WATER: Is it a priority in the Philippines' Medium-Term Development Plan?

Water supply for the entire country, based on where we are now and what our government has achieved so far, has not become one of the priority focus areas for investment of the last administration although it has been stated as one of the infrastructure targets alongside power supply. This is based on the actual situation of water resources from the MTPDP 2011-2016, as against the targeted plan of our government for the past six years (MTPDP 2004-2010). According to situationer statement of the MTPDP of 2011-2016 (NEDA):

Although water is still abundant in certain areas, the country faces the threat of emerging water scarcity. Lack of urban planning, indiscriminate urban development, lack of investment in water, problems of water resource management, and the impact of climate change threaten water security and sustainability. Deforestation and lack of effective management of forest and freshwater ecosystems have led to the further deterioration of watersheds, limiting aquifer recharge and increases water runoff and soil erosion. Around 267 watersheds with a total area of 10.6 million hectares have been identified as needing immediate rehabilitation. These priority watersheds support national irrigation systems and are the major source of domestic water supply. Storage and distribution of water to deficient areas and proper water-resources management are also areas of concern.

According to the same reference, there are a number of reasons why the country’s challenge of halving the number of people without access to water and sanitation by 2015 based on MDG7, which are: One, the lack of sector data presents a logistical challenge in the determination of priority waterless areas. Two, investments in water supply and sanitation have also been significantly low relative to overall public spending (World Bank 2005), which may be due to the lack of coherent financing framework in the sector. Three, public infrastructure spending by the national government shows a bias for Metro Manila and other urban areas, including spending for water supply, sewage and septage management. And four, the absence of a clear monitoring system makes it difficult to assess and address the sustainability of developed infrastructure.
The Philippines Progress Report on the MDG 2010, on the other hand, suggests that the sector is on track to attain its MDG commitment, though achieving 100% coverage remains a challenge, since 15.73 million people continue to have no access to a safe water supply.

At this point in time, access to clean and adequate water remains an acute seasonal problem in urban and coastal areas in our country. Sources of freshwater like groundwater, lakes and rivers, watersheds and catchment areas are in critical conditions. It is safe to assume that majority of our groundwater in our country’s urban areas is contaminated with coliform and remains untreated. Except for a study done by NWRB on 2001-2002 “Strengthening Management of Groundwater Resources with Local Government Units”, there has been no succeeding program of the government during the years 2004-2010 that aims to replenish over-extracted groundwater specifically in Metro Manila and Metro Cebu. The source of water pollution in our rivers and lakes, largely domestic wastewater and agricultural effluents, are still not dealt with, especially to the four water-critical areas which is the NCR, Southern Tagalog, Central Luzon and Central Visayas.

There is under-investment by the government in terms of sanitation and sewerage though it is ranked as a high priority in the PA21 of 1996. Only 7% of the country’s total population is connected to sewer systems and very few households have acceptable effluent from on-site sanitation facilities. The government budget is still directly towards water supply and a large portion needs to be diverted to sewerage and sanitation. We are trying to make a large-scale expansion of our water systems, thus, expanding the amount of large-scale untreated wastewater to our lakes and rivers, which is an approach that defeats the purpose of preserving other water sources.

Enumerated in the MTPDP plan are general and specific strategies which would help resolve problems in water pollution and water resources. Following these strategies are the corresponding accomplishments or status that our government has worked on:

The general strategies aims to adopt an integrated water management approach by (1) establishing Water Resources Regional Councils (WRRCs) and River Basin Organizations (RBOs) while strengthening existing RBOs to promote devolution of decision-making processes to the lowest appropriate levels capable of handling such tasks, normally to local government and community-based institutions; (2) Pursue raw water pricing to effect efficient allocation and conservation; (3) Maintain and sustain data collection and database for water resources (i.e. rainfall, stream flow, groundwater and water quality, etc.); (4) Conduct water assessment in terms of availability and demand for prioritized water constraint areas as identified in the 1998 Master Plan Study on Water Resources Management in the Philippines.

Currently, there is still an absence of a single lead agency to coordinate development in the water sector is one of the major hurdles to the efficient implementation of strategic water infrastructure. The lacks of a single independent regulator for the water supply sector is a major reason for the absence of a clear regulatory framework with a credible and effective tariff methodology that is safeguarded from political intrusion, founded on accountability to consumers, and conducive to new investments to meet supply needs. There are at least 30 agencies involved in the water sector, with specific but often overlapping or conflicting mandates for water supply, irrigation, flood management, pollution control, watershed management, financing, policy formulation and coordination, among others. This situation presents difficulties for effective coordination and implementation of projects and programs to sustainably meet water use and management. There should be a centralization of public water management in a sense that probably two major agencies could do (e.g. water resources monitoring and development, water supply, wastewater could be covered by one agency, then for irrigation, hydropower and energy generation, watershed management and flood control could be one agency), in consideration still of the support of LGUs on these duties. Investment levels are also too low to meet the growing demand for water. One key constraint to expand coverage and improved quality of service is the low tariffs which hinder cost recovery preventing accumulation of new funds for new capital expenditures.
Water remains to be valued at a very low price in NCR as seen on household water bills. It has not been priced and allocated according to its economic value so as to attain efficiency and sustainability in the development and allocation of the resource. The tendency is for people to use clean potable water in irresponsible and unnecessary uses. Valuing water at a higher price would be one solution to the problem to cost recovery of investments both made by the government water agency and private concessionaires.

