Submitted to:

Engr. Jose Condonar Jr.

Hydrology (CE 443)
5:30 – 6:30 PM (BE 226)

Submitted by:
GROUP 4
Albelda, Oneal John T.
Allegre, Joren Aleona
Almanzor, Ian
Amancio, Rheza
Benzon, Normie Ann
Celestial, Romar
Manan-og, Kristine Mariel
Poquita, Shiellie Mae
Romanillos, Angie Lee
Santiago, Richie Art
 TITLES & REPORTERS

On the Role of Hydrogen in Water Resources Management

(Manan-og, Kristine Mariel & Santiago, Richie Art)
Challenges in Water Resources Management in the Philippines
(Poquita, Shiellie Mae)
Weak Institutional Frameworks
(Albelda, Oneal John)
Disparities between Water Supply and Demand
(Celestial, Romar)

Realities of Watershed Management in the Philippines:

Synthesis of Case Study

Abstract and Introduction

(Amancio, Rheza)
Brief Profile of the Case Study Watersheds
(Almanzor, Ian)
Watershed Management Experiences in the Case Study Sites
(Romanillos, Angie Lee & Benzon, Normie Ann)
The Experiences with Community-led Watershed-Based Water
Resources Management in Balian, Pangil, Laguna
(Allegre, Joren Aleona)
Synthesis: Lessons Learned on Watershed Management
Implementation
(Allegre, Joren Aleona)
 ON THE ROLE OF HYDROLOGY IN WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT

ABSTRACT
The importance of hydrology is increasing because of the global
growth of water needs and the rise of water scarcity, which together
cause greater risk and unreliability in water resources management. The
basic task of hydrology, which is fundamental for water resources
management, is the accurate definition and control of the water balance
for different space and time increments. The water balance equation is
simple, but until now there are many unsolved problems surrounding it,
such as: the definition of catchment boundaries and areas, the accuracy
of point precipitation measurement and the assessment of areal
precipitation, the accuracy of actual areal evapotranspiration etc.
Modern computer and numerically oriented hydrology tries to use most
new scientific approaches, methods and technologies. Due to the
influence of university education and papers published in leading
international scientific journals, young scientists, in particular, believe
that this is the sole way to advance knowledge. Experienced and
practically oriented hydrologists do not always share their enthusiasm.
Hydrology has to be loyal to its basic principles and roots, in order to be
able to answer the complex challenges of water resources management
which will come in the future. As water management is an
interdisciplinary task, hydrology should be more connected with the
other scientific disciplines and professions involved. Hydrology urgently
needs close co-operation with many other human activities, especially
those concerned with environmental issues. Scientists and engineers
have a responsibility to answer the leading question: "How can
hydrology be more efficient and effective?" This paper tries to help in
finding an answer.
INTRODUCTION
UNESCO and WMO (1992) give the following definitions of
hydrology: (a) Science that deals with waters above and below the land
surface of the Earth, their occurrence, circulation and distribution, both in
time and space, their biological, chemical and physical properties, their
reaction with the environment, including their relation to living beings; (b)
Science that deals with the processes governing the depletion and
replenishment of water resources of the land areas of the Earth, and
treats the various phases of the hydrological cycle. Scientists have their
own definitions arising from their varied experiences. Horton's (1931)
definition of hydrology as a science was: "As a pure science, hydrology
deals with the natural occurrence, distribution and circulation of water
on, in and over the surface of the Earth. More specifically, the field of
hydrology, treated as a pure science, is to trace out and account for the
phenomena of the hydrologic cycle. Both the scope and problems of
hydrology are closely related to the various branches of applied
hydrology. The new problems arise and the science is extended. Its
scope is limited to considerably less than the entire field of water
science". For Bras (1990) hydrology is the study of water in all its forms
and from all its origins to all its destinations on the Earth. The
hydrological umbrella would include water quality issues. Hydrology, the
science of water, as one of the geosciences has a natural place
alongside geology, oceanography, meteorology etc. For Falkenmark &
Chapman (1989), hydrology in its modern sense is a young science,
focusing on various phenomena related to the hydrological cycle. The
continuity of this cycle adds new perspectives to the study of issues
related to environment and development. From the definitions and
concepts it can be concluded that hydrology has a dual role as a
scientific discipline and as a basis for informed decision-making on
important practical problems (Dooge, 1997). It should be stressed that
hydrology has, at the same time, very deep scientific interests and tasks
and an extremely important role in practice. For hydrologists the main
dilemma is how to develop a true hydrological science and at the same
time to provide a reliable basis for decision making in water resources
management. This is really an old and omnipresent dilemma between
theory and practice.
Due to the shortage of water and its crucial importance for life on
Earth, the gap between theory and practice in hydrology is especially
risky and should be overcome. On the one hand hydrology has to
develop theoretically and on the other it should react promptly in
practical terms. This is probably the reason why hydrology is so open to
many other sciences, new technologies, methods, models and initiatives.
Hydrology tries to solve numerous practical problems by forming
different branches and/or specialist fields such as: engineering
hydrology, urban hydrology, snow hydrology, karst hydrology, hill slope
hydrology, surface water hydrology, regional hydrology, comparative
hydrology and in the last 10 years, Eco hydrology.
Kundzewicz (2002) states that despite recent activity in the area of
Eco hydrology, it does not necessarily have the same meaning to
everyone. A number of competing definitions raise sensitivities and
controversies among scientists and practitioners. For Zalewski (2000)
Eco hydrology is the study of the functional interrelation between
hydrology and biota at the catchment scale. According to Zalewski, Eco
hydrology is a new approach to achieve sustainable management of
water. Nuttle (2002) states that this broadly accepted definition is
controversial. Eagleson's (2002) perception of Eco hydrology is different.
For him ecosystems are complex, evolving structures whose
characteristics and properties depend on many interrelated links
between climate, soil and vegetation. According to him Eco hydrology
examines in which way the physical characteristics of trees and their
forest communities are related at equilibrium with the climate and soils in
which they are found.
One of the main reasons for the unsatisfactory state of water
management issues is the complexity of the time and space scale of the
processes involved in the hydrological cycle. Hydrology can consist of
very small and very fast processes, whose causes may appear in limited
areas over short periods, but the consequences are felt in larger areas
during prolonged periods. These small scale processes exist alongside
global long-lasting geological and other processes which influence the
local hydrological conditions.
The enlarged scope of hydrology brings increased complexity and
interactions with allied sciences, which makes hydrology extremely
dynamic and open to many new and modern initiatives.
A critical difficulty for the future of water resources management is
the integration of different and individual approaches and solutions
coming from different scientific disciplines. Hydrology, with its scientific
and engineering capabilities and experiences, is the most appropriate for
helping this process. Maybe hydrology is not a completely detenninistic
science (as some scientists think) but its leading role in water resources
management is beyond question. However, there are a number of
problems which need to be solved.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROLOGY
Water is at the core of many environmental and developmental
problems today. Falkenmark (1991) states that water functions are
crucial: as a necessity of life on all scales from the cell to the planet; as a
solvent continuously moving above and below the ground surface, and
the water-wetting of the landscape due to partitioning disturbances.
Concern for water as a necessity of life and as a hazard has existed
throughout history. One question is: Is hydrology very old (one of the
oldest of sciences) or is it a new one? Biswas (1972) states that
hydrology is one of the oldest sciences due to the direct relationship
between human beings and the development of civilization. In the
modern sense, hydrology is relatively young. The National Research
Council (1991) stated that over the past 60 years, the evolution of
hydrological science has been in the direction of ever-increasing space
and time scales, from small catchments to large basins and to the Earth
system, and from storm events to seasonal cycles and to climatic trend.
There are many fundamental problems of hydrological science, which
have to be addressed in order to provide the ingredients for solving the
sharpening conflicts between humans and nature.
Modern computer and numerically oriented hydrology uses most of
the new scientific approaches, methods, and technologies such as: the
systems approach, artificial neural networks, fuzzy logic, chaos theory,
fractals, geostatistical methods etc. Klemes (1979) has concluded that
during the past decade, the systems approach to reservoir storage
problems has been heralded as something of a jump from the stone age
of mass-curve analysis into the modern era of science. In reality,
however, no such jump ever occurred. This statement is completely
acceptable for other new initiatives, especially for use of numerical
models in hydrology.
Harte (2002) finds that the main defect of new complex and
sophisticated physical models is their falsifiability. He suggests accepting
Fermi's approach. This means that models that capture the essence of
the problem, but not all the details, might progress science farther.
Perfection is when there is no longer anything to take away, not when
there is no longer anything to add. Harte (2002) as a physicist suggests
a synthesis of the Newtonian and Darwinian worldviews as a promising
concept and he believes that this synthesis could expedite progress in
Earth system science. It seeks no less than a predictive understanding
of the complex system composing organisms, atmosphere, freshwater,
oceans and human society. It builds on the basic disciplines of physics,
biology and chemistry, which provide the foundations of ecology,
climatology, hydrology, oceanography, geology and biogeochemistry.
Why are complex and unfalsiftable models so popular in
hydrology, especially in the development of Global Circulation Models?
The responsibility rests with higher education at universities and with
leading scientific international journals, which report, promote and
advocate this approach. Young scientists often believe that this is the
only real and correct procedure. Experienced and practically oriented
hydrologists, well versed in water resources management process, do
not always share their enthusiasm.
The trouble with models is that human beings choose what to
study and what to ignore, what methods to use in their analyses and
what criteria to apply in determining the validity of the data gathered. In
making such choices and assumptions, scientists inevitably make value
judgments. However, when such value-based assumptions disappear
into the background, they may come to be seen as "natural" and are
uncritically accepted, often without any conscious thought about either
their presence or their implications. This is especially the case when
value-based assumptions are translated into mathematical models (van
Asselt et al, 1996). A definite conclusion is that in the context of
integrated assessment modelling, it is not always possible to avoid
uncertainty and subjectivity (von Asselt et al, 1996). A change in the
direction of post-modern modelling is very necessary.
Progress in hydrology and water resources management is limited
by a lack of data. Hydrological processes are highly variable in space
and time, and this variability exists at all scales, from centimeters to
continental scales, from minutes to years. Data collection over such a
range of scales is difficult and expensive, therefore hydrological models
usually conceptualize processes based on simple, often homogeneous,
models of nature. This forced oversimplification impedes both scientific
understanding and the management of resources (National Research
Council, 1991).
 There is a growing tendency in hydrology to minimize fieldwork.
Investors realize that time is money and there is a no more time-
consuming process than fieldwork. As a result, hydrologists are asked to
solve problems with computer models, remote sensing, and legal
manoeuvres rather than by direct field observation. The quality of their
work suffers enormously. Rodda (1996) states that it is something of a
paradox that, at this time when the global demand for water is rising
faster than ever before, knowledge of the world's water resources is
waning.

