decisions need to be made on
which user will get priority. Such allocation decisions are part of the strategy.

Figure 12 Water
allocation planning
5
process (ADB, 2013)

5
The ADB document and this figure are using the term ‘scenario’ for what in this document is labeled
as strategies.

21
The computational framework developed in Step II can be used to decide on the best water
allocations. An excellent overview of the principles, procedures and approaches for basin
allocation planning is given in the ADB 2013 document on Basin Water Allocation Planning
(see further reading). The process to come to a good water allocation (see Figure 12) is
comparable to the overall analysis for river basin planning as described in this Guidance
document.

Water allocations strategies should be assessed in terms of the criteria as defined in Step I.
In the figure these criteria are characterized in terms of the 3 E’s: Economic efficiency,
Environmental sustainability and social Equity. A particular added element in Figure 12 is the
demand for Environmental Flow. This environmental flow demand is the amount of water
that remains as flow through the system to sustain defined ecological conditions. Please
note that such environmental flow demand is not a ‘minimum’ demand. An environmental
flow demand is often characterized by certain dynamics of low and high flows.

4.3 How to deal with an uncertain future – adaptive management

The analysis approach described in the previous description is based on the assumption that
it is known what will happen in future. Predictions are made on how population growth,
economic growth, spatial developments (e.g. urbanization) and climate change will take
place. Some of these developments are quite certain, e.g. population growth for which one
can make good projections. Other developments are much more uncertain such as
economic growth and climate change. While we want to be prepared for these future
conditions we do not want to take the risk that huge investments are being made which later
appear to have been overdesigned or even unnessesary.

The way to deal with future uncertainty is to follow an adaptive management approach. An
adaptive management approach has to replace the traditional approach of master plans for
the basin. The development of implementing stand-alone projects to adaptive management
is illustrated in Figure 13.

Figure 13 Planning approaches in water resources management

22
The message on how to follow an adaptive management approach is given in the right two
columns of Figure 13 and is the logical follow-up from the project oriented developments in
the two first columns. The figure explains that:
· The project-based approach is straightforward and easy to implement. This approach
does not consider the (positive and negative) interaction of the project with other
projects.
· The interaction is taken into account when related projects are considered in a
package of projects. However, the overall system is not integrated yet and not
optimized.
· The traditional master planning tries to optimize the overall system. The projects are
implemented as components of an integrated strategy. The implementation of the
strategy includes an optimization of the various projects over the planning period
which is usually between 15 and 30 years, for which a cost-benefit analysis usually
applies. Such a master planning approach does not consider the long-term
uncertainties that are involved in socio-economic developments and climate change.
If the predicted changes in socio-economic conditions and climate do not materialize
this might lead to ‘future regret’.
· To avoid future regret a planning period of up to 50 or even 100 years needs to be
considered. As the life-time of most structural measures (dikes, floodways, reservoirs,
etc.) are designed for a period of 50 to 100 years, it is wise to incorporate future
uncertainties in boundary conditions in their designs and make them part of a
dynamic strategy. The adaptive approach not only tells us what to do now but also
gives directions on what to do when the conditions develop differently.

Adaptive pathways
Various methods have been developed that enable us to deal with the future uncertainties.
The most recent methods are Decision Trees (Casey, 2015) and Dynamic Adaptation Policy
Pathways (DAPP; also described in Casey, 2015). See the references under additional
reading at the end of this chapter. The Decision Trees is a repeatable method for evaluation
of climate change risks to new development projects. DAPP identifies tipping points that
determine in time when a certain policy or action is no longer acceptable and (another)
action is needed. By exploring the possible actions adaptation pathways can be developed
that will minimize the regret. The Adaptive Pathway Approach is illustrated in Figure 14. For
more information please refer to the additional reading list.

Following an adaptive pathways approach basically means that two criteria can be added to
the scorecard:
· Robustness: how robust is the strategy when the future develops differently than
expected? Will the strategy then still achieve the objectives?
· Flexibility: how flexible is the strategy when it appears that the future develops
differently than expected and we need to change the strategy?

Robustness and flexibility often have a strong relationship with costs. A robust strategy can
be very costly (big reservoirs, high dikes, etc.). A flexible strategy (many small reservoirs,
build in time) can also appear to be more expensive in the end. These are considerations
that have to be taken into account when deciding about the preferred strategy.

23
 Figure 14 Adaptive pathways approach

4.4 Preferred strategy

Based on a scorecard explained in section 4.1 decision makers and stakeholders can take
an informed decision on the preferred strategy, having a good understanding of the river
basin and being aware of the pros and cons of the proposed strategies. The preferred
strategy will depend on the timeline (e.g. short (5 years), medium (25-30 years) or long term
(100 years)) that the decision makers have in mind and the type of the plan (e.g. strategic
plan or operational plan).

Illustrative case
Step III will fill in the remaining columns of the scorecard of Annex C. The results of the
strategies can be compared to the targets. When deciding about the preferred strategy the
required investments and the economic efficiency of the strategy will be taken into account
as well. If an adaptive management approach will be followed then considerations of
robustness and flexibility will also be taken into account.

The scorecard of Annex C illustrates also a possible way to express the overall score of
each strategy in terms of water security. Each strategy is scored on a scale of 1 to 5 is for
each objective by combining the scores on the individual criteria. Combining all objectives
will result in an overall score (index) on water security.

4.5 Decision making on step III

Decision making in this step is crucial and will require a lot of interaction with all stakeholders
and decision makers. It can be expected that a lot of feedback loops will take place. By
looking at the scorecards suggestions will be made to adjust the proposed strategies by
adding or deleting measures. The decision making should result in the commitment of all
involved to implement the strategies.

24
---------------
Additional reading for step III

· On water allocation planning:

o ADB, GIWP, UNESCO, WWF (2013), Basin Water Allocation Planning, Principles,
Procedures and Approaches for Basin Allocation Planning.
o Chapter 9 on Assessing Allocable Water and Chapter 10 on Environmental Flow
Requirements.
· On decision making under uncertainty:
o Ray, P.A. and C.M. Brown (2015). Confronting Climate Uncertainty win Water
Resources Planning and Project Design, The Decision Tree Framework, World
Bank, Washington, United States.

25
5 Steps IV and V - Action planning and
Implementation

Once the preferred strategy has been selected this strategy

should be translated into concrete actions. Careful planning
and coordination is required as many authorities (in
particular at Local Governments Units - LGUs level) will be
involved in the implementation. The action plan will have an
‘open’ and ‘rolling’ character, meaning that it is not static or
prescriptive, and leaves room for individual decision-makers
to further elaborate upon in relation to their own
responsibilities. On the other hand, the action plan should
be concrete, by assigning clear responsibilities for carrying out the activities involved. It also
should include the budgetary requirements for the implementation, including investments
and recurrent costs.

5.1 Investment and Action Plan

The action plan translates the selected strategy in concrete actions. For each of these
actions it should be clear:
· what: concrete actions that have to be carried out for each of the measures included
in the strategy?
· who: the prime decision-maker / stakeholder responsible for carrying out the action
and who will take the lead in the implementation;
· how: the steps to be taken and the consultative process involved;
· when: the time planning; and
· financing: where should the money to implement the action come from?

What
An IWRM planning analysis is usually carried out at pre-feasibility level. A rough description
of the measures will be included in the strategy. An assessment is based on first estimates
of costs and benefits an assessment is made. Depending on the type of measure, feasibility
studies should be completed before the measures can actually be implemented. Often these
feasibility studies are combined with the detailed technical design of the measures (see
section 5.2).

Who and How

The Action Plan aims to stimulate the co-ordinated development and management of the
water resources. This is illustrated in Annex D, which presents the Implementation Plan for
water resource development in Central Cebu. The measures included in the plan will involve
or affect many stakeholders. All these stakeholders (based on the outcomes of the
stakeholder analysis and designed participatory planning process) should therefore be
included in some way in the implementation process in order to guarantee a successful
implementation and a sustainable benefit of the particular measure. In general the following
roles can be distinguished:

26
· Responsible: the stakeholder has the first responsibility for the implementation of the
measure but will co-operate with and/or consult other stakeholders in this process. In
Annex D this is indicated by the symbol: “●”.
· Co-operate: the stakeholder has an important say in the implementation of the measure
but is not the first responsible and is expected to work with other stakeholders in this
matter. In the table this is indicated by the symbol: “○”.
· Consult: the stakeholder has an interest in the implementation of the measure and will
be consulted by the first responsible. In certain cases permission will be needed before
the implementation can take place. In the table this is indicated by the symbol: “x”.

When
The action plan should also specify the timing of the implementation. When will (the
preparation of) the implementation start, and when should the implementation be finalized.
This information is needed for the overall investment plan but also because some measures
will depend on the completion of other measures.

Financing – investment plan

An important, if not the most important, part of the Action Plan is to determine how the action
will be financed. The sources of the financing will largely depend on the type and size of the
measure. As water resources management is mainly a governmental task, most of the
finances will come from public sources. These can be from the national budget (possibly
supported by donor funds) or from local (province, municipality) budgets. In some cases
private funding can be considered in PPP (Public Private Participation) constructions. This
seems in particular attractive when there is a good possibility for payment by the
stakeholders of the services that will be provided. A good example is urban public water
supply.

The investment plan should also address how the recurrent costs (operation and
maintenance) of the implemented projects will be recovered. Preferably this should be done
based on fees to be paid by the people that benefit from the project.

5.2 Feasibility studies and Environmental Impact Assessment

A feasibility study should include a more detailed study of the projects (measures) proposed
in the IRBMP. Commonly a feasibility study includes some 5 areas of feasibility:
· Technical;
· Social / Environmental;
· Political / Legal;
· Financial / Economic;
· Operational and Scheduling.

A feasibility study for a good implementation planning will often include a more detailed
assessment of the possible socio-economic and environmental impacts of some of the
measures that comprise the preferred strategy. There are several types of assessment
depending on the focus of the study. As depicted in Figure 15 the most well-known are:
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and
Sustainability Appraisal (SA).

27
 Figure 15 Applying SEA (source: OECD 2006)

5.3 Institutional framework for implementation

An overview of the implementation framework is given in Figure 16. This implementation

framework applies for both Steps IV (Action Planning) and V (Implementation). The actual
implementation of most of the measures will take place by decentralized agencies of national
ministries (e.g. DPWH and DENR) or at LGU level and their related utilities, districts and
associations. Where needed feasibility and engineering studies will be carried out before the
actual implementation and/or construction can take place.

Figure 16 Implementation Framework

Above the implementation level there needs to be a kind of guidance and coordination level.
A Technical Secretariat (TS) at basin level should take care of that. The TS will only prepare
for the actual decision making for implementation by the implementing partners. For instance,
twice a year a monitoring report will be compiled by the TS about the progress made in
implementing the measures of the Action Plan and the effectiveness of these measures in
meetings the defined objectives. Insufficient progress or effects may lead to an adjustment of

28
the Action Plan. The TS may provide assistance to the implementing partners, e.g. the
LGU’s, i.e. supporting them in carrying out feasibility studies. This is up to the LGU’s to
decide. In any case the TS will be able to support them by providing data and possibly other
relevant information from their Management Information System (MIS).

5.4 Promotion

After the action plan has been established one needs to find ways to increase the influence
of stakeholder groups that favor the implementation of the action but lack influence; to
change the attitude of influential groups that are opposing this action; and to use the positive
attitude of influential groups that are in favor of this action. The results of the stakeholder
analysis are used for the identification of the stakeholder groups (see Annex B). In Figure 17
the influence-interest matrix is presented. As illustrated, the matrix highlights the strategy
towards project acceptability or appreciation and therefore smooth implementation.

Figure 17 Social marketing program and underlying strategy

To create maximum awareness, enthusiasm and support for selected projects within the
Action Plan the selected stakeholder groups need to be provided with the right information
on the project. Additionally, involving a selection of stakeholders in project preparation and

29
implementation will assist in making them enthusiastic about the project. To do this
effectively, a mix of marketing options can be used. The set of parameters for defining the
participatory planning process such as level of participation of the various stakeholder
groups, modeling tools used, and time of stakeholder involvement, are critical for the
selection of the most appropriate marketing options (see Annex B). These are:
· mass one-way communication for the general public (such as newspapers, radio,
television plus more traditional media in the more rural areas);
· selective one-way communication for selected stakeholders groups (direct mail,
brochures with more specific information dedicated for the selected group); and
· personal two-way communication between the project promoter and selected
stakeholders groups (education method, outreach method or more risky word-of-
mouth method).

5.5 Implementation

For some of the structural projects in the Action Plan detailed design and feasibility studies
are required and special approval processes are in place in the Philippines.

The decision making process in the Philippines is directly derived from the Philippine
administrative and political structure (see Figure 18). First the National Government on the
highest level, then the Regions and next the ‘local’ level. The Local Level (LGUs) has a
three-tier system of Governance: 1) the Provinces and the Highly Urbanized Cities, 2) the
Municipality and Component Cities and at the lowest level of Local Government 3) the
Barangays or villages.

Figure 18 Administrative and political structure

The Republic Act (RA) No 7160, also known as the Local Government Code 1991
(LGC1991) provides the political context for the LGUs. LGUs share responsibility with the
national government for the management and maintenance of ecological balance within their
territorial jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of LGC1991 and relevant national policies.
LGU projects are for the public use only and funded wholly by the LGU and / or privately
(through PPP’s) for which the Local Government Code 1991 provides the political context.

All National Government Agencies (NGAs), Government-Owned and Controlled

Corporations (GOCC) and Offices involved in planning and implementation of any project or
program ‘that may cause pollution, climate change, depletion of non-renewable source, loss
of crop land, extinction of animal or plant species”, have to consult the LGUs, NGOs and

30
People Organisations, and need prior approval of the relevant Sangunnian (council) before
any project is implemented.

Approval process of structural projects

The process for the appraisal, endorsement and final approval of major capital projects
depends on (i) the type of project, (ii) the project value (in PhP) and (iii) the project
proponent (NGA or LGU). The relevant rules and regulations of infrastructure projects are:
· for projects > 1 Billion PhP: EO 230
· for projects < 1 Billion PhP: LGC 1991 / EO 325

Infrastructure Projects > 1 Billion PhP

The process for the approval of a major infrastructure projects > 1 B is graphically described
(and simplified) in Figure 19.

Figure 19 Process of approval of a major infrastructure project

The normal National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Board approval processes
for infrastructure projects are evaluated by the Investment Coordination Committee (ICC).
The ICC is tasked to evaluate and approve major infrastructure projects (> 1 billion PHP) on
behalf of the NEDA Board as defined by EO 230. The projects are evaluated with respect to
technical, financial, economic, social, and institutional development, feasibility/ viability as
well as from the context of sectoral plans and geographical strategies, and submitted to the
NEDA Board (NB) for confirmation of ICC action.

Projects are evaluated by the Environmental Compliance Certificate ECC Technical Board
and ICC Secretariat based on a pre-scribed procedure. The projects are evaluated by a
Project Evaluation Report (PER) and presented to the ICC in that format. This report
contains the following elements: a project history / background / project’s sectoral program
context / project’s regional and spatial context / objective / project description / project cost
and financing / institutional arrangements / implementation schedule / technical / market /

31
environmental evaluation /financial analysis / economic analysis / social analysis / issues
and recommendation.

Infrastructure Projects < 1 Billion PhP.

Basically the decision making (endorsement / approval) process is similar to the process for
projects with a value above 1B PhP. The Municipalities and Component cities need to follow
the procedure required by the ICC and subsequently need approval from the Province. Then
the proposal needs endorsement from the RDC (Regional Development Council).

If the project proponent is a City, and the projects are wholly own-funded, the proponent
needs approval by the Sanggunian first. There is no need to get endorsement from the RDC.
The city however needs to consult the relevant government offices.

---------------
Additional reading for steps IV and V

On EIA
· www.emb.gov.ph/eia-adb/basics.html
· OECD, 2006, Applying Strategic Environmental Assessment - Good Practice
Guidance for Development Co-operation
o www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/applying-strategic-environmental-
assessment_9789264026582-en
On social marketing
· NSMC (2010) What is social marketing? www.thensmc.com/content/what-social-
marketing-1
On PPP’s
· Republic of the Philippines, Public-Private Partnership center ppp.gov.ph/

32
Annex A Enabling conditions
ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
Laws and policies
Frame WRM within the Philippines
Policy statements for IWRM
· 1963 National Irrigation Admin. RA 3601
· 1966 Laguna Lake Development Authority RA
4850
· 1971 MWSS RA 6234
· 1974 NWRB Chapter PH 424.Creation NWRC
under DPWH
· Revised Forestry Code PD 705
· 1976 The Philippine Water Code PD 1067
· 1977 Environment Code PD 1152
· 1977 Creation NWRC PD 1206
· 1987 Water Crisis Management Committee
· 1987 PNOC rights over watershed EO 223
· 1991 Local Government Code RA 7160
· 1994 First National Water Summit
· 1995 Water Crisis Act RA 8041
· 1995 Committee on Water Conservation and
Demand management EO 222
· 1996 Presidential Task Force on WR
development EO 374
· 1997 Agricultural Fisheries Modernization Act
AFMA RA 8435
· 1998 Medium Term Development Plan 1998-
2004
· 1999 Watershed and Ecosystems planning
framework DENR AO 99-01
· 2002 Reconstituted NWRB members and
transfer to DENR EO 123
· 2004 Clean Water Act RA 9275
· 2004 Medium-Term Philippine Development
Plan 2004-2010
· 2004 Reforms in finance policies for Water
Supply and Sanitation sector EO 279
· 2005 Collaborative approach to Watershed
Management DENR AO 23
· 2006 IWRM Plan Framework
· 2007 Repeal EPIRA Law RA 9136
· 2008 Act of Infrastructure Committee of
NEDA creating a sub-committee on WR
· 2008 Integrated Watershed Management
Plan DENR MC 2008-05
· 2009 Philippine Climate Change Act RA 9729
· 2010 National Framework Strategy on
Climate Change (2010-2022)
· 2010 Philippine Water Supply Sector
Roadmap
· 2010 Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016
Upper watershed
· 1975 Revised Forestry Code PD 705
· 1978 Environmental Impact Statement
System PD 1586
· 1987 Philippine Constitution Article XII 3
· DENR mandate EO 192
· 1987 National Power Corporation RA 6395
· 1987 EPIRA Law RA 9136
· 1988 PNOC mandate to protect watershed
reserves EO 223
River Basin Management
· 1966 Laguna Lake Development Authority RA
4850
· 1973 Biocol River Basin Council EO 412
· 1997 Agno River Basin Development
Commission EO 442
· 1992 Lake Lanao Watershed Proclamation
871
· 1996 Admin. Decentralization and
regionalization EO 37
· 1996 Cotabato River Basin Rice Productivity
Action Plan AO 265
· 2006 River Basin Control Office EO 510
· 2001 Electric Power Industry Reform Act RA
9136
· 2008 Presidential Task Force for Mindanao
Basin Rehabilitation EO 753
· 2008 Task Force for Cotabato Flood Control
EO 713, 753A and 753B
Water Quality
· 1975 Sanitation Code of the Philippines PD
856
· 1976 Pollution Control Decree PD 984
· 1976 Pollution Control of discharge from ships
PD 979
· 1976 Rehabilitation Pasig River PD 274, 281
· 1977 Environmental Impact Assessment PD
1586
· 1978 National Pollution Control Commission.
Rules and Regulations
· 1990 Water Quality criteria DENR AO 34
· 1990 Effluent regulations DENR AO 35
· 1990 Toxic substances and hazardous, and
nuclear waste control act RA 6969
· 1994 Philippine National Standards for
drinking DENR AO 26A
· 1996 LLDA Rehabilitation programme
· 2000 Solid Waste Management Act RA 9003
· 2003 Environment Partnership Program
DENR DAO 14
· 2003 Industrial Eco-watch system DENR AO
26
· 2003 Manila Bay Environment Management
Program
· 2004 Clean Water Act RA 9275
· 2005 Implementation of WQMA DENR DAO
10
Water supply and sanitation
· 1975 Code of Sanitation PD 856
· 1976 Philippine Water Code PD 1067
· 1987 EMB EO 192
· 1994 Water Supply and Sanitation Master
Plan
· 1994-2005 Provincial Master Plans for Water
Supply and Sanitation
· 2004 Clean Water Act RA 9275
33
 · 1989 Unv. Philippines jurisdiction over Mt. · 2009 Philippine Water Supply and Sanitation
Makiling RA 6967 Roadmap PWSSR
· 1989 PNOC jurisdiction over watershed Tiwi · 2009 National Sewerage and Septic
Geothermal, Tongonan and Palimpinon Management Plan NSSMP
watersheds PD 1515 · 2010 Updated PWSSR
· 1991 Local Government Code RA 7160 · 2010 Philippine Sustainable Sanitation
· 1992 Allocation Dept. Energy for water RA Roadmap
7638 · 2010 Water Use Efficiency and Conservation
· 1992 National Integrated Protected Area Act HB 1806
System RA 7586
· 1997 Indigenous people right act RA 8371 Irrigation
· 2001 Repeal EPIRA Law RA 9136 · 1998-2004 Medium Term Development Plan
· 2001 Institutionalization IWRM in DENR · 2004-2010 Medium Term Development Plan
programs and projects DENR 2001-29 · 2004 IWRM Framework Plan
· 2001 Wildlife Resources and Conservation · 2007 Soil conservation month DA AO 17
Act RA 9147 · 2007 Wastewater reuse DA AO 26
· 2003 DENR-DILG Joint Memo 2003-01 · 2009 Water Saving Technologies DA AO 25
· 2006 Creation River Basin Coordination · 2009 Upland Development Plan
Office EO 510 · 2010-2020 NIA Corporate Plan
· 2009 Upland Development Program DENR
Flood Management
· 1989 Act construction of water wells,
rainwater collectors, development of springs
and rehabilitation RA 6716
· 1991 Local Government Code of the
Philippines RA 7160
· 2001-20130 National Framework for Physical
planning
· DPWH – Flood Control and Sabo Eng. Center
· 2007 Amended omnibus levels of authorities
of officials of DPWH
· 2010 Philippine DRR and management act
RA 10121
Water user dialogues
Cross-sectorial and upstream-downstream dialogues
Basin committee
The policies for Water Users Organizations include:
· 1972 Change from NAWASA to MWSS RA 6234
· 1973 Creation of Local Water Utilities Admin. LWUA PD 198
· 1976 Water Code in the Philippines
· 1977 Public Service Law PD 1206
· 1991 Local Government Code RA 7160
· 1992 BOT law for private sector participation
· 1994 DENR AO 25A
· 1995 National Water Crisis Act
· 2002 NWRB responsible for economic regulation of local water districts EO 123
· 2004 Reforms in financing policies EO 279
· 2004 Clean Water Act
· 2004 Transfers Admin. Supervision of LWUA to DPWH EO 387
· 2008 Transferring LWUA to DOH EO 738
The policy and legislative agenda for Water Users organizations have been institutionalized through EOs. This
policy track is helpful for finding appropriate mechanisms as there is a leeway for changing provisions and
directives. However, this flexibility can be also abused or politically motivated. This causes that the frequent
changes in management mechanisms for water users is perceived as an indication of a lack of stability and
consistency which it is not helpful to business and economics. There is the need to specify mechanisms for
coordination with other sectors.

Budgets
Financing organizations and investment
The National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) is the national financing organization.
Main external Support Agencies
· Asian Development Bank (ADB)
· German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ)
· World Bank (WB)
· Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

34
 Cooperation
Inter-ministerial coordination
The WRM Steering Committee is the existing cross-sectorial dialogue platform composed of national agencies for
managing Water Resources. The involved agencies are:
· River Basin Control Office
· Forest Management Bureau
· Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
· Environment Management Bureau
· Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau
· Mines and Geoscience Bureau
· Land Management Bureau
· Planning and Policy Studies Service
· Climate Change Office – DENR
· National Water Resources Board – DENR
· Disaster National Risk Reduction Management Council
· National Irrigation Administration/Soils and Water Management
· Bureau of Soil and Water Management
· National Economic and Development Authority
· Climate Change Commission
· Department of Energy
· Department of Public Works and Highways
· Department of the Interior and Local Government
· Department of Science and Technology (PAGASA)
· National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
There is not a standardized platform for supporting upstream-downstream dialogues. There is some vertical
integration taking place; however, it is limited.

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE (KEY PLAYERS)

Functions and agencies
Policy making:
· NEDA – National Economic and
Development Authority
Coordination and regulation:
· NWRB – National Water Resources Board
Water quality and sanitation:
· EMB – Environment Management Bureau
· DOH – Department of Health
· BRL – Bureau of Research and Laboratories
· EHS – Environmental Health Services
· LGUs – Local Government Units
· MWSS – Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System
· LWUA – Local Water Utilities Administration
· WD – Water Districts
Watershed Management:
· BSWM – Bureau of Soils and Water
Management
· NIA – National Irrigation Administration
· NPC – National Power Corporation
· PAWB – Protection Areas and Wildlife
Bureau
Integrated Area Development:
· LLDA –Laguna Lake Development Authority
· RDCs – Regional Development Councils
· BOI – Bureau of Investments
· PEZA – Philippines Economic Zone Authority
· RBCO – River Basin Control Office
Data collection:
· NWRB – National Water Resources Board
· BRS – Bureau of Research and Statistics
Flood Management:
· DPWH – Department of Public Works and
Highways
· OCD-NDCC – Office of the Civil Defense –
National Disaster Coordinating Council
· PAGASA – Philippine Atmospheric,
Geophysical and Astronomical Service
Administration
· MMDA – Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority
Irrigation:
· NIA – National Irrigation Administration
· DA – Department of Agriculture
· BSWM – Bureau of Soils and Water
Management
Hydropower:
· DOE – Department of Energy
· PSALM – Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corporation
· NPC – National Power Corporation
· PEMC – Philippine Electricity Market
Corporation
Water Supply:
· NAPC-WASCO – National Anti-Poverty
Commission – Water and Sanitation
Coordinating Office
· DOF-CDA – Department of Finance –
Cooperative Development Authority
· DBP – Development Bank of the Philippines
· DAR – Department of Agrarian Reform
· DPWH – Department of Public Works and
Highways

35
 · NAMRIA – National Mapping and Resource
Information Authority
· LWUA – Local Water Utilities Administration
· MGB – Mines and Geo-science Bureau
· PAGASA – Philippine Atmospheric,
Geophysical and Astronomical Service
Administration
· MWSS – Metropolitan Water works and
Sewerage System
· NIA – National Irrigation Administration
Cloud Seeding:
· PAF – Philippine Air Force
· BSWM – Bureau of Soils and Water
Management
· MWSS – Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System
· LUWA-WDs – Local Utilities Water
Administration Water Districts
· PTA – Philippine Tourism Authority
· HUDCC – Housing and Urban Development
Coordinating Council
· DILG – Department of Interior and Local
Government
· PEZA – Philippine Economic Zone Authority
· LGUs – Local Government Units
Research:
· PCARNRRD – Philippine Council for
Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources
Research and Development
· ERDS – Ecosystem Research and
Development Services
Fisheries:
· BFAR – Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources

IWRM planning structure

The main players at national level in the field of IWRM at the current system are:
· National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)
It is responsible for the national development plans and framework and through its counterpart at the
sub-national level (Regional Development Councils, RDC’s) coordinating and setting the direction of all
economic and social development efforts in the region and endorsing the various river basin plans.
· DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highways) with the DPWH secretary assigned by the president
as ‘Water Czar’.
Within DPWH the IWRM Coordination Team (IWRMCT) is assigned to coordinate the programs, project
and activities of all governmental water-related agencies.
· DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), in particular
o RBCO (River Basin Control Office). Responsible for guiding IWRM planning at basin level
o NWRB (National Water Resources Board). Responsible for policy formulation and coordination and
resource and economic regulation.

Institutional structure is as follows:

RBCO is mainly responsible for guiding the planning process of the river basins. The process for developing and
approval of these plans are as follows:
RBCO initiates the process by providing funds and selecting consultants (service providers). The consultants
should use as guiding documents for their planning: the National IWRM Planning Framework 2007 and National
IRBMDF Plan 2006. Consultants develop then the IRBMP plan in various phases. During the various phases the
stakeholders are consulted; however, there is not a standardized approach for stakeholder engagement in the
preparation of IRBMPs. The final Master plan has to be endorsed by the Regional Development Council (RDC).

There is a lack of solid institutional structure at regional level for the preparation of the IRBMP as well as for its
implementation.

MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
Structures to…
Assess Water Resources

There are a set of laws and policies for IWRM that provide direction towards its implementation (and
assessment):
· Medium Term Development Plan
· Water Code 1976
· Clean Water Act
· IWRM Framework Plan
· Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap
· Climate Change Act
· National Framework Strategy for Climate Change
· National IRBMDF Plan
However, some studies have shown that these are frequently quite generic causing that IWRM implementation is

36
hindered. Also there is the need to establish a guideline for LGUs in the integration of WRM in its administrative
system as well as guidelines for vertical and horizontal integration at river basins and watersheds.

Set up communication and information system

Education and public awareness is mainly carried out by projects. The most relevant topics of concern are water
and watershed as well as resources conservation. In the case of Metro Manilla these events and projects have
high profile in media coverage. There are also several project programmes which have a wide reach of audience.

However, studies have shown that factors such as limited budgets for projects in the provinces causes limited
education and public awareness to local communities. There is a lack of a common online public discussion and
information platform. This is related to the gap on primacy of stakeholder participation (awareness and
information are some of the various levels of stakeholder participation in the planning and policy processes).
Another need is knowledge sharing platforms including collegial learning among 20 organized river basin
management units in the country and other water bodies.

Resolve conflict in allocation of water

There is an important gap for conflict resolution mechanisms. Today there is not a solid mechanisms for
resolving possible conflicts related to Water Resources problems and issues such as allocation of water.

Establish regulations

The various sectors related to WRM are guided by general policy statements and regulations governing the water
resources sector. The regulations are listed under the Laws and Policies section.
The lack of resources to enforce existing rules and regulations is identified as one of the most significant barriers
to effective implementation of IWRM in general and the IRBMPs in particular.

The creation of a regulatory body at national level is recognized as one of the major gaps of the current
institutional and administrative system. The Water Resources Management Act and the National Water
Regulatory Commission are some of the initiatives. The creation of this body intends to improve water resources
regulations with tariff system within the IWRM context.

Establish financing arrangements

The existing financial system is the outcome of a collection of laws and policies approved over the last few years
such as the reforms in finance policies for Water Supply and Sanitation sector taken in 2004.
However, the current financial structure presents three main issues, according to a study carried out by GWP
Philippines in 2011:
· Need for funds to send personnel to appropriate training programmes, as well as available budget for
information and communication systems
· Delayed funds
· Reallocation of funds to priority authorities and/or topics
Excess of funds by some authorities and lack of funds available for others is a recognized issues of financing in
the water sector. This limitation of the existing financing system has an impact on the implementation of IRBMPs.

Develop organizational capacity

In the Philippines there are continuous education and training events related to IWRM. Around 40 events were
held in the last decade. Statistics show that there is a higher participation of NGOs than government agency
personnel (less than 20%). The participation of the private sector is rather limited. The most common topics to be
addressed are:
· IWRM as a general concept
· Planning, policy, dialogue and instruments
· Rainwater and River Basin management
· Institutional setup
· Community organizing and empowerment
· Poverty alleviation and water
· Information, communication and education
· Knowledge management
· Hydrogeology
· Climate change and water
· Information systems
· Decision Support Systems

37
 Research and development

Decisions are still mainly taken without scientific and local knowledge is consulted. The education and academic
sector are not sufficiently engaged for research and outreach. The planning and decision making process is
commonly not a participatory and informed decision making process.

Studies have shown that there is a gap for technical and scientific input to the planning and decision making
processes. In particular, there is the need to provide quality information and scientific decision support systems
for policy formulation. Investment planning decisions could be realistic and more convincing if (mathematical)
computer-based tools (and models) such as decision support systems (DSS) would be used. The result of DSS
models can then be uploaded in online platforms where stakeholders would have access to. Stakeholders would
be able to get a better understanding of the system, raise awareness and discuss (e.g. validate) the outcomes of
the model.

Coordinate

There are three emerging initiatives for integration from national, regional and local levels. There is a history of
inter-agency coordination at the national level. The NWRB (before namely National Water Resources Council)
became the platform for that coordination in 1974. By taking a look at the various laws and policies in the last few
years, it is apparent that many changes were made in the Philippines to the manner of coordination at national
level. Other forms of coordination include the Water Management cluster of cabinet members (1994), Water
Conservation and Demand Management Committee (1995), Presidential Task Force on Water Resources
Development and Management (dissolved in 2002) or the Sub-Committee on Water Resources.

Studies have shown that there is to some extent a lack of collaboration among authorities related to WRM. There
is the need for provision of mechanisms for coordination for specific sectors.

38
Annex B Stakeholder engagement in IWRM planning in the
Philippines

The stakeholders that should be involved in an IWRM planning process will depend on the
specific basin that is being addressed. In general the stakeholders will be all people and/or
organizations that:
· will be effected by the IWRM plan; and
· are needed to implement the plan.

An IWRM plan (e.g. IRBMP) and its imple-

mentation to a large extend depend on the
acceptance and ownership of the plan by
the decision makers and stakeholders at
national and basin levels. A participatory
planning process is therefore indispensable
for sustainable WRM. A participatory plan-
ning process is the results of a set of steps,
as depicted in Figure 20. However, the
order of the steps can vary according to the
local situation and conditions. The pre-
requisite for the design of a participatory
planning process is a good stakeholder
analysis. The stakeholder analysis is a
supporting planning tool that supports the
identification of stakeholders and its
engagement. Particularly, this analysis
technique supports the task of identifying
and in some occasions classifying the
stakeholders according to their functions,
capacities, interests, concerns and needs,
as well as their dependencies (including
power relations among them). Figure 20 Steps in a stakeholder analysis and
participatory planning process

Based on the results of the stakeholder analysis the participatory planning process is defined.
Firstly, it is crucial to define the levels of participation of the various stakeholders. The level
of participation of each group of stakeholders varies depending on the stakeholder analysis
and on the maximum level of participation that the client of the study wants to achieve. The
second step is the design of the participatory process. This will be adapted to the agreed
levels of participation and stakeholders involved. The design of the participatory process
needs to take into account the modeling approach (informed decision making) so it is carried
out in a participatory manner (step 3). Finally, as illustrated in Figure 20, the design of the
participatory planning process needs to consider the information and communication tools
used for disseminating and communicating the information to the various groups of
stakeholders.
Who (group of stakeholders) needs to be involved in which steps of the planning process
(when), to what extent (level of involvement) and how (participatory approach and
communication techniques)?

39
The review of the IWRM planning in the Philippines shows that in the various River Basin
planning frameworks stakeholder involvement is considered as an important element.
However, there is not a standardized participatory planning process for the preparation of
IRBMPs. The present IWRM guidelines aim at presenting how the design of the participatory
planning process could be done. Note that the illustrated participatory modeling and planning
process serves just as an example. For actual projects a more detailed analysis should be
carried out.

Stakeholder analysis

The concepts “stakeholder” and “actor” differ with respect to how inclusive the authors are.
An actor can be defined as a social entity, person or organization, able to act or exert
influence on a decision. A stakeholder can be considered as an actor or group of actors that
has an interest or stake in a decision, but relatively little means to influence the decision
making process or system. The term “actor” could refer more narrowly to the stakeholders
that are actually involved in the policy process. However, as generally these terms “actors”
and “stakeholders” are used interchangeably, both terms are used in these IWRM guidelines.

A stakeholder analysis provides a better understanding of the perceptions, concerns, roles,

interests and needs of the stakeholders and contributes to a better approach to the solution.
It also helps reducing the possibility to forget
important values of risks. Finally, this
technique increases the chance that the
various groups of stakeholders are willing to
cooperate in solving the identified problems
and issues.

A good stakeholder analysis should contain at

least the following steps:
1) Situation analysis as point of
departure.
2) Inventory of the stakeholders involved
(e.g. primary, secondary and tertiary
stakeholders).
3) Mapping of formal relations according
to their functions and responsibilities.
Figure 21 Stakeholders Interdependency Matrix
4) Inventory of interests, perceptions and needs
5) Mapping of interdependencies.

Levels of Participation
The various stakeholders are then grouped according to the outcomes of the stakeholder
analysis (Figure 21) into the different levels of participation, as illustrated in Figure 22:

· Ignorance: where a stakeholder is not aware that anything is happening;

· Awareness: where a stakeholder is aware that something is happening;
· Informed: where a stakeholder has been specifically provided with information and is
left to decide what to do with it. The emphasis is on the one-way provision of

40
 information, with no formal option for the stakeholder to provide feedback, negotiate
or participate in the decision-making process;
· Consultation: where a stakeholder is asked to provide information inputs to the
planning process. Information flows are likewise one-way, but in the opposite
direction. That is, information is extracted from stakeholders although no
commitment is given to use it;
· Discussion: at this level stakeholders are fully participating and are asked to give
advice and recommendations. Here information flows in both directions between
stakeholders operating with different interests and levels of influence, and also
between these stakeholders and the organizing team (technical team). Since two-
way interactions occur, there is room for alternative ideas, solutions and/or strategies
to emerge;
· Co-Design: at this level stakeholders are actively involved in problem analysis and
problem design, which fosters ownership, but where final decision-making powers
reside with the governing agencies;
· Co-Decision-Making: here decision making powers are shared with those
participating stakeholders, leading to their empowerment with respect to the
policy/planning decision taken. Typically decisions in these contexts would emerge
from a process of stakeholder negotiation.

Figure 22 Levels of participation

The first levels (from Ignorance to Consultation) could be thought of as top-down

management/planning approaches towards participation, where stakeholders have little
control over the decision-making process. The final three levels are more appropriately
considered as bottom-up approaches towards participation where stakeholders are much
more active and have much more control over the decision-making process.

Design of the participatory planning process

The design of the participatory planning process needs to take into consideration the River
Basin planning framework and the data and modeling tools used. Participatory planning tools
and techniques enable participants (stakeholders) to influence development initiatives and
decisions affecting them. The tools promote sharing of knowledge, building up commitment
to the process and empower the group to develop sustainable strategies.

41
The proposed participatory and in-
formed planning process makes use
of the “Circles of Influence” model
that enables to structure participation
to limit numbers but not the influence
of specific groups of stakeholders.
Under this model trust is developed in
concentric circles; planners and
managers work to develop trust with
leaders and organizations that other
stakeholders already trust. That is,
those most directly involved in policy
analysis activities (i.e. planners, man-
agers and modelers who do most of
the actual work; Circle A) who
communicate with trusted leaders
and major stakeholder
representatives at the next level
(Circle B). These stakeholders then in
turn provide a trusted link to all other
interested parties, who have much
less direct involvement (Circle C).
Ideally, Circle B participants would be
active in professional or issues-
oriented organizations and provide Figure 23 Suggested participatory planning structure
links to others whose interests they
represent. Hence, Circle C stakeholders should see their interests represented in Circle B,
and have formal opportunities to shape the work of Circles A and B via these representatives.
The levels of involvement of those stakeholders in Circle C can vary from Consultation to
Awareness. A fourth circle (Circle D) includes decision makers such as agency heads and
elected officials, who have been given the authority to accept or reject the recommendations
of the policy analysis. For a good participatory and informed planning process it should be
clearly identified and engaged throughout the planning process with direction and
information flows possible to and from all circles. The proposed participatory planning
structure for the Philippines using the Circles of Influence model is illustrated in Figure 23
Suggested participatory planning structure.

Other aspects to be considered for the design of the participatory planning process are:
· Timing of stakeholder involvement. This will be dependent on the Circles of
Influence and levels of participation.
· Stakeholder participation in the modeling process (Participatory Modeling).
Mainly those stakeholders in the Circles A and B will be regularly involved in some of
the phases of the modeling process. The involvement can be concentrated in (i) early
and later stages of the modeling process, (ii) construction of the model, (iii) some of
the activities prior to model construction, or (iv) only after the final model has been
built.

42
 · Type of stakeholder involvement. This can be either individually, with
homogeneous (stakeholders with similar interests and problem perceptions) or
heterogeneous groups.
· Information and communication tools. Information dissemination (e.g. face-to-face
workshops or online platforms) and communication tools need to be adapted to the
background conditions of the various groups of stakeholders. This is particularly
important for participatory model construction and use, as well as, for the promotion
of the IRBMP. The selected marketing options for creating awareness, enthusiasm
and support for selected projects within the action plan by stakeholders (Figure 17)
will vary depending on the results of the stakeholder analysis (Figure 21) and levels
of stakeholder involvement (Figure 22). For more information about promotion please
see Section 5.4.

---------------
Additional reading
Participatory planning techniques:
· Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).
Guidance document 8 on public participation in relation to the Water Framework
Directive.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm
· GWP Toolbox www.gwp.org/ToolBox/
· Bousset, J.-P., Macombe, C., Taverne, M., 2005. Participatory methods, guidelines
and good practice guidance to be applied throughout the project to enhance problem
definition, co-learning, synthesis and dissemination. SEAMLESS.

Participatory modeling, including Circles of Influence approach:

· Bourget L. (Ed.), 2011. Converging Waters: Integrating Collaborative Modeling with
Participatory Processes to Make Water Resources Decisions. Institute for Water
Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
· Voinov, A., Bousquet, F., 2010. Modeling with stakeholders. Environmental Modeling
& Software 25(11) 1268-1281.

43
Annex C Illustrative river basin case

An important element of a river basin planning analysis is the development of a score card.
A score card enables decision makers / stakeholders to discuss the impacts of proposed
developments in the basin and express their preferences. At the same time the score card
summarizes some of the main results of the first 3 steps of the IWRM guidelines. This annex
describes an illustrative example of the development of such score card.

Step I – Inception
Important elements of the Inception phase are the definition of the analysis conditions and
the formulation of objectives and criteria. The score card illustrates that the results in this
case include:
· Defining analysis conditions
o The base year: 2010
o Two time horizons are defined: 2020 and 2030
· Objectives and criteria
o Five objectives: 1. Improve Water Supply and Sanitation; 2. Increase Food
production; 3. Provide sufficient water for Industry and Energy; 4. Protect the
Environment; 5. Decrease Vulnerability to floods and droughts.
o Each objective will be measured in 2 till 3 criteria
o Targets are specified for all criteria for the two time horizons and for the
‘perfect’ situation
The result of the Inception phase is the structure of the score card and an overview of what
we want to achieve.
Base
Objectives and Criteria year Targets
unit 2010 2020 2030 Perfect
Obj.1: Water and Sanitation
% people access to safe drinking water % 63% 73% 100%
% people access to sanitation facilities % 50% 70% 100%

Obj.2: Food production

Irrigation area 1000 ha 30 35 40
# animal water points # 500 900 1000

Obj.3: Industry and Energy

Water supplied to mining % 80% 90% 100%
Water supplied to industry % 80% 90% 100%
Hydropower generated MWh 80 120 120

Obj.4: Environment
Protected watershed area km2 2500 3500 3500
Number of springs/sources protected # 600 900 900
Average class water quality rivers I-V III IV V

Obj.5: Vulnerability
Vulnerability to floods - average damage m€/yr < 78 < 50 0
Vulnerability to droughts - average damage m€/yr < 50 < 30 0

Implementation information
Required investments m€ - - -
B/C ratio economic categories (Obj.2, Obj.3) - > 1,3 > 1,2 -

Step II – Situation Analysis

In the second step the natural resource and socio-economic systems are analysed for the
present situation (base year) and future situations (2020 and 2030). This requires that
scenario’s are developed on how the future (2020 and 2030) will look like (e.g. the demand
for water).
· Base case analysis
o filling in the column Base Year with monitored data and/or results of the
computational framework

44
 · Reference case
o calculation of the performance of the system if no new actions (investments
and management decisions) are taken for both time horizons
o comparing the Base case and Reference cases with the targets for the time
horizons leads to an extensive problem description
Step II leads to the filling in of the columns Base year and Reference cases. Note that the
performance of some indicators has gone up under the reference (no new action) cases.
This is the result of on-going programs and autonomous developments.
Base Alternative (investment) strategies
Objectives and criteria Year Targets Ref. case (no action)
unit 2010 2020 2030 Perfect 2020 2030
Obj.1: Water and Sanitation
% people access to safe drinking water % 50% 63% 73% 100% 63% 73%
% people access to sanitation facilities % 30% 50% 70% 100% 50% 70%

Obj.2: Food production

Irrigation area 1000 ha 24 30 35 40 26 28
# animal water points # 300 500 900 1000 400 700

Obj.3: Industry and Energy

Water supplied to mining % 30% 80% 90% 100% 40% 50%
Water supplied to industry % 70% 80% 90% 100% 70% 70%
Hydropower generated MWh 34 80 120 120 34 34

Obj.4: Environment
Protected watershed area km 2 1200 2500 3500 3500 2000 2500
Number of springs/sources protected # 300 600 900 900 400 600
Average class water quality rivers I-V II III IV V II III

Obj.5: Vulnerability
Vulnerability to floods - average damage m€/yr 120 < 78 < 50 0 100 80
Vulnerability to droughts - average damage m€/yr 200 < 50 < 30 0 160 120

Imple mentation information

Required investments m€ - - -
B/C ratio economic categories (Obj.2, Obj.3) - > 1,3 > 1,2 -

Step III – Strategy Building

· Alternative strategies
o In this simplified case only two alternative strategies are formulated
(strategies 1 and 2)
o Impacts are calculated of each strategy for the two time horizons
o Results are used for discussion with the decision-makers / stakeholders,
possible leading to adjustments of the strategies, ultimately leading to
decision making on the preferred strategy.
Base Alternative (investment) strategies
Objectives and criteria Year Targets Ref. case (no action) Strategy 1 Strategy 2
unit 2010 2020 2030 Perfect 2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030
Obj.1: Water and Sanitation
% people access to safe drinking water % 50% 63% 73% 100% 63% 73% 63% 73% 63% 73%
% people access to sanitation facilities % 30% 50% 70% 100% 50% 70% 50% 70% 50% 70%

Obj.2: Food production

Irrigation area 1000 ha 24 30 35 40 26 28 28 31 30 35
# animal water points # 300 500 900 1000 400 700 500 900 500 900

Obj.3: Industry and Energy

Water supplied to mining % 30% 80% 90% 100% 40% 50% 50% 70% 80% 90%
Water supplied to industry % 70% 80% 90% 100% 70% 70% 80% 90% 80% 90%
Hydropower generated MWh 34 80 120 120 34 34 70 110 80 120

Obj.4: Environment
Protected watershed area km2 1200 2500 3500 3500 2000 2500 2500 3000 2500 3500
Number of springs/sources protected # 300 600 900 900 400 600 500 700 600 850
Average class water quality rivers I-V II III IV V II III III III III IV

Obj.5: Vulnerability
Vulnerability to floods - average damage m€/yr 120 < 78 < 50 0 100 80 100 80 78 50
Vulnerability to droughts - average damage m€/yr 200 < 50 < 30 0 160 120 80 40 50 30

Implementation information
Required investments m€ - - - 400 650 600 1200
B/C ratio economic categories (Obj.2, Obj.3) - > 1,3 > 1,2 - 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1

45
Annex D Example Implementation Plan

The table below is taken from the Water Resources Management Action Plan for Central
Cebu (2005-2030) referred to in Chapter 3. Such a table illustrates the key output of a River
Basin Plan. The full Basin Plan can be downloaded from:
www.deltares.nl/en/search/Central+Cebu

46
Annex E Example of Table of Contents of a River Basin Plan

The following Chapters are typical for a River Basin Management Plan:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION
· The why and how (IWRM) of the plan
· Objectives of the RBMP
· Participatory process followed

2 WATER RESOURCES SYSTEM

Description of the 3 main system components.
· Natural system and its infrastructure
o surface water, groundwater, water quality
o climate, variability and change
· Socio-economic system
o population, macro-economic developments
o sector developments (agriculture, industry, etc.)
o social aspects of water management (incl. gender)
· Institutional system
o national level
o de-central level

3 THE POLICY CONTEXT

· Institutional setting and stakeholders
· National and regional development goals and policies
· Legal framework

4 DEVELOPING AND MANAGING THE SYSTEM – AN ANALYSIS

· Objectives and criteria (and targets)
· Scenarios – how to deal with an uncertain future
· Developments in demand and use of water
· Problem analyses (base case and reference cases)
· Finding solutions
· Water balance of the basin
· Inventory and screening of measures
· Analysis of alternative strategies

5 SELECTED STRATEGY
· Developing additional resources
· Making better use of existing resources
· Protection of public health and environment
· General institutional and financial measures
· Assessing the impacts
· What-if analysis (alternative scenario’s, pathways approach)

47
6 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
· Implementation framework
· Implementation plan (who, what, how, etc., incl. financing)
· Operational planning
· Monitoring
· Financial – economic consequences
· Risks and risk management
· Communication, public awareness and gender issues
· Planning – a continuous process

References
Annexes with detailed information

48