The PAG-ASA has data on rainfall and evaporation, but no agency has been regarded to take charge in measuring rainfall, stream flow that stores ground water as well as assessing the water quality from these sources. Lack of up-to-date, integrated, harmonized and comprehensive data on the water sector impedes effective planning, target-setting, monitoring and implementation. Such data is significant in the development of new water sources and in the design of CCA and DRRM mechanisms. But initiatives to establish a knowledge-sharing network among stakeholders in water have so far proved unsustainable since there is no clear framework and reliable financing for the continuous updating and improvement of access to information. The lack of clear framework and reliable financing for the continuous updating and improvement of access to information hinders establishment of a knowledge-sharing network among stakeholders in water.

The 1998 Master Plan Study identified nine water-critical urbanized areas in the Philippines where water is consumed intensively and needs a short-term and long-term plan to cope with the anticipated water deficit. Two of those areas are Metro Manila and Metro Cebu, due mainly to the enormous water demand by the high population increase, brisk industrial activities and a serious saline intrusion problem.

An IWRM Plan Framework was accomplished in November 2006 by the government, supported by UNEP and Philippine Water Partnership. On the side of the local government, LGUs or Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) are still constrained by high investment and operating costs of sewage systems, limited willingness to pay, restricted space especially in low-income urban areas where sewage is disposed of indiscriminately.

For the plan’s specific strategies, it envisions access to potable water for the entire country by 2010 through (1 ) prioritizing at least 200 “waterless” barangays in Metro Manila and 200 “waterless” municipalities outside Metro Manila through private sector or public investment by investing PhP12.67 billion in the construction of water systems on these barangays and municipalities; (2) ensuring that all barangays/municipalities that will be provided with water supply services have the corresponding sanitation facilities for proper disposal of wastewater/septage; (3) providing capacity building programs and technical assistance on water supply and sanitation planning, management and project implementation for all Water Service Providers (WSPs) needing assistance; (4) developing technology options for water supply (e.g. solar desalination for isolated islands, windmill technology, etc.); (5) promoting private sector or public investment in the provisions of water to waterless barangays and municipalities; (6) conducting groundwater resources and vulnerability assessment covering 310 priority LGUs; (7) monitoring drinking water of selected poor communities through the Tap Watch Program; and (8) completing the groundwater resource inventory/assessment in major urban areas and surface water in rural areas, control extraction through moratorium/stringent requirements in the grant of water permits in water-deficient areas and complete registration of all water pumps, metering of water pumps, etc.

The program for waterless areas has been allotted an annual budget of Php1.5 billion. Because the administration of the funds was largely discretionary, 40% (212 municipalities) of 432 municipalities identified as beneficiaries of the fund were not even part of the original list. There also is no clear policy framework to guide the financing of water supply programs and projects. Financing originates for a variety of sources at this point: LWUA and MWSS or GFIs or Municipal Development Fund Office (MDFO) or congressional funds for national government financing, local government funding mostly for operation and maintenance and private-sector financing skewed towards Metro Manila.

As the lead national government agency for provincial water supply, the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) has therefore been placed in a forefront position in the realization of this goal since 2004.LWUA's share in the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan includes the target completion of 639 water infrastructure projects within a seven-year period starting in 2004 thereby making possible access to safe potable piped water supply to 875,000 additional service connections or a total of more than four million additional Filipinos in the provincial areas by 2010. Accomplished so far between 2004 and 2007, LWUA was able to provide water supply coverage to an estimated 2.4 million additional people in its area of jurisdiction thereby raising the total population served from 12.6 million in 2004 to 14.5 million by the end of 2007. LWUA was able to complete a total of 238 water infrastructure projects with a total project disbursement of P6 Billion. LWUA was able to accomplish 37.24% of its target number of water infrastructure projects.

Until now, almost all barangays have no corresponding wastewater and septage disposal facilities or the installation of sewer lines leading wastewater to wastewater ponds. The country’s sewerage coverage is very low. Less than 10% of the national population has access to sewerage services. Open defecation is still practiced in many areas, especially in highly-populated ones. According to a study done in 2006, it was identified that less than 8% of households in Metro Manila have access to sewerage, while the over-all urban sewerage coverage is a measly 4% (six cities). The few sewerage systems that exist at present cater mostly to commercial establishments and affluent residential communities. In other parts of the country, coverage is much low (estimated to be at 1%). MWSS, the main agency in charge of water supply and waste water is somewhat far from constructing sewage systems for the whole of Metro Manila, unless they delegate the capital, operations and maintenance on new private concessionaires or the existing ones. As for funding, only 3% of public investments in water supply are used for sanitation (PSSR 2010). Most LGUs accord the lowest priority and allot only minimal budgets for sanitation, septage and sewerage services because the benefits are indirect at best.

According to LWUA, they have provided institutional development assistance to water districts, and was also able to effect the installation/follow up of the uniform commercial practices system to a total of 170 water districts; conduct a total of 107 training courses for water district officials and employees and review for approval 848 requests for water rates adjustments by water districts. In terms of financial assistance, LWUA was able to provide a total of P3.695 Billion in additional loans to water districts between 2004 and 2007 with a record-high P2.230 Billion loans granted in 2004. During the same four-year period, LWUA was able to collect a total of P5.909 Billion in loan principal and interest payments by borrower water districts with a record high of P1.779 Billion collection in 2007.

Development of technology options for water supply has not been a priority yet since investments are geared towards water systems primarily. There had been no available material or data proving efforts of government to take advantage of such kinds of water supply technologies such as salt desalination spearheaded by our government. One organization, the Philippine Ecosan Network, in partnership with government agencies, LGUs, NGOs, business sector, academe and civil society groups, held the International Symposium on Low-cost Technology Options for Water Supply and Sanitation in 2004. It was an effort to organize activities in line with continuing knowledge sharing, and ecosan pilot projects. Initial research and information sharing are done but no purposive program regarding water technologies have been created by our government.

It is important that for the targets to be achieved and the strategies to work, there should be a clear commitment of which water government agency will take charge for each strategy. Market-based instruments like emission charges and subsidies do not help solve the problem of water pollution in the long term. We know that private manufacturers may always have the money to pay for the pollution that they throw to the water, so the tendency is to just keep paying fines and keep polluting our water bodies. There should still be a complementary command-and-control approach by our LGUs and by the DENR to properly enforce the existing water laws and policies that we have, by penalizing companies not only in terms of financial payments to pollution but on cancellation of their business permits or automatic closure for recurring offenders.

The IWRM approach is a first step, but it is also important that before we develop water and other related resources, there should be resource inventory and accounting to be done. Usually the lack of data and reliable data about water, due to lack of instruments and personnel expertise, is the block that stops our water bureau to plan and implement laws and policies effectively. Then can only our water bureau can use IWRM as approach to optimize economic and social welfare without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.

The aim of provision of potable water for the whole nation by 2010 should be part of the long-term development plan, obviously because of its being ambitious given the trends of priority and funding for the past 2 decades. Aims should be practical, doable and should at least be supported by a 6-year roadmap that clearly defines what tasks are to be accomplished supported by the implementing agencies and corresponding budgets.

Pondering on Environmental Policy Issues

Among the topics that particularly interested and enlightened my perspective on environment protection through formulating policies are the issues on US participation on the Kyoto Protocol, solid waste management and environmental ethics/values. On the issue of solid waste management and environmental degradation in western countries, particularly, the United States, it was stated that problems became slightly less severe in 2006 than in 1994. Key pollutants released in the environment were reduced and recycling became more evident. The environment, over the years, gained status on the political agenda of the government. (Cohen, 2006) Yes, there have been numerous international agendas, contracts and protocols between countries, formulated for the past decades that resulted from an alarm on natural resource depletion but mostly because it has harmed the health of humans and large-scale calamities have been experienced one period after another in a short interval never been expected or thought of. I think one factor that led to these changes is rapid globalization. Solely, not only on the perspective of the world becoming flatter, as an exchange of goods and services between countries, no matter how remote from each other, have become the daily grind, but because capitalists from developed nations have relocated almost all of their manufacturing plants and office hubs in developing nations. We know that most manufacturing plants pollute the environment one-way or another, even when mitigating measures and controls are being applied. Business process outsourcing provides these capitalists cheap labor costs, but significantly also stops them from harming the environment of their own country, and instead reroutes all negative first-hand environmental impact to developing countries, which mostly have no choice but to warmly welcome their billions of investment to trigger economic growth for the benefit of the population’s empty stomach. Of course, most of the developing nation’s governments do not have strict reinforcement of environmental laws, that’s why pollutants aren’t that much of a big deal to a hungry nation. So I am not surprised at all why the US hasn’t ratified the Kyoