1

Thesis Proposal(submitted by Bertrand Alexander J. Lesaca)

Resilience based sustainability approach in water governance: A study of 8 rural municipalities in Mindoro

Abstract

Of the many uses of water, its importance for domestic and household use remains at the forefront of highly visible and relevant to daily human consumption needs, although globally it represents only 8% of total water usage. The attached pie chart (at right, facing page) shows a summary of the tussle over water resource sector usage (United Nations-World Water Report, 2001).

With water’s many applications that promote poverty alleviation and help create quality of life, conflicts are to be expected among the water sector’s varied stakeholders. From among homogeneous users to those coming from different localities or jurisdictions that share a common source of clean and fresh water, disputes are better resolved with sound water governance from both sides of the conflict rather than apply the sovereign approach which may aggravate the disaccord into full blown violence and turf war.

Still, such user rivalry remains a huge challenge. In our country, the allocation of water access rights is still a demand driven process which is highly susceptible to corrupt practices. And now more than ever, sound water governance is required for proper water sector management, by balancing resource development and distribution (representing the demand side) with that of resource protection and conservation (representing the supply side). Good water governance also addresses corruption risks through the participation of water sector stakeholders in the policy and distribution decision making process. Such water governance practice ensures maximum representation of water sector actors and establishes an internal control mechanism where a consensus is reached prior to any final decision made and not based on unilateral acts of government. These balancing practices leads to the realization of a set of sustainable water governance practices and processes, the advantages and benefits of which will last and be enjoyed for future generations to come.

In the Philippines, the municipal local government unit is given a major and legally mandated role as the front line machinery that will implement and enforce water governance efforts to ensure sustainability of our water resources1. This includes the current mainstreaming of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) approaches.

1 See Appendix A for a list of current laws and statutes that governs our country’s natural resource development.

2

With these new additional roles on top of the municipality’s regular day to day operations and responsibilities, come additional accountabilities calling for renewed focus and vigilance on good water governance. The question now is: are they capable partners in good water governance? And because not all municipalities are equally endowed with the same capacity for good water governance, rural municipalities are traditionally at a disadvantage over access to national resources and financial support compared to their urban counterparts. This study will focus on rural municipalities with particular attention paid to assessing and evaluating its capacity to partner in a water governance arrangement that ensures sustainable access to clean water and adequate sanitation to the community it serves. A Resilience based approach will be employed in order to determine the sustainability of the water governance arrangement for the efficient and effective consumption/depletion and replacement/recharging of our precious water resources, whose benefits can be enjoyed anytime and expected to last for all future generations of Filipinos to come.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Of the many uses of water, its importance for domestic and household use remains at the forefront of highly visible and relevant to human household and domestic consumption needs, although globally it represents only 8% of total water usage.

With water’s many applications that promote poverty alleviation and help create quality of life, conflicts are to be expected among the water sector’s varied stakeholders. From among homogeneous users to those coming from different localities or jurisdictions sharing a common source of clean and fresh water, disputes are better resolved with sound water governance from both sides rather than the sovereign approach which may aggravate the disaccord into violence and turf wars.

In the Philippines, the municipal local government unit is given a major and legally mandated role as the front line machinery that will implement and enforce water governance efforts to ensure sustainability of our water resources. This includes the current mainstreaming of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) approaches to mitigate the pronounced effects of hazards brought forth by regional and global climate changes.

Sustainability, with regard to water governance providing household/domestic use access to clean water and adequate sanitation, is not an end by itself2. Nor should it be construed as an objective to be met or a goal to be attained. In this study, Sustainability is understood as an evolving construct that involves change and how organizations and other social systems3 positively reacts to such change. For public services to be sustainable this paper will argue for a Resilience approach to sustainability. This model utilizes available local resources and existing traditional methods and practices with no additional costs to the LGU, making it practical and acceptable to rural municipalities that are in constant need of financial and human resources support and assistance.

2 Center for Resilience. Ohio State University. ND3 Systems can be an individual or an organization

3

The growing global population also means additional demand for clean, fresh water that puts further stress on the municipality’s resources and water governance initiatives and efforts at good water governance.

Finally, with marked changes in global weather patterns, the debate revolving around identifying whether such changes were man-made or part of a natural cycle continues. Meanwhile socio-economic costs of global climate change have dramatically increased due to the massive damages brought forth by the resulting hazards triggered by these weather pattern changes, creating new challenges to the local socio-economic community, not to mention the adverse effects and continued pressure on the local, regional and national political leadership.