CRITICAL TASKS OF HYDROLOGY

The hydrological cycle is a central concept of hydrology. Water
within it is continually flowing, but the problem is that the flux through the
hydrological cycle is not distributed evenly in time and space. This
uneven distribution is one of the main concerns of hydrology and of
water resources management, linking one to the other with strong
bonds. The basic role of hydrology, which is fundamental for water
resources management, is the accurate definition and understanding of
the water balance for different space and time increments. The water
balance equation is, of course, simple. The problem is in its application,
because it has a number of aspects which are not fully understood and
because some basic variables and parameters are poorly measured
and/or not estimated accurately. The improvement of this situation is a
critical task for hydrologists and, at the same time, for water resources
managers. Three matters demand attention in particular.
The determination of the catchment boundaries and the catchment
area is the starting point in many hydrological analyses. These are
among the essential data which serve as a basis for many calculations
for hydrological and water resources management purposes (Bonacci,
1987). In many landscapes, for example in karst and flatlands, this is a
difficult and complex task, which is very often unsolved. Without this
information it is not possible, efficiently and exactly, to make a water
balance, to protect water from pollution, to manage the water resources,
to use hydrological models etc. Generally speaking, the catchment area
defined from surface morphology, i.e. the topographic catchment, rarely
corresponds exactly to the hydrological drainage basin. The differences
between the topographic and hydrological catchments in karst terrain,
are, as a rule, so large that data about the topographic catchment
cannot be used without some explanation. A similar situation exists for
flatlands and for some mountain streams. It should be stressed that
human interventions, especially the construction of dams and reservoirs,
can introduce definite and hardly determined changes of catchment
boundaries. Natural and man-made processes cause changes of
catchment area at different time and space scales. The catchment area
forms the best planning units for land, water, and ecosystem
management. Most catchment areas incorporate state and local
government boundaries, and these different administrative units make
policy forming for water resources management extremely difficult.
The starting point for most hydrological determinations related to
the water balance is knowledge of the amount and distribution of
precipitation with respect to time and space. Precipitation is routinely
measured throughout the world, but obtaining error-free knowledge of its
spatial and temporal distribution is hampered by the diversity of
observing standards and the erratic pattern of observing networks
(National Research Council, 1991). Sevruk (1986) stresses that for
physical reasons, current precipitation assessments are inadequate for
the estimation of the water balance, since they are subject to various
sources of error. Most important is the systematic error of point
precipitation measurement and it is astonishing that this systematic error
is not taken into account by most meteorological services. For the
purposes of the Hydrological Atlas of Switzerland, precipitation depths
were corrected across the country. On average precipitation values were
increased by up to 14%. The corrections range from 4% for flatlands, to
30% for alpine areas with a significant amount of snow. Where water
balances are still computed with uncorrected precipitation values, neither
évapotranspiration nor groundwater volumes can be properly assessed
(Sevruk, 1986).
Evapotranspiration is the combined consumptive-evaporative
process by which water is released to the atmosphere through
vegetation, soil and from a free water surface. It is the concurrent
occurrence of evaporation and transpiration that influences each other;
e.g. soil evaporation is reduced by the occurrence of transpiration.
Actual evapotranspiration can be defined as the evapotranspiration from
a vegetative cover under natural or given conditions for the catchment or
region when the supply of water to plants is limited by the availability of
moisture. Engineers and/or hydrologist are generally interested in the
water-mass balance and not in the consumption of an individual plant.
As evapotranspiration is a complicated process there are several
approaches to its assessment. According to the sphere of interest and
the related discipline it can be analyzed through: (a) Plant physiology
(transpiration ratios and pot tests); (b) Hydrology (water budget applied
to catchments or regions); (c) Climatology (use of atmometers and
pans); (d) Physics (energy budget); (e) Dynamic meteorology (mass
transfer methods); and (f) Statistics (empirical correlation with
meteorological factors). Actual evapotranspiration can be estimated
from: (a) Soil moisture depletion studies on small plots; (b) Tanks and
lysimeter experiments; (c) Groundwater fluctuations and other mass
balance techniques; (d) By means of relationships to pan evaporation;
(e) Soil moisture budgets; and (f) Energy budgets. A number of
evapotranspiration equations are available for application. Some of them
are developed for the potential evapotranspiration determination and
they cannot be used directly for the estimation of a catchment or
regional water balance. The determination of the exact values of the
potential and actual evapotranspiration is essential for the water balance
calculation. The different methods, approaches and equations give very
different and, for engineering practice, unreliable results. The problem is
especially complex for the flatland areas. There is general agreement
that evapotranspiration is the most unreliably assessed variable in
determining the catchment and/or regional water balance.

CONCLUSIONS
One may argue that the real question is: "Is hydrology in crisis?",
and the definitive answer is: "No, hydrology is in the process of turbulent
development". It is on the right tracks, but its route is full of surprising
novelties. However hydrology and hydrologists should not neglect the
basic hydrological problems. Hydrology has to come back to its roots in
order to better understand the ramifications of the hydrological cycle and
to more accurately calculate the water balance. At the same time
hydrology should closely co-operate with other sciences in order to be
better placed to find answers to future challenges. Hydrology had been
and is one of the bases for the development of civilization, but in future
its role should be strengthened. There are various ways of achieving this
strengthening, but no-one understands which is the most direct, correct
and proper way. The concept of trial and error and assiduous
interdisciplinary work on the problems of water resources management
could be helpful. Water resources management has evolved into a
holistic discipline where hydrological, engineering, institutional, and
environmental concerns are inseparably intertwined. Hydrology needs all
kinds of models and modelling, but they are only a useful tool but not a
panacea. The model provides bases upon which participants may apply
professional judgment and a methodology for comparing the relative
effects of different management decisions. As a fundamental science
hydrology can help to bridge the gap between the humanities, science,
and society. This is a very difficult and responsible mission.
The Challenges in water resources Management in the Philippines.

HISTORY:
 Philippines has abundant water resource, has average annual
rainfall about 2500 millimeter.
 The dependable supply is estimated about 126,000 million per
cubic meter per year based on recent assessment.
 The ground safe yield of aquifer covering some 50,000 square
kilometers found extensively in the plains of Three major Islands is
estimated at 20,200 per year.
 1995 it become critical resources, only 69% of the total populations
has access to safe water drinking.
 2000, it successfully improving access to adequate sanitation has
been even more elusive, sanitation coverage is 75%, and below
the baseline of 74.9% on 1991.
 Agricultural as a whole is greater consumer of water, however
44% of potential irrigable area of 3.16 million hectares are being
irrigated, because of insufficient water irrigation.
 The people especially the poor are often forced to exploit the
environment because of their need for food and water that resulted
to environment deterioration.

Challenges to Water Resources Management

 Has holistic approach in addressing the inherently interrelated
issues of development and management planning,
implementation, and operation, demand management, pollution
control, and watershed and groundwater protection,
 The water pricing policy undervalues the water as a scarce
resource.
 The major constraints and challenges in promoting effective
water resource management are discuss.
 WEAK INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Fragmented management
One of the most critical issues confronting the Philippine water
sector is the lack of an appropriate institutional framework to address
issues of development and management of water and related resources.
At present, there are over 30 government agencies and departments
separately dealing with water supply, irrigation, hydropower, flood
control, pollution, watershed management, etc. It is this fragmented
approach to water management bringing about an overlap of work and
conflicts among agencies that result in fractional water management
plan that does not adequately meet the requirements for sustainability.
Many projects are being implemented in many cases without considering
the interactions between hydrological and economic system, thus,
resulting in inefficient resource use, economic and social losses, and
environmental degradation.
Despite the promulgation of the Water Code and the creation of
the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) in 1974 to coordinate the
activities of water resources agencies, the goal of integrated water
resources management is still far from being a reality.

Lack of water allocation formula

Most of the problems encountered in the water sector today arise
from an issue of conflicts of use and water allocation. With the increase
of population coupled with worsening pollution of water, lack of
infrastructure and facilities and dry spell causing water shortages
regularly in many areas resulting in allocation issues and conflicting
rights over the limited water supply. The principle in the Water Code of
"first in time priority in right" may no longer be an equitable approach in
resolving such conflicts. Current allocation procedure is insufficient to
cover all aspect of water allocation such as economic aspect.
In view of the growing scarcity of the country’s water resources
and the felt need for effective measures to resolve water shortages and
improve water use, consideration of an alternative approach using a
system of tradable water rights has been advocated. The institution of a
tradable water rights regime requires the establishment of a secure
property right to water. Under such regime, the water rights should be
sold freely at negotiated prices to any one for any purpose. However, the
Water Code imposes restrictions, which essentially weakens the
property right associated with the water right.
While the lease or transfer of water rights is explicitly allowed by
the Code, such lease or transfer is restricted for the same beneficial
purpose for which the water rights is granted as required under Article 12
of the Code. Although the potential advantages of promoting water
markets have been recognized, the necessary cultural, legal and
institutional elements are not yet in place.
NWRB is the sole authority that allocates water rights for various
uses. However, the basic structure of NWRB is the major setback to the
effective discharge of its functions.

Weak water use regulation and enforcement

The investigation and processing of water permit applications constitute
the type functions for which NWRB is not properly equipped in terms of
either manpower of resources. Besides, deputation of such functions to
other government agencies has not proven satisfactory. Moreover, the
capability of NWRB to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions
of the permit, which it grant is very limited owing to lack of manpower
and budgetary constraints for travel-to-site expenses.
Enforcement of the provisions of the Water Code is lacking owing
to resource constraints. Investigation of cases involving violations of the
conditions of the permit is often left to the discretion of the deputized
agents. In many cases, directives of NWRB are ignored since it does not
have "enforcement powers" to exact compliance with those directives.

Outdated framework plans and research

For the past years, the national government has steadfastly pursued its
dedication to developing a regime of efficient water resources
management system. There had also several studies of paramount
impact to the sector such as the framework plans that are expected to
provide the implementing agencies with a better appreciation of the
problems outside their individual sector. The plans would also serve as a
mechanism for developing joint projects by concerned agencies. They
could also serve as a basis for well-coordinated agencies, even if they
are undertaken as separate projects by the different agencies. However,
these plans require updating from time to time but very little effort is
directed to the commissioning of similar studies and research.

Economic Pricing
The existing water pricing system in the country does not reflect the
realities of scarcity or abundance of water with minimal attention on
economic value of water. Consequently, it does not serve the function of
allocating the scarce resource to the most productive users and does not
provide economic incentive for efficient use and conservation of water.
It is well accepted that the proper pricing of raw water is one way
of resolving a number of problems in the sector. The proper pricing of
raw water will 1) result to more efficient allocation of water; 2) encourage
conservation of water; and 3) greater efforts in the part of suppliers to
reduce non-revenue water. Pricing water, if implemented and enforced
fairly and equitably, would generate revenues that could be used for
sector improvement. Policy changes of this nature will be difficult to
implement mainly because of political opposition based on fear that
prices to poorer families and irrigation farmers will increase. Adverse
public reaction is expected and the perception of political weakness of
the government will ensue on account of public resistance.
The basic dilemma facing government is that a change is needed
from viewing water as a free or public good to an economic good where
it has a price. Such concepts are difficult for elected executives to accept
specially in circumstances where 3 constituents enjoy free water.
Specifically, policy changes have not been enacted due to the following
reasons:
- Lack of will to change;
- Difficulties in selling the concept to consumers and businesses;
- Lack of technical capabilities to design and implement such
policy reforms; and
- Political difficulties under the current institutional and regulatory
environment
 DISPARITIES BETWEEN WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
 Limited water resources and their spatial and temporal
distribution
Although the Philippines is endowed with abundant water
resources, the distribution of these resources varies widely in
time and place as result of the different geographic and
climate conditions prevailing in different parts of the country.
Several factors and processes affect local and regional water
resources. Human activities, in particular, influence the
hydrological cycle through change of water and land use. In
recent years, the issue of climate change due to human
activities posed a major concern to water managers, planners
and policy makers.
 Inefficient water use
A major concern at present is not only water scarcity but also
inefficient management of existing projects. Most of the
existing water supply projects are inadequately managed, as
characterized by low service efficiency resulting in supply
deficiencies to meet the water demand. In addition,
tremendous waste of water in distribution lines, irrigation
canals and at homes. Inefficiency in water usage was
exacerbated by the absence of regulations, economic
incentives and institutional arrangements needed to promote
water conservation and rational use of water
 Lack of data
The established observation stations for meteorological,
hydrological, and geological and water quality monitoring are
not sufficient in quantity and location. In the Philippines, the
water resources data re being collected and processed by
various concerned agencies and kept in their independent
database. The absence of reliable water resources
information system diminishes the capacity of concerned
authorities to make difficult water allocation decisions.
 Environmental degradation/water- related disasters
Most of the watersheds in the Philippines are in critical
conditions as manifested from recent and recurring calamities
 such as flashfloods in Southern Leyte and Northern Mindanao
and greater frequency of El Niño in Luzon that reduces the
water levels in dams.
To address problems on watershed degradation, many
environmental lost were enacted such as Forestry Reform
Code, Water Codes, Provincial Water Utilities Act, NIPAS Act
and Water Crisis Act. These laws, however, constitute on a
partial, implicit framework, which fail to address key areas of
watershed management.
Water quality in the country has been impaired severely owing
the population growth and misuse of water and land. Domestic
sewage contributed approximately 52 percent of the
population load, while industry contributes the remaining 48
percent. The steadily increasing water pollution could
seriously compromise the country’s capability to provide
adequate supplies of good quality water domestic, agriculture
and industrial use.
 Partial access of water
The management of water as critical resources shall be done
in a sustainable manner taking into account the needs of the
present and future generations. In this respect, sustainable
management of water resources shall take into consideration
the principles that water resources management shall be
decentralized, participatory and community based and
conducted at the lowest appropriate level. It is also recognized
that women play a central part in the provision, management
and safeguarding of water resources and shall be represented
in decision-making process with regard to water resources
management.

Creation of River Basin Organization

It is typical for IWRM to be undertaken in a river basins context
because river basin or, in cases groundwater basins, from the natural unit
to manage water resources. There have been earlier efforts in the
Philippines at regional and basin planning for which the corresponding
institutions were established. Some ceased their operation, because the
agencies were abolished due to the following reasons:
- Insufficient funding support
- Lack of adequately trained staff
- Lack of political will to exercise their board powers and authority
effectively
- Insufficient authority to exercise the general mandate of basin
authority: and being undertaken by events that gave premium to
sub sector agencies to implement the programs and project
within the area of the jurisdiction of their basin authorities
Nothing increasing human population growth, urbanization,
industrialization and food production as we move into the 21st
century, the need for a comprehensive river basin or groundwater
aquifer-scale integrated management program is more critical than
ever. Because of this, the government is now again bent in pursuing
the river basin management approach and would therefore need
advice on approaches and capacity building to strengthen the
existing river basin organization.

Towards effective water resources management

The water resources sector continues to address policy and
operational gaps in water resources management to ensure adequate
water supply. The national water Forum held on March 22, 2004 called for
the immediate adoption and subsequent implementation of the integrated
water resources management framework, seeking to change the existing
water-based development- planning paradigm into a more rational,
integrative and total approach. The government pushed for the
strengthening of a working commitment toward a more-ranging course of
action to effectively deal with the country’s water related issues. The
imperatives need to dovetail all water resources management initiatives
include the river basin approach, supply optimization, demand
management, equitable access of water, improved policy regulatory and
institutional frameworks, and inter-sectorial approach.
REALITIES OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES:
SYNTHESIS OF CASE STUDY
(Herminia A. Francisco and Agnes C. Rola)
(DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2004-24)

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a synthesis of four case studies of watershed
management experiences in the Philippines, primarily to provide insight
on why watershed management approach has not gained wider
recognition in the country despite being renowned internationally. A brief
description was presented for each case study involving the watersheds
of Maasin, Magat, Manupali, and Balian sub-watershed to account for
their critical role as water supply support systems to downstream
communities. It provides highlights on various initiatives undertaken by
the Local government Units, NGOs, private sector etc. in their effort to
protect these watersheds from environmental degradation. The case
studies have shown that that the effective implementation of watershed
management requires some level of financial capital, a community or
group of communities with good enough level of intellectual and social
capitals, and the presence of a legal and institutional framework to
support the watershed approach. The level of these various forms of
capital vary across watershed, thereby leading to differences in the level
of watershed management implementation as well. The study also puts
forward the need for payments of environmental services as previous
initiatives undertaken by national forest protection programs and other
community-based livelihood activities and reforestation projects are just
short-lived management initiatives.
INTRODUCTION
This paper puts together the results of four case studies on
watershed management in the Philippines. The case studies were
carried out to assess why the watershed management approach, while
fully supported by policy pronouncements in the national and
international scene, is not taking place on a wider scale. The case study
focused on the elements that are present or absent in the various
watersheds—as they affect the implementation of watershed
management approach. These elements are categorized into legal &
institutional infrastructure, social capital, financial/economic capital and
technical & administrative capital of the watershed managers (Figure 1).
The legal and institutional infrastructure provides the legal or
legislative basis to support the management of the natural resource
areas following the ecosystem approach--in this case, by manageable
watershed units. The term ‘manageable’ is critical in the identification of
the planning unit as watershed size varies widely from less than a
hundred hectares to several thousand hectares. The bigger watersheds
are commonly referred to as river basins while the smaller units, are
sometimes called, sub-watersheds or micro-watersheds. The river basin
is divided into multitudes of watersheds. Under ideal situation—the
various watersheds that make up the river basin should be managed in
ways that protect the overall integrity of the river basin—but this ideal
system may be hard to achieve, especially if large portions of the river
basins are already degraded or beyond repair.
Given limited resources and the many watersheds that need
attention, priority is generally given to what are considered as critical
watersheds. Several criteria define what constitute a critical watershed
but the most important criterion —being the support that the watershed
provides to downstream communities—such as irrigation water users,
domestic water consumers, hydroelectric companies, or combinations
thereof. Indeed, the important role of the watershed as a ‘water supply
support system’ has always been the driving force in the urgency to put
these watersheds under appropriate management.
Watershed management requires various forms of resources or
capital to support the activities that ‘natural resource management’
entails. The task is made more challenging by the fact that most of these
watersheds have already been turned into settlement areas. The
institutional capital includes political (local government unit--LGU)
support to the whole idea of pushing for the watershed-based water
resource management strategy. The LGU support should come from the
political units closest to the watersheds—which usually consist of the
municipalities and barangays that are found within the watershed, both
those living in the uplands and in the downstream areas. The creation of
watershed management council or task forces is also an important
institutional infrastructure that could help implement watershed
management initiatives. This council is important given that there are
various interest groups found in the watershed, some of them having
conflicting interests on the resources found therein—and hence, would
have different perspectives on how the watershed shall be managed. In
some cases, the institutions may simply include different user groups
and coalition of said groups—but whatever forms they take—for as long
as they share the same goal of achieving watershed protection—then,
the watershed management strategy has a good chance of succeeding.
Closely linked to institutional capital is social capital—which
roughly refers to collective action by local community members who live
and/or affected by the state of the environment in the watershed. They
include both the upstream communities and the downstream
communities that are made up of the household sector, industries and
commercial establishments, and other interest groups in the area.
Without the support of these various groups of people—it is difficult to
foresee a situation wherein efforts to protect the watershed would
succeed. By collective action, we mean active involvement in watershed
protection efforts, either through direct involvement in carrying out the
various activities or through financial support to these undertakings. The
participation of the people as partners in resource management is
sought for.
Looking at the people who are directly involved in the management
tasks—it is clearly important that they should be equipped with some
forms of intellectual capital such as the technical skills necessary in
watershed management and the required supporting administrative
skills. If the capability of the resource managers is short of what the
minimum requirement is—then, the success of watershed management
initiatives is under threat.
Finally, the building up of the various forms of capital just
described requires financial resources. Technical capability building
requires investment of training on the various aspects of watershed
management. Administrative and financial skills require separate training
programs that also would entail financial resources. The various efforts
to mobilize peoples support, through information, education, and
communication (IEC) efforts, advocacy programs, training and meetings,
and many others all entail cash outlays. Ultimately-the site development
activities such as reforestation, agro-forestry development, assisted
natural regeneration and construction of needed infrastructures –all
entail financial outflows. The money has to come from somewhere—and
in the Philippines as in other developing countries—they mostly come
from external sources like development and/or environment programs.
But other sources do exist as well, such as the national governments,
LGUs, Non-government organizations, and even communities.

The analysis focuses in identifying the presence or absence of the

above-mentioned elements in the four watersheds that were analyzed
for this report. This synthesis starts with a brief description of the four
watersheds. The analysis of the watershed management experiences
was then presented in relation to the various elements shown in Figure
1. The concluding section sums up some recommendations on how
watershed management approach may be promoted in natural resource
management of the country.

Brief Profiles of the Case Study Watersheds

The Magat Watershed

Among the four cases studied, the Magat case is the biggest
covering 234,824 hectares and is located in portions of Nueva Viscaya,
Quirino, and Isabela provinces in Northern Philippines. It provides water
to the Magat multi-purpose dam for various uses such as hydroelectric
power generation, irrigation, flood control, domestic water supply and
other water uses. In terms of capacity, the Magat dam could store 1.08
billion cubic meter of water that could irrigate 950 hectares of farmlands
and generate 360 megawatts of power. The Magat River is the main
tributary for the Magat Dam but it also receives water from the Santa
Cruz, Santa Fe, and Marang Rivers.
 Of the total land area, 30% are declared alienable and disposable,
with 70% classified as forestlands. Forested portions of the Magat
watershed are under the control of four institutions. The Lower Magat
Forest Reserve (24,241 hectares) is under co-management of the local
government unit of Nueva Viscaya and the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR). The 60,431 hectare
ImunganCabanglasan Sub watershed is under the DENR. The Dupax
watershed (424.8 hectares) is also managed by DENR while the 439-ha
Barobbod Watershed was devolved to the LGU. The 1998 Landsat TM
Imageries revealed that majority of the land cover are grasslands.
Despite large portions of the area under cultivation, the biodiversity and
endemicity of wildlife are still considered high in portions of the
watershed.
Given these situations—sedimentation of the Magat Dam is a
serious problem. The sedimentation problem was aggravated by the
1990 earthquake. Sediment volume increased from 7.4 million cubic
meters to 213 million from 1982 to 2000. Forty one percent of the area is
suffering from slight erosion and 27%, with severe erosion.
The watershed population as of May 2001 was 483,411 with
Nueva Viscaya accounting for 76% of the total population.

The Manupali Watershed

The Manupali watershed in Bukidnon forms part of the Upper
Pulangi River Basin, and also of the Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park,
where its headwater lies. Sixty percent of the land area of the Manupali
watershed is occupied by the Municipality of Lantapan, and the
remaining 40%, is found in Valencia. The Lantapan occupies the upland
portion of the watershed while Valencia is in the low lying area. Since
the critical part of the watershed is the upland areas—most of the
watershed management initiatives have been concentrated in the
Lantapan portion of the watershed.
There are 220 streams in the Manupali watershed that traverse
636,000 meters and drains to some 40,000 hectares of agricultural
lands. The lands that make up the watershed are delineated into
alienable and disposable lands and forestlands. In terms of land use, a
significant part of the area is under intensive agricultural cultivation. In
Lantapan, for instance, 54% of the land area is devoted to agriculture.
Based on analysis of situations in four sub-watersheds in
Lantapan, it was established that both water quality and quantity are
degrading through time (Deutsch and Oprecio 2004), and this was found
to be caused by soil erosion and by human waste contamination.

The Maasin Watershed

The Maasin watershed is a 6,150 hectare land-area that forms part
of the Tigum-Aganan watershed; it is headwater source of the Metro
Iloilo Water District (MIWD) that supplies the water requirements of Iloilo
City. This part of the Tigum-Aganan watershed has been the subject of
early site development efforts on account of its critical role to the water
supply of the City. The birth of the Iloilo Watershed Management Council
in 2000 formalizes the need to manage all the watersheds of the
province of Iloilo, to avert the impending water supply problem. The
Maasin watershed falls under the Tigum-aganan watershed, and is
governed by a watershed management board. The Tigum-Aganan
Watershed in turn is 29,700 hectares in size, 10,400 hectares of which is
located in the Aganan watershed and the rest (19,300 hectares) falls
under the Tigum watershed. In terms of land classification, there are
11,250 hectares of forestlands within the watershed and 18,250
hectares of alienable and disposable land. The forest vegetation covers
only 4,000 hectares however, with brush lands consisting of 19,500
hectares. Rice paddies were estimated at 1,700 hectares while areas
devoted to other crops come to around 4,100 hectares.
The entire Tigum-Aganan watershed is home to eight (8)
municipalities and one city, namely: Maasin, Cabatuan, Sta. Barbara,
Pavia, Leon, Alimodian, San Miguel, Oton, and Iloilo City. Of these,
three are upland watershed: Maasin, Leon, and Alimodian. Together,
they account for 23% of the watershed population. Some 309 barangays
are found inside the Tigum-Aganan Watershed.
Balian, Pangil Sub watershed
The smallest watershed included in the four case studies is the
31hectare forest watershed found in the Barangay of Balian, municipality
of Pangil. This area is located at the slopes of the Sierra Madre
Mountains and is inhabited by 4,712 people comprising of 1,100
households by the year 2000. Most of the inhabitants reside along the
coastal area situated along the national highway. Rice cultivation is
common in the downstream areas while the uplands are devoted to
planting of coconuts, bananas, citrus, coffee, fruit crops, root crops and
bamboo cultivation. Portions of the uplands are also covered by cogon
grass (Imperata cylindrical), which was previously forested areas. Some
remnants of secondary growth forest still remains with indigenous forest
plant species such as rattan, giant fern, edible fern and others. Forest
tree species comprising of narra, mahogany, and acacia are also found
in the area which are planted by the community in efforts to protect the
watershed areas. The water supply of the community comes from this
watershed; hence, this is considered an important resource by the
people.

Watershed Management Experiences in the Case Study Sites

Magat Watershed Experience

The case analysis carried out by Elazegui and Combalicer (2004)
provided the basis for the discussion in this section.
The important role of the Magat watershed to Region 2 residents
and to the Nueva Viscaya folks in particular, since 97% of the watershed
belongs to this province, has led to massive inflow of financial and
technical support to the watershed. The inflow of these resources was
made possible through various government programs with funding
provided by external actors, both financial institutions like the OECF in
Japan and the Asian Development Bank and Conservation
Organizations like the Conservation International.
The Magat watershed was declared a forest reserve in 1969
through Proclamation 573. Control of portions of the area has been
granted to different institutions, like the NIA, which is given the authority
to manage, develop, protect, and maintain the Casecnan River
Watershed Forest Reserve and the Pantabangan-Carranglan Watershed
in Nueva Ecija. DENR retains control over all land clearing and timber
cutting activities in the area. There are also portions of the area under
the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) on account of
the presence of indigenous cultural communities in some upland areas.
Finally, joint management of the watershed between the LGU and the
DENR was formalized through the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA)
between the two parties. In 1997, small watershed management areas
where established in each municipality through similar MoA between the
municipal LGU and the DENR. This demonstrates the operationalization
of the devolution of authority dictated by the National Government.
In terms of watershed management initiatives, the DENR with
funding from JICA has recently completed the Master Plan for watershed
Management in the Upper Magat and Cagayan River Basin. Data to
support said master planning came from pilot studies that were
conducted in 880,000 hectares of these two watersheds. The Plan
provides recommended watershed management initiatives in the Upper
Magat watershed to effect an improvement in the biophysical conditions
of the area and also of the living conditions of the people therein. It also
recommends a system of water pricing to generate resources that will
support the LGU’s efforts in watershed management. Implementation
cost of said Plan was estimated at PhP 573.3 million. No such funding
has been committed yet for the watershed.
Nonetheless, there were several projects already implemented in
the area with funding from the national government through the DENR
and the LGU allocations, international organizations like the Asian
Development Bank through the Forestry Sector Project, and the
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), and other government
organizations like the National Power Corporations (NPC) and the
National Irrigation Administration (NIA). In terms of fund commitment,
DENR has a yearly allocation of PhP2.6 million for natural forest
protection and PhP1.6 million for soil and water conservation measures.
The NIA and NPC also allot portion of their budget for watershed
protection1 of the headwater since water supply is critical to their
agencies’ mandate. The DENR has also implemented several
reforestation projects in the area and has also areas covered by the
Integrated Social Forestry Program and the Community-based Forest
Management Program. Overall, however, the implementation of a
comprehensive management plan is still lacking and is something that
needs to be pursued in the years to come. In addition, a unified
management structure of the whole watershed can rationalize the funds
and programs that have evolved in the area.
The implementation of watershed management initiatives in this
area depended substantially on the intellectual capital of those involved
in direct implementation of these various watershed initiatives. To this
end, the Nueva VIscaya State Institute of Technology (NVSIT) has
played a key role in providing technical support to said efforts and also in
providing both formal and non-formal training on watershed
management. The DENR units based in the area, such as the PENRO
and the CENRO have capable staff with watershed or forest
management training. Even NIA and NPC maintain their own watershed
management units. It would appear that the intellectual capital of those
involved directly in the management of Magat watershed is relatively
high. How to harness this for successful watershed management plan
implementation remains a challenge.
The important role of the local government unit in mobilizing social
support and generating financial capital for the watershed is important.
This proved to an important element in the Magat watershed where
comanagement of the area by the LGU and DENR is in effect. This
scheme came about because the LGU declares it wants to be involved
actively in protecting the watershed. Since 80% of the area belong to the
Nueva Viscaya government—this interest is not really surprising but
speaks highly of the commitment of the LGU in natural resource
management. The LGU liaise with the people groups and the private
sector in getting their support to help in watershed management
initiatives—most particularly, on the social and livelihood issues.
Specifically, it provided capability building activities to empower peoples’
organizations and worked on linking these groups to entrepreneurs
through livelihood projects. There are 18 Pos who belong to the Upland
Farmers’ Federation and these groups, with membership ranging from
25 to 207, have been participating in Magat watershed management
initiatives. Thus, collective action is present. Through these groups, in
collaboration with the LGU and the DENR, the Barobbod watershed
within the Magat Watershed has been a recipient of the Galing Pook
Award of Excellence in 1999, as one of the 10 outstanding CBFM
programs in the country. The LGU has also pioneered tree planting
activities in open areas—both in the uplands and in the lowlands through
its “tree for legacy’ program. This program has resulted in the greening
of Nueva Viscaya and is a tremendous success. There are other projects
spearheaded by the LGU in this watershed—and these demonstrated
the important role that ‘champions’ like the Provincial LGU could play in
managing the country’s watersheds.
Still, there are problems along the way that tend to slow down
effective implementation of watershed projects in Magat. These include:
a) conflict and disputes over land and water resources among various
stakeholders; b) weak and unsustained support of civil societies and
relevant stakeholders to some initiatives; c) limited technical capacity of
the LGU to manage the watershed, and d) unclear and sometimes
conflicting policies that make it difficult to implement the watershed
management approach in natural resource setting.
The Manupali Watershed Experience As described in the case
study report of Rola, Sumbalan and Suminguit (2004), the Manupali
watershed forms part of a bigger watershed- the Upper Pulangi
Watershed, with headwaters emanating from the Mt. Kitanglad Range
Nature Park (MKRNP). The latter is a 40,176 hectare Protected Area
Park that covers the North-Central portion of Bukidnon. The Upper
Pulangi has an area of 296,153 hectares. There is yet no clear linkage
between the management of Manupali watershed and the bigger Upper
Pulangi watershed. Seven of the fourteen barangays in Lantapan are
under the management jurisdiction of the MKRNP. Lantapan LGU works
closely with the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) of the
MKRNP in the management of these upland areas (termed the buffer
zone) now used for intensive agriculture. In addition to the PAMB, which
is the governing body for the MKRNP, and the LGU of Bukidnon,
through the BWPDC, a significant portion of the area is under the control
of the indigenous communities. For Lantapan, this group consists of the
Tala-andig, headed by Datu Saway.
For Lantapan, in particular, the Municipality LGU has created the
Municipal Technical Working Group for Watershed Management and
Development. The composition consists of 10 members consists of LGU
representatives, DENR, NGOs, and other stakeholders in the area. This
group is responsible for the Comprehensive Watershed Management
Plan for Lantapan. It has recently completed the drafting of a municipal
watershed management plan—which focuses on the activities geared
towards the management of production forest and the agricultural lands
and water resources found in the area. Prior to the drafting of said plan,
however, Lantapan has been recipient of many development and forest
management initiatives on account of the important role that their area
plays in the whole Manupali watershed. The major players have been
the DENR, Department of Agriculture, LGUs, NGOs, POs and even the
banana plantation companies found in the area. The watershed
management efforts included: a) agro-forestry program for small-scale
farmers, b) protection of river banks through bamboo planting, c) and
various IEC initiatives to make people aware of the importance of the
watershed. The area has also been the project site of the SANREM
project—which provided training on some aspects of watershed
management and water quality assessment, along with community
organizing efforts to enhance awareness on the need to manage the
natural resources using the landscape-lifescape approach that is
consistent with watershed management approach. The World Agro-
forestry Center (also known as ICRAF) has also several demonstration
sites on soil conservation practices. Lantapan has yet to activate the
Lantapan Watershed Management Council, a policy-making body that
will oversee the various management activities. The presence of the
municipal environment and natural resources office (MENRO) could
greatly facilitate the coordination of these upper Manupali watershed
activities. But, MENRO is an optional provision according to the LGC,
and poor upland municipalities like Lantapan cannot afford this office for
the moment.
The budgetary requirement of the Lantapan Watershed
Management Plan is estimated to be PhP4.7 million annually—part of
which could come from the provincial LGU’s PhP 14.97 million
appropriations for the watershed management in year 2004.
The Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park (MKRNP), on the other
hand,was one of the 10 protected areas that received funding from the
World Bank-GEF through the Conservation of Priority Protected Areas
Project (CPPAP). The funding lasted for seven years, starting in 1994.
The project infused PhP6.9 million for the creation of non-destructive
livelihood activities and PhP12 million for production-related activities.
After the life of the CPPAP, the LGU has allocated PhP2.6 million in
2002 for watershed management activities. In 2004, the Protected Area
Management Board (PAMB) has launched a fund-raising campaign and
has obtained PhP48 million worth of commitment from the private
companies over the next 20 years. Whether this amount is sufficient is
yet to be determined but kind of commitment happens along the line of
environmental service payments scheme. How to make this amount
available to those providing watershed protection and how to make other
water users pay remains a challenge as well.
In terms of intellectual capital—the CPPAP has provided the
PAMB with the opportunities to exercise their management skills. The
project also resulted in the creation of the Protected Area
Superintendent (PASu) office which directly supervised the day-to-day
management of the protected area—this is currently headed by an
experienced forester. At the Lantapan municipality—a staff of PENRO is
assigned to deal with natural resource management issues in the area.
The fact that this job is a temporary assignment made it difficult for the
person to perform with utmost efficiency. Still, it is a major limitation that
Lantapan has no municipal environmental office, which is something
really needed in the area, as earlier mentioned.
The Bukidnon Watershed Provincial Development Council
(BWPDC) provides training opportunities for the different technical
working groups who are engaged in watershed management efforts. So
far, these working groups have received training on watershed
management, resource management appraisal, resource management
analysis, technical writing, and others. The presence of the Central
Mindanao University, through it College of Forestry, has also facilitated
the transfer of technical skills to those directly involved in watershed
management. There exists several national and local laws that affect
the Manupali watershed (see Rola, Sumbalan, and Suminguit, 2004).
These laws provide the sound basis for protecting the environment and
define appropriate land uses and recommended practices for the
protection of the watershed. The laws on said topic are not wanting—as
far as watershed management is concerned. At the national level, the
link of the watershed to water resources needs further clarification,
however, since watershed concern falls under different agencies while
water resource concerns, to another.
While it would seem that there are financial capital made available
to the area for watershed management efforts and more committed to it
in the years to come—these may not be adequate and efforts to link
payments to provision of environmental services still need to be worked
out. Proper pricing of water to reflect watershed function service of the
forest needs to be implemented. Also, the intellectual capital for
Lantapan is very much wanting since there is no designated municipal
environment officer. This is necessary in the strengthening of the
management structure at the municipal level. Because agriculture is the
main land use in the upper reaches of the Manupali, there is a need to
have more training on sustainable agricultural practices of the municipal
staff.

The Maasin Watershed Experience

The question on whether the natural resource management is
being governed by the ecological unit-defined by the watershed seems
to be a non-issue in this particular case—as the watershed-water linkage
has clearly been established in the early 1990s when the water crisis
was felt in Iloilo City (Francisco and Salas, 2004). The ensuing
information, education, and communication (IEC) campaigns undertaken
by the Metro Ilo-ilo Water District and the Kahublagan Sang Panimalay
Foundation promoted the ‘think watershed’ theme and is something that
is still being continuously promoted by Kahublagan, even at the present
time. It seems safe to assume that there is a high level of acceptance of
the watershedbased management approach in the Maasin Watershed
and the bigger Tigum-Aganan watershed, under which Maasin forms the
upland portion.
The 1991 Local Government Code (LGC) or Republic Act (RA)
7160 provides the legal basis for local governance of the country’s
natural resources—including its watershed. Supported by this
legislation, the Iloilo Watershed Management Council (IWMC), a multi-
sectoral local body created by the Iloilo provincial local government was
created through an ordinance to put into action the provisions of the
LGC. The council is responsible for the conservation, development,
protection, and utilization of the 15 watersheds in the Province of Iloilo.
To carry out this task, the IWMC is empowered to form watershed
boards for each specific watersheds or cluster of watersheds. To date,
three watershed boards are already created (Tigum Aganan Watershed
Management Board; Magapa-Suage Watershed Management Council;
and Sibalom Watershed Management Board) with a fourth, coming up
soon—Barotac Nuevo River watershed council.
It is also important to note that the Watershed Management Plan is
already integrated in the municipality’s Annual Investment Plan and
Annual Development Plan. This link ensures that the plans for the
watersheds now become part of the regular programs of the
municipalities that comprise the watershed.
From all indications therefore, one could only conclude that there
is a full acceptance among the local government units at all levels that
their natural resources should be managed with the watershed as the
relevant ecological unit. This was manifested in the creation of the
watershed management council and the various watershed boards who
are responsible in putting into action this approach of natural resource
management.
The watershed communities can be divided into two broad groups:
upland communities and lowland communities. The former are either
living within the watershed or/or cultivating farms therein and/or
collecting forest resources found within the forested portion of the
watershed. The lowland communities are those whose stake to the
watershed comes in the form of the environmental services, e.g. water
supply and ecological functions, derived there from.
The water crisis experienced in Iloilo City in the early 1990s has
made possible the high level of awareness among the lowland
communities on the importance of protecting the watersheds to support
their water supply. They have felt the problem and have responded by
participating in various tasks undertaken in watershed management
efforts in the watershed in the early 1990s. The social capital that was
formed in those early efforts to protect the watershed was harnessed
through the continuing IEC program carried out by Kahublagan Sang
Panimalay Foundation. The high level of social capital translates more
concretely to the formation of some ---Barangay Information Centers
(BICs), which are the front runners in implementing various programs in
support of watershed management.
What about the upland communities? The funding provided by the
Forestry Sector Project for the rehabilitation of the Maasin watershed
included a 2-year funding for community organizing (CO) efforts. The
efforts included building capacity to undertake cooperative endeavors,
harnessing inter-personal relationship among the members, and
provision of managerial and technical skills to undertake reforestation
activities and management of the field-level activities. The results are the
formation of several people’s organizations in the various upland
communities surrounding the Maasin watershed and their coalition into
the KAPAWA. Overall, therefore, one can say there are strong social
capital and intellectual capital that have already been put up for the
Maasin Watershed—and these capitals can be tapped to spread the
efforts of watershed management to the bigger Tigum-Aganan
watershed.
The building up of social and intellectual capital, and to some
extent the supporting institutional structures for watershed management
was made possible by the infusion of large financial resources that were
made available for the management of Maasin Watershed. The major
source of funds was the DENR Forestry Project funded by the OECF
and the ADB. Around PhP50 million of project funds were expended for
site development activities in Maasin and the supporting Community
Organizing Efforts. The Local Government, the NGO, the Metro Iloilo
water district, other government agencies like the Regional Development
Council chaired by NEDA, and various groups of civil societies have all
contributed in the effort to reforest the degraded portion of the
watershed.
What have the various watershed management initiatives achieved
by the end of all these massive cash infusion? An investigation of the
change in vegetative cover in the area seems to indicate substantial
progress in land rehabilitation efforts. The fact that social capital has
been enhanced and the intellectual capital of the upland communities
have improved—also tend to indicate success of the project. However,
there are indications or early signs that the gains achieved from the
various watershed management initiatives could not be sustained if no
serious efforts to protect the area will be made. In particular, the
communities who were involved in site development activities and forest
protection are no longer receiving income from the DENR-OECF forestry
project. The project has lapsed and so is the funding. While training for
livelihood activities were provided and some livelihood projects were put
up—very few are involved in these projects. The limited employment
opportunities in the area do not help improve the situation. Without other
source of income—it is not surprising that the upland communities who
were tapped to undertake the site development activities will be tempted
to tap on the forest resources for additional source of income. Surely,
serious efforts to protect the gains from past investments through
continuing watershed protection are the main challenge confronting the
Maasin Watershed. To address this problem—the provision of service
payments to community members who will undertake watershed
protection seems the only logical step. In the same vein, the
beneficiaries of watershed protection efforts—particularly, the water
consumers—households, industries, and agriculture, should be made to
pay for the watershed services that watershed protection produce. When
beneficiaries are made to realize that continuous provision of high
quality water at the desired quantity—has a cost and is of value to
them—then, environment payment scheme is a natural thing to do.

The Experiences with Community-led Watershed-Based Water

Resources Management in Balian, Pangil, Laguna

The Balian Forest Reserve has the smallest land area, of the four
case study watershed areas. Interestingly, however, it is probably the
area which has the oldest history in managing watershed for the water
resources it provides. The study by Contreras (2004) pointed out that as
early as 1925, the community members of Balian have formed
themselves into the Samahan ng Balian para sa Pagpapauwi ng Tubig,
Inc. (SBPTI). The goal of this association is the management of the
water system that is sourced from a spring within a small watershed in
the Sierra Madre Range. The authority to manage the water system was
secured from the Municipal council of Pangil.
The major threat to the watershed managed by SBPTI happened
in the 1960-1970 period caused by the entry of commercial logging
operations in the area. As a consequence of the alteration in forest
cover, the people have begun experiencing a reduction in water supply
in the 1980s. This event has triggered various watershed protection
efforts, with the assistance provided by an NGO—known as the
Southern Tagalog Regional Action Program (STRAP). Among the first
efforts in this area is the declaration of the 50-meter radius buffer zone in
all water sources—which was subsequently expanded to 100 meters,
through a municipal ordinance. A review of the experiences of the
SBPTI indicates that the community has always been supported by legal
mandates in carrying watershed protection activities.
However, the passage of the local government code—has armed
the Local Barangay Council (LBC) to take over control of the waterworks
system of Balian. The LBC must have meant well as it attempted to
improve the waterworks system through JICA funding but this failed due
to non-compliance with project designs. What the LBC failed to achieve,
the SBPTI rectified immediately when it demonstrated that it could
undertake the improvement in waterworks through contributions and
volunteerism of its members. Indeed, this action demonstrated the
strong social capital in the SBPTI and its commitment to protect the
source of its waters. The relationship of SBPTI and LBC remains
problematic on this matter.
It is worth mentioning that SBPTI is joined by other groups—local
fisher folks, upland farmers, STRAP, and GOs like DENR and DA in its
efforts to carry out reforestation and protection activities in the 100-meter
buffer zone of all springs in the area. The NGO-STRAP was
instrumental in providing technical training on forest and watershed
management aspects. In fact, it has helped in the formation of the
Lingap Kalikasan—a multi-sectoral group based in the community which
takes care of IEC efforts on watershed management concerns. This
group was also provided training on technical aspects by STRAP—and
has been quite active in watershed protection activities.
In contrast to the bigger watershed areas—the funding of
watershed management activities is being generated mainly from
contributions of members and volunteerism in project implementation.
Social capital is high. Technical assistance, however, came from
STRAP and some government organizations like DENR and DA. While
one can easily point out that the volunteerism and contributions could
only provide sufficient funding since the area being protected is quite
small—the fact that these farmers are among the marginalized sector of
society points to their strong commitment to protect the ecosystem that
supports their water supply. Creating that high level of commitment is
made easy by the fact that the people have a very clear appreciation of
the linkage between watershed protection and sustained water supply.
Sending this message out to everyone within the watershed area is one
important lesson that we can learn from this particular case study.

SYNTHESIS: LESSONS LEARNED ON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION

The four case studies of varying scale (from the river basin
represented by Magat to the smallest forest reserve in Balian, Pangil)
interestingly validated the watershed management framework advanced
in chapter 1 of the book entitled: “Winning the Water Waters: …” .
Specifically, the case studies have shown that that the implementation of
watershed management requires some level of financial capital, a
community or group of communities with good enough level of
intellectual and social capitals, and where the legal and institutional
framework to support the watershed approach is present. The level of
these various forms of capital varies across watershed—which leads to
varying level of watershed management implementation as well.
A key factor that needs to be emphasized is the critical role of
understanding the link between watershed protection and water supply
services by the watershed populace. This link is most appreciated by
watershed populace in the case of Balian, Pangil forest reserve and in
the Maasin Watershed. The fact that the people of Balian are keenly
aware that their water comes from springs sustained by well protected
forest area has been important in mobilizing community efforts to protect
the watershed. The water shortage problem in the 1980s all the more
makes this ‘link’ visible to everyone. In the Maasin watershed, the water
supply problem experienced by Ilo-ilo city residents had made many
people aware that they need to protect their watershed. The ‘think
watershed’ mentality was emphasized regularly in the long years of IEC
in this watershed. In the case of the Manupali headwaters, the MKRNP,
funds raised from the private sector for its protection, was a result of the
advocacy that water-based economic activities in the lowlands can only
be sustained through good watershed management, i.e. the protection of
its headwaters.
Quite clearly—when people are aware of what the watershed does
for their water supply—then, they know that it will be in their interest to
participate in watershed protection. This message needs to be sent out
clearly and continuously through Information, education, and
communication (IEC) efforts—as demonstrated in almost all the
watershed cases.
The IEC efforts usually depend on the presence of effective NGO
in the area—like Kahublagan in Maasin and STRAP in Balian. In some
cases, the LGU themselves were quite active in IEC (and provision of
technical training) like the Provincial LGU in Nueva Viscaya and in
Bukidnon. To some extent, the water district or private sector could play
role as was done by the Metro Iloilo Water District in the early 1990s—
when the problem with water supply was first experiences. Even for a
small watershed like Balian—the NGO has played an important role,
though not really in the ‘link’ awareness campaign—but in the provision
of technical skills on how rural communities can protect their
watersheds.
The important roles of a well-formed community of people who are
working together and actively participating in watershed activities is also
demonstrated in almost all the study sites—though in varying degrees.
In the Balian case for instance—the people are the prime mover of
watershed protection. In the Lantapan watershed—the people are
actively involved, pushed largely by LGU support and mobilization
initiates. The LGU in Magat has also mobilized the community but in
both cases, more efforts need to be made. The community support in
Maasin watershed has been institutionalized through the formation of
various barangay information centers. There is a high level of social
capital that can be mobilized to support watershed management efforts.
Clearly—the studies have shown that financial capital has an
important role to play in building up all the other forms of capital. One
can see for instance that Maasin watershed would rate very high in all
the important elements or forms of capital needed for watershed
management—but this was because it received so much funding to carry
out IEC, Community organizing efforts, training, and even site
development activities. The Barobbod watershed in Magat watershed is
also a recipient of DENR-Forestry Sector Project funding, as well as the
headwater of Manupali watershed in MKRNP. While this is true—the
commitment by the various interest groups like the provincial LGU and
now, the various local LGUs, the NGO, and the various agencies in the
area and the private sector as well—is not something that could be
bought by money—many of these agents have expended their own
resources to bring about better watershed services? for its populace. Of
course, an exemption to the importance of financial capital may be seen
in the case of Balian forest reserve, which did not receive any external
funding for site development efforts-- and yet was still able to achieve its
goal of protecting the buffer zone of water system. However, one could
be quick to point out that in this instance, scale matters---Balian having
only 31-hectare watershed—may be quite manageable compared to the
other watersheds.
 This paper would argue that indeed financial capital is very
important in undertaking watershed management activities. Two things
need to be remembered: First, watershed protection efforts cost money
and whoever provides these tasks needs to be appropriately
compensated. Second, watershed protection has value. The sustained
flow of high quality water that feeds the household water requirements,
fuels the industries and power sector, and irrigates farmlands in
downstream communities—all are proofs that watershed protection is a
valuable activity. As such, those who benefits from this service must be
willing to pay for the service to obtain the water that they need. These
arguments are the basic principles behind the ‘environmental service
payments’ advocacy. If one agrees on these points—then, efforts must
be forwarded relentlessly in order to obtain ‘payments’ that can support
watershed protection efforts.
The case studies have shown that past efforts to protect the
watershed have relied extensively on assistance provided through some
national forest protection programs and other community-based
livelihood activities and reforestation projects. All these programs have
definite time table—the watershed efforts last only as long as the
program lasts. The results are short-lived watershed management
initiatives. Efforts to sustain the protection of the watershed and thus to
sustain the flow of water services need to be explored. On this end—the
principle of environmental service payments as mentioned earlier must
be explored for implementation in the various watersheds of the country.
They could potentially address the lack of sustained efforts on
watershed protection experienced in many watersheds of the country.