Just within just the past decade, our country has seen and experienced the increase in the frequency and intensity of typhoons and other weather conditions and patterns, such as the El Niño and the monsoon cycles4. Apart from this, the sudden variations in temperature, atmospheric pressure and humidity have made the difficult task of weather forecasting even harder. Natural disasters have now become more destructive, costly and socio-economically disruptive. While man-made disasters most often aggravates the already deadly effects of natural disasters, it nevertheless poses as a major threat that puts lives and properties in harms way.

Alarmed by these changes in global climate patterns and the extreme hazards that are created as a result, domestic and global governments at all levels, have now shifted their attention to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) approaches, which is considered a better model to follow than the reactive traditional short term assistance and support that is provided after disasters (Sendai Framework. 2015). This shift also gave impetus to the importance of governance as an enabling environment for sound water sector management practices to take root and develop.

Because of its unique properties that make life possible, water has always been an essential requirement for our very existence on this planet. Disaster victims need water to prevent dehydration and help the body normalize and recover from the shock and stress of the experience. Rescue workers and other first responders need water as well to keep them hydrated and help prevent the body from over exhaustion as well as provide relief from heat. In fact, day-to-day living will be very difficult, if not impossible, without the use of water. With water’s many uses (e.g. personal/household, recreational, agricultural and industrial) and users (from individuals to organizations/institutions), consumption for personal/household (including sanitation) use ranks number 1 in usage. This study focuses on this aspect of water usage.

Cognizant of the essential role that water plays on this planet and realizing the urgent need for good water governance at all levels of government (from regional to global) to ensure the effective and efficient management and development of our water resources sector in a sustainable fashion, initiatives and efforts toward DRR necessarily involves the community and calls for sound water governance of our water resource sector.

As front line implementors for both water governance and DRR, the municipality is hard 4 As compiled by Alojado, D. And Padua, DM. 2015. Weather Philippines foundation. SOURCE: Unisys Hurricane Typhoon Website.

4

put to task. Their duties and responsibilities have been outlined and expressed in the the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Local Government Code of the Philippines (RA 7160. 1991), Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 (RA 10121.2010) and the Climate Change Act of 2009 (RA 9729.2009). With these additional and important duties, the question now is: Do our municipalities have the capacity to meet the challenges of operating a good water governance arrangement?

This study will look into and explore rural municipalities’ capacity to partner in a water governance arrangement, using a resiliency based approach to predict, attain and maintain sustainability in the distribution and delivery of clean water and adequate sanitation to the community it serves.

Due to the challenges brought about by the inequitable distribution of financial and human resources among rural municipalities, this paper will focus on the assessment and measurement of the LGUs water governance capacity in terms of the following:

a. Capacity for conflict resolution between all water sector stakeholders;b. How decisions on allocation and distribution of water sector access and rights are

arrived at;c. The level and degree of stakeholder participation in policy and decision making

process affecting water sector access rights and usage;d. Ability to collaborate and partner with the different stakeholders of its water sector;e. Propensity to adherence to the rule of law and its equitable and speedy enforcement;f. Ability to foresee and anticipate hazards in order to prepare for any contingencies

needed to prevent or mitigate the effects of hazard exposure; andg. The degree of resiliency that the LGUs have in anticipating and preparing for

external shocks and stresses.

The absence, or near absence, of any of the above criteria indicates a gap in its capacity for water governance5 and help in identifying appropriate actions to develop and nurture such needed capacity.

Without the needed capacity to partner in a water governance arrangement, these LGUs will take on the traditional authority and control method as a way of attaining its public service goals (Carino, L., 2004). History has time and again shown that such authoritarian style of management and administration will most likely fail, resulting in the escalated deterioration of peace and order as the distribution of public water and sanitation services become more subjective, less equitable and unsustainable as the water needs of other sectors of society are ignored.

Rural municipalities also face the additional challenge of access to financial and human resources, available external support and assistance, and access to an effective and influential network, from both outside and within the municipality, which will no doubt affect the level of municipal capacity for water governance. These access and opportunities are readily available to urban, or close to urban, municipalities.

In water governance, as in DRR, these challenges, if not addressed in a timely manner,

5 Legaspi, P. E. HRD And Globalization: Improving Competencies at the Local Government Level.

5

eventually becomes a vulnerability that makes them dangerously predisposed to hazard exposure.

1.2 Problem statement

Are rural municipalities capable of water governance to ensure the sustained delivery of clean water and adequate sanitation to the community it serves?

1.3 Research Sub-Problem

What indicators can this paper use to measure and assess the rural municipality’s capacity for water governance?

1.4 Research Objectives

The main objective of the study is to measure and assess the capacity of a rural municipality’s water governance to ensure access to water and sanitation services from a sustainable development perspective using a resiliency based approach.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The research will provide significant contributions to the New Public Administration movement, specifically in the fields of organization, governance and resiliency theories.

Additionally, this paper adds to the current debate on the various meanings, interpretations, and meanings of the key terminologies in organization, governance and resiliency.

Finally, this paper also contributes to the debate and current literature on water governance, sustainability, disaster risk reduction and resilience.

1.6 Theoretical Framework

＋Government

Society

Science

Political Dimension

Political Dimension

Political Dimension

Political Dimension

Watergovernance

Turton’s Governance Trialogue (2006) Tropp’s 4 dimensional water governance (UNDP.2006)

6

Resilience Dimension(Political-Economic)

Government

Resilience Dimension(Socio-Economic)

Resilience Dimension(Political-Environmental)

Resilience Dimension(Socio-Environmental)

Five Dimensions of Water Governance

In adapting the model of the four (4) dimensions of water governance, developed by Tropp for UNDP in 2006, together with Turton’s Trialogue Theory of governance (above), that suggests 3 typologies of water governance actors as Society, Government and Science, we can visualize the dynamics in a water governance. The conceptual dimension features serving as its foundations are essential to the examination, analysis and prognosis of the underlying challenges in a water governance. The figure above shows the synchronicity and relational interactions among the stakeholders and institutions involved.

The resultant hi-breed water governance framework preserves Turton’s and Tropp’s models except for the recognition of a 5th dimension of Resiliency that encapsulate the whole water governance domain. In this framework there are the 3 governance actor-typologies of Society, Science and Government (Turton, et. al. 2006). Acting on these 3 types of stakeholders, as they interact among each other to reach a consensus, are the 5 dimensions of Politics, Environment, Economic, Social and Resilience. And since good water governance necessarily requires interactions between people and organizations, the dimension of Resilience can be said to be inherently present within all individuals as well as in all the organizations involved in the water governance.

Environmental Dimension

Economic Dimension

Sustainable Utilization

Social Dimension

EquitableUtilization

Science

Society

Efficient Utilization

Equa

l &

D

emoc

rat

ic

Opp

ort

uniti

es

Political Dimension

Water Governance

Adapted from Tropp, H. 2006. And Turton, et. Al. 2006

7

This 5th dimension of resiliency kicks in as threatening hazards are identified that would possibly expose the water governance community at large. In fact, news articles on Filipino resilience was much touted after the super-typhoon Yolanda (International name: Haiyan), said to be the largest and strongest typhoon ever recorded, directly hit the Visayas region of the country.

1.7 Conceptual Framework

Monitoring and Reporting

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

FunctionsInter and Intra-relationships

Actor Participation

Monitoring and Evaluation

Gov’t / PrivateCivil Society

Science / Information

Service QualityRelationship Quality

Effectiveness / ImpactSustainability

Reports

F E E D B A C K (Community Action)

Based on Pahl-Wostle. 2007

Sustainable access to water and sanitation

People / communityResponsiveness to

Disaster

C

A P A C I T Y

HA

ZA

RD

SD

ISA

ST

ER

EX

PO

SU

RE

Partnership

Vulnerability

Private sector

Resilience

ScienceCommunity government

Poverty Man-made hazardsNatural Hazards

NGOs

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

8

1.8 Operational Framework

In the measurement and assessment of a rural municipality’s capacity for water governance, this explanatory research introduces a resiliency based approach to attain sustainability in the delivery of clean water and adequate sanitation services for the community. The study will measure a rural municipality’s water governance capacity in terms of:

a. Its capability to act promptly on arriving at solutions to problems through consensus and for conflict resolution among stakeholders in its water sector;

b. How it decides on the allocation and distribution of access rights and usage;c. Degree of participation involved in policy and decision making process;d. Ability to collaborate and partner with the different stakeholders of the water sector;e. Its adherence to the rule of law and its equitable enforcement;f. Ability to foresee and anticipate hazards and prepare for it and;g. Its degree of resiliency in anticipation of unexpected shocks and stresses.

2. Review of Literature

The turn of the 20th century saw the word ‘governance’ crop up in the Public Administration lexicon as a designated neutral definition of governance to underscore the beginning of the movement from government being the sole provider of public goods and services as well as the policy decision maker, into governance which involves the participation of all concerned stakeholders in the public goods and services delivery as well as in the decision making process. While the term has evolved into a myriad of sometimes confusing definitions, there is a consensus that such stakeholder participation based arrangement is the most effective and efficient way for government to be able to do more using less resources. There are also some who assert that governance arose from the neo-liberalist approach of the late 70’s as symbolized by Ronald Reagan as the President of the United States of America and Margaret Thatcher during her term as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that resulted in the “outsourcing” of government functions and ushered the era of government downsizing. It can also be said that this shift to smaller government also signified the shift from the Keynesian socio-economic view to Hayek’s market based view.

Current literature on governance is strong on definitive theory and concepts covering a wide range of governance insights, opinions and interpretations, that are either prescriptive, descriptive or analytic. Methods and concepts are introduced for a sustainable framework that are designed and expected to result in Transparency, Accountability and Participation (TAP) - 3 of the pillars of governance6.

There are studies that provide governance typologies and an equivalent foundational concept that serves as its governance pillar. Depending on the type of governance, there may be 3 to 7 (sometimes even more) pillars offered.

6 TAP Network-UN. 2015

9

Araral, et. al. (2015), in their study of 10 provinces in China, reports that there is no clear scope and definition of water governance and the literature available are not multi-disciplinary but conducted along the lines of the researcher’s academic discipline. Additionally, there seems to be an abundance of descriptive, and sometimes debatable, studies with very little actual empirical proof to show how water governance actually affects water sector efficiency.

Other researches addressed technical concerns on water quality, water contamination, climate change and other pressures that water governance regimes face on a regular basis. However, no clear cut policy on strategies that integrates all current efforts at water governance can be found (de Loe, R. et al. 2009).

While there are measurement tools available to assist in capturing the data and guide the data analysis, there are few studies available to make these tools grounded. This paper will utilize measurement tools when appropriate, on determining local government capacity to partner in water governance.

2.1 Governance

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) describes governance as the promotion of “sustainable human development” by the state, society and private sector (UNDP. 1997). Then Kooiman (2003) added “the process of policy making through active and cohesive discussion among policy makers who are interconnected through a broad range of networks” to this definition. Governance then came to be the process of discussion and actions of the state, in conjunction with civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders within a given community in shaping and making policy that will be acceptable to all those affected.

The theory of governance for this research, particularly the 4 dimension theory of water governance (Tropp. 2007) together with Turton’s water governance trialogue, serves as its basic theoretical framework. And in any governance arrangement, current literature on the subject yields a common theme which can be summarized simply as “more for less”. In order to align with this theme, the old adage “two heads are better than one” comes to mind as a means of brainstorming doable solutions to respond to the multitude of public needs. The resulting question now is where or what can we tap into to obtain a maximum of “heads” that can be put together to come out with efficient solutions for governance goals. The agreed response to this query is one word: Participation. Thus, through participation, governance begins to take shape. Indeed participation and partnership has an important role in governance.

In our country, no less than our Constitution7 provides the framework that calls for the decentralization and devolution of functions, responsibilities and accountabilities to the local government units where efficiencies in the delivery of public goods and services can be realized since it enables the local government unit to be free from any encumbrances associated with having to transact directly with the central government while at the at the same time promote more partnership from the citizenry in handling their local affairs (de Guzman. 1989 and Brilliantes, Jr. 1990 as cited by Tabion. 1993).Additional justification for recognizing the need for creating local government lies in its

7 Article X (Local Government) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

10

ability to be the best delivery mechanism of public goods and services needed by a community it belongs to and knows well (Mackenzie. 1964., Humes and Martin. 1969 as cited by Tabion. 1993). In 1991, with the enactment of Republic Act 7160, also known as the Local Government Code of the Philippines, provided further impetus for the decentralization and devolution of functions from the national government to the LGU.

Figure 1 (below) (Huitema 2005), shows the changing landscape of governance since Wilson’s dichotomy in the mid 1880’s. A shifting of power and authority from the central government is shown to move8 into markets, civil society, independent bodies, the courts, and both higher and lower jurisdictional levels of government (Huitema, 2005.)

8 In the Philippine context, as expressed by the 1991 local government code (RA 7160) where decentralization and devolution of agency functions and authority from the national to the local government units began its mandate.

11

Figure 1 - Shifts in public service functions (Source: Huitema. 2005)

There are those who opine that such shifts was caused by large business interests to weaken regulations that sets limits and controls on their corporate interests (Swyngedouw. 2005). Still there are others with additional explanations, with causal reasons ranging from the financial crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, to the changes in

12

thinking towards market orientation as well as concepts arising from the New Public Management trend (Pierre and Peters 2000).

What is clear at this point is that these observable shifts in governance are also present and likewise can be seen as equally applicable to other water sectors. The state has taken on larger levels of market involvement as evidenced by the privatization of water services such that a need for equally great levels of civil society involvement (such as water user associations, NGOs, Water sector stakeholders, independent bodies, etc) being called for. There is also the noticeable shift towards an increased level of international participation as can be deduced from the growing number of trans and inter-boundary water agreements together with the increased influence of large and well funded international organizations such as the European Union, World Bank, OECD and Asian Development Bank (Huitema and Meijerink. 2009).

2.2 Environmental Governance

Just depending on geography, there may be several definitions, as well as interpretations, of governance that can be found in existing literature. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) describes it as the promotion of “sustainable human development” by the state, society and private sector (UNDP. 1997). Then Kooiman (2003) added “the process of policy making through active and cohesive discussion among policy makers who are interconnected through a broad range of networks” to this definition. For this study, Governance is the process of discussion and actions of the state, in conjunction with civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders within the community in shaping and making policy that will be acceptable to all those affected.

Applied to the environment, governance would be similar to those interventions that are directed to changes in environment-related “incentives, knowledge, institutions, decision making, and behaviors”. It also refers to the “set of regulatory processes, mechanisms and organizations through which political actors’ influence environmental actions and outcomes” (Lemos and Agrawal. 2006).

2.3 Water Governance

Literature on water governance is just as complex, if not more, as those on environmental governance. Because of the fragile and sensitive nature of the water cycle, water governance challenges remain supply and demand driven are mostly tackled through the use of science and technology and as a result, conventional dictates require current management styles to see elements of the larger bio-ecosystem as mere things to be properly handled (Chambers, 1997). While this approach has its advantages, new forms of water governance have cropped up and there is a serious need for familiarity with the accompanying new issues and challenges (such as conflict resolution, partnerships and process management of stakeholder participation in decision making to name a few) that science and technology alone cannot address. New ways of thinking and innovative methods are now required to tackle problems in water governance.

In this study, water governance refers to the mechanism that covers the whole spectrum of socio-political, socio-economic and administration systems in order to foster the sustainable development of existing water resources with regard to the water needs of the community , as well as the equitable delivery of clean water and sanitation services to the

13

whole community (Rogers & Hall, 2003). Foremost for the proper management of the water sector is to see it as part of a larger overall governance system and subject to relational reactions by other stakeholders of the country’s water resources sector (Rogers & Hall, 2003).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manage “things” Manage people and processesTop to down Bottom-upProprietary Blueprint Information and data sharing Measures Mediation and interpretationInfrastructure oriented Focus on Processes and methods Standardized Diverse

Science based technology Multidisciplinary approach and technological know-how can help in the design of

integrative approaches

Scientific information is produced Socio-economic data isfrom fields such as hydrology, produced such as incomebiology, and geology and consumption patterns

Taken from: Tropp, H. 2007. Water governance: trends and needs for new capacity development. Water Policy 9 Supplement 2 (2007) 19–30. Stockholm International Water Institute. Drottninggatan 33. SE-111 51. Stockholm. Sweden.

But what does these new emerging forms actually do to society as a whole as well as to the specific segment it was meant to provides for? Despite all the advances in science and technology, the solutions to the challenges inherent in water governance do not come easy and is often painful to those less fortunate. The poor and infirm still remain disadvantaged as approaches toward the valuation of water and water and sanitation services. Putting a value on water will eventually entail some form of payment for water and sanitation delivery services. With water usage mainly driven by supply-demand, approaches under this paradigm will often result in a zero-sum situation with regard to the allocation of water rights and usage, as well as providing for adequate sanitation. Water governance must face these new challenges from all points of view and examined through a more multi-disciplinary microscope.

2.4 Disaster Risk Reduction - Identifying disaster risks

Response to water governance challenges:The need for new knowledge and capacity development.THEN

(capacities that need to be further developed)

Sociocrats(new knowledge and capacity)Technocratic

(Traditional Knowledge)

NOW

14

In line with RA 10121, focus has now been shifted from disaster response (whose focus is on immediate and short term needs) to disaster risk reduction (where the focus is on proactive approaches that reduces the risks that bis attendant with vulnerability and maximizes capacities). Proactive approaches have been mainstreamed in current literature in DRR field. To ensure consistency in interpretation, this paper made use of the DRR lexicon as can be found in RA 10121 (the DRRM Act of 2010) to define the following:

Hazard A natural or man-made condition or situation that if an individual or organization is exposed to it, has a high probability of sustaining injuries, damage to property and/or loss of life.

Vulnerability A weakness in an individual or organization that prevents it from being exposed to a hazard.

Disaster What results from full exposure to an identified and very dangerous hazard.

Exposure The degree to which an individual or organization directly experiences a hazard.

2.5 Resilience

Current literature on Resilience show several categories9 and classes from which resilience can be viewed from. These views are Ecological (Holling. 1973:14), Systemic-heuristic (Holling. 2001), Operational (Carpenter et al. 2001), Sociological (Adger. 2000:347), Normative (Pickett et al. 2004:381), Ecological-economic (Brock et al.2002:273) and hybrid concepts that come from a mix between Ecosystems (Folke et al. 2002:14) and Social-Ecological systems10 (Adger et al. 2005:1036).

It is a construct of how individuals and social organizational systems react to shocks and stresses arising from both failures and successes. It is used to signify the degree of adaptability to unexpected changes and events, and rise out of the whole experience that is better than the one before (Hollanagel, Woods, & Leveson, 2006).

This study will take the hybrid view of resilience and approach it with the mix of Ecosystem-related services and social-ecological systems. For this paper, Resilience is defined as the individual or organizational capacity to succeed and thrive despite overwhelming odds. It is an innate adaptive capacity within each of us, as well as collectively in organized groups, that grows and develops over time. Among other things, it is nurtured and developed through community morals and family-friendships relationships11 and support.

3. Methodology9 Source: UNDP. Oslo Governance Center10 Social-ecological and resilience based approaches11 From http://resilience.osu.edu/CFR-site/concepts.htm on July 28, 2015. Center for Resilience at the Ohio State University.

15

3.1 Research Design

To collect field data, a survey of eight (8) municipalities in the province of Mindoro (4 from the Oriental portion and another 4 from the Occidental side) will be conducted in order to obtain primary data for analysis. Face to face interviews, survey questionnaires and focus groups will be conducted using no less than 30 participants from the municipal officers and staff. Other shareholder feedback, again with the participation of no less than 30 stakeholders, using survey questionnaires, focus-group and individual shareholder encounters, will likewise be conducted to help shed light and validate the results obtained from the municipality.

A stratified purposeful and opportunistic sampling approach methodology was applied in order to determine the population sample which consists of all the municipalities in the Philippines12. The selected target province is the island province of Mindoro with the following selected municipalities of San Teodoro, Calapan, Pola and Pinamalayan on the Oriental side and the municipalities of Lubang, Looc, San Jose and Magsaysay on the Occidental side (see image below).

12 There were 1,490 municipalities as of March 31, 2015. Source: Philippine Statistics Office. National Statistical Coordination Board. From. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listmun.asp on April 15th, 2015.

16

Oriental

Occidental

17

Mindoro Island Province (Source : Google Maps)

Instrument and Criteria

Customized interview, survey and questionnaire are the main instruments to gather field data. In addition, face to face interviews, focus-groups and water sector stakeholder encounters will serve as the complementing instruments to validate and shed light on other data obtained.

The main survey instruments consist of two (2) parts – the first focuses on the political and administrative environment under which the municipality operates. The second part deals with the aspects to determine the degree, if any, of the Municipality’s capability for water governance to ensure access to clean water and adequate sanitation throughout the constituency.

Secondary data will also be obtained from the most recent municipal planning documents and reports as well as output instruments that may be provided by field or provincial offices of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

Target Participants (Units of Measure)

- Municipal Mayor and Vice-Mayor, councilors, planning officers and staff.- Barangay Captain, Barangay Kagawad, Sanggunian Kabataan Chair.

Sampling size was determined at 385 samples using the mean average method with a 95% confidence level, .5 standard deviation and +/- 5% margin of error.

3.2 Data Gathering

Using the stratified purposeful and opportunistic sampling as my selection approach, data will be collected from the total population consisting of all the municipalities in the country. To determine the capacity of a given rural LGU in terms of the following:

a. Its capacity for conflict resolution among stakeholders in its water sector;b. How it decides on the allocation of access rights and usage;c. Degree of participation involved in policy and decision making process;d. Ability to collaborate and partner with the different stakeholders of the water sector;e. Its adherence to the rule of law and its equitable enforcement;f. Ability to foresee and anticipate hazards and prepare for it and;g. Its degree of resiliency in anticipation of unexpected shocks and stresses.

These capacities can be further grouped into manageable units:

a & d = Conflict Resolution/Collaboration/Partnershipb & c = Participation/Consultatione = Rule of Law / Compliance

Partnership/Participation

Vulnerability

Resilience

18

f = Foresight/Proactivenessg = Resiliency

Finally into the 3 categories of Partnership (a, d, b, c), Resilience (f, g) and Vulnerability (e). This paper will use these 3 categories to be the focal point in determining a rural municipality’s water governance capability for a resilience based sustainable water service delivery.

3.3 Method of Analysis

The study will analyze the data collected using a mixed approach. The constant comparison and grounded analysis approach mixed with sociological analysis will primarily be applied for this paper.

To determine vulnerability, the processes (e.g. policy and decision making) through which decisions are arrived at, with regard to the allocation of water resource access, rights and usage, are in accordance with existing laws. The data collected will be contextually analyzed for vulnerability. Additionally adherence to the rule of Law will be measured through how the water governance performed on water projects and how equitable the outcomes were.

Degree of participation and ability to collaborate / partner with other stakeholders will be measured through the collaborative working relationship approach (NAO. 2006)13. Context analysis method will be applied.

To capture Resilience indicators, the study will make use of a municipal self-assessment tool14. This self-assessment tool will be addressed and mailed directly to the rural municipality for completion by the appropriate officials and picked up during the conduct of the field study.

4. Conclusion

4.1 Theories

In Theory, Governance, an off-shoot of New Public Administration, is the framework by which all efforts and initiatives in water governance operate in. From the unilateral decision making process by government approach to the participatory process invoked by the current Governance approach, the concept of sustainability remains and is observed at the micro level using the indicators of capacity, partnership and resilience. This paper takes a close look into a rural municipality’s capacity to partner in a water governance arrangement for the sustainable delivery of clean water and sanitation to the community it serves.

Since sustainability is not a goal or an objective by itself15, it is descriptive of the rural

13 National Audit Office. UK. 200614 Nilsson, J. 2015.15 Center for Resiliency. Ohio State University. ND

19

municipality’s efforts to ensure non-interruption of the delivery of water. In a rural setting, this paper argues for the existence of another dimension in water governance which is that of resilience. It is this dimension that plays a major role in the municipality’s recovery and adaptability to changes in its environment.

With this in mind, Resiliency can be further developed and sustainability continued. The key therefore is human development in environmental water governance. With interactions that are not only coordinated but integrated and productive as inter community exchanges build social networks that increases their access to a larger support system and social capital (Diola, F. 2009).

4.2 Limitations

There is a possibility that with the stratified purposeful and opportunistic sampling methodology used in this paper, the samples may not be representative of the population. The study took all steps to mitigate this possibility through ensuring the data collection process did not deviate from the conduct of another held in a different municipality.

4.3 Recommendation

Rural municipalities need human development programs to empower them to seek innovative ways for their community to succeed and thrive. Such development efforts will necessarily enhance the Resiliency dimension that affects governance sustainability.

The dynamics involved in water governance may be too intricate for the resources of a rural municipality to comprehend, but when it comes to their community, the locals are the experts and should be sought for active participation, guidance and direction with regard to DRR programs and water governance processes. After all, resiliency is more endogenous than exogenous (Curtis, O. 2014).

4.4 Future Research

The concept of Resilience may well cover more than what has been suggested in this study. It holds promise as a source of great wisdom handed down from a collective experience. Further investigation into resilience may well serve as a measure of capacity of both individuals and organizations.

A case in point is the emerging theory of Human Security which, if combined with human development and governance theories, yields hybrids of systems that are geared for the future. I believe such endeavors deserve more attention in order to fully understand the dimension of resilience and its implications in the practice of public administration.

Lastly, while there is a huge treasure cove of completed research on water governance, each were done through the perspective of the discipline being pursued. Water Governance dictates multi-level and multi-disciplinary approaches are called for to ensure systems are more integrative.

What is still noticeably lacking is the fusion of research with applied Information and Communication Technology science. Computer applications currently abound the highly technical fields of water governance such as water quality, filtration, meniscus, acidity and alkalinity of water. Simulations that can be applied for public administration using

20

scientific and historical data. Simulations involving artificial intelligence technology may well hold the key that levels the economic development playing field for rural living.

Other tools that utilizes computer technology should be developed and made available for researchers which will cut research and other development costs. Such simulations and its application to Public Administration also merits a good second and third look for future research.

5. References

Ahmed, S. (2008). Social Justice in Water Distribution and Marginalized Womenâs ��Capabilities: A Study of Governance Systems in Dhaka and Manila.Conference Papers -- Midwestern Political Science Association, 1.

Asprone, D., & Manfredi, G. (2015). Linking disaster resilience and urban sustainability: a glocal approach for future cities. Disasters, 39s96-s111. doi:10.1111/disa.12106

Austin, R. L., & Eder, J. F. (2007). Environmentalism, Development, and Participation on Palawan Island, Philippines. Society & Natural Resources, 20(4), 363-371. doi:10.1080/08941920601161379

Barrett Ristroph, E. (2012). The Role of Philippine Courts in Establishing the Environmental Rule of Law. Environmental Law Reporter: News & Analysis,42(9), 10866-10887.

Borchgrevink, A. (2002). Clean and Green: Indigenous Knowledge and Cultural Models in a Philippine Community. Ethnos: Journal Of Anthropology, 67(2), 223-244. doi:10.1080/00141840220136837

Bradsher, K., Ramzy, A., Mullany, G., Shanker, T., & Gladstone, R. (2013, November 13). Distress Grows as Philippine Typhoon Victims Can't Get Aid, or Get Out. New York Times. pp. A6-A14.

21

Cahill, A. (2008). Power over, power to, power with: Shifting perceptions of power for local economic development in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 49(3), 294-304. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8373.2008.00378.

Chelleri, L., Schuetze, T., & Salvati, L. (2015). Integrating resilience with urban sustainability in neglected neighborhoods: Challenges and opportunities of transitioning to decentralized water management in Mexico City. Habitat International, 48122-130. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.016

Combest-Friedman, C., Christie, P., & Miles, E. (2012). Household perceptions of coastal hazards and climate change in the Central Philippines. Journal Of Environmental Management, 112137-148. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.018

David, C. C., Cayton, P. A., Lorenzo, T. E., & Santos, E. C. (2014). Statistical analysis of Philippine water district characteristics and how these affect water tariffs. Water International, 39(1), 1-9. doi:10.1080/02508060.2013.847687

Delgado, M. M., & Canters, F. (2011). Measuring the accessibility of different household income groups to basic community services in upland Misamis Oriental, Northern Mindanao, Philippines. Singapore Journal Of Tropical Geography, 32(2), 168-184. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.2011.00427.

Gibson, K., Cahill, A., & McKay, D. (2010). Rethinking the dynamics of rural transformation: performing different development pathways in a Philippine municipality. Transactions Of The Institute Of British Geographers, 35(2), 237-255. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00378.

Hordijk, M., Sara, L. M., & Sutherland, C. (2014). Resilience, transition or transformation? A comparative analysis of changing water governance systems in four southern cities. Environment & Urbanization, 26(1), 130-146. doi:10.1177/0956247813519044

Jean-Christophe, G., Michael R.M., P., Jake Rom, C., & Virginie Le, M. (2008). Living with increasing floods: insights from a rural Philippine community.Disaster Prevention & Management, 17(3), 383-395.

Lagarde, M. M. (2006). Mainstreaming sustainable development: Evolving perspectives and challenges from the Philippine experience. Natural Resources Forum, 30(2), 111-123. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2006.00164.

López-Marrero, T., & Tschakert, P. (2011). From theory to practice: building more resilient communities in flood-prone areas. Environment & Urbanization,23(1), 229-

22

249. doi:10.1177/0956247810396055

López-Marrero, T., & Tschakert, P. (2011). From theory to practice: building more resilient communities in flood-prone areas. Environment & Urbanization,23(1), 229-249. doi:10.1177/0956247810396055

Louis, G. E., Magpili, L. M., & Pinto, C. A. (2007). Multi-Criteria Decision Making and composting of waste in the municipality of Bacoor in the Philippines.International Journal Of Environmental Technology & Management, 7(3/4), 351-368.

Normann, R. H., & Vasström, M. (2012). Municipalities as Governance Network Actors in Rural Communities. European Planning Studies, 20(6), 941-960. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.673565

Paula, L. (2015). Capability of communities as Precondition for Sustainability of Rural Areas. Economic Science For Rural Development Conference Proceedings, (38), 103-112.

Rist, L., & Moen, J. (2013). Sustainability in forest management and a new role for resilience thinking. Forest Ecology & Management, 310416-427. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.08.033

Sellberg M, Wilkinson C, Peterson G. Resilience assessment: a useful approach to navigate urban sustainability challenges. Ecology & Society [serial online]. March 2015;20(1):563-586. Available from: GreenFILE, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 19, 2015.

Solis, M. P. (2005). Revisiting the Philippine Clean Air Act 1999: Is there Compliance in Deterrence and Vice Versa?. Asia Pacific Journal Of Environmental Law, 9(2/3), 239-266.

Teigão dos Santos, F., & Partidário, M. R. (2011). SPARK: Strategic Planning Approach for Resilience Keeping. European Planning Studies, 19(8), 1517-1536. doi:10.1080/09654313.2011.533515

Turner, B. (2010). Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability science?. Global Environmental Change Part A: Human & Policy Dimensions, 20(4), 570-576. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.003

Urich, P. B. (1996). Deforestation and Declining Irrigation in Southeast Asia: A Philippine Case. International Journal Of Water Resources Development,12(1), 49-64. doi:10.1080/07900629650042028

23

Walker, B. H., Abel, N., Anderies, J. M., & Ryan, P. (2009). Resilience, Adaptability, and Transformability in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia.Ecology & Society, 14(1), 1-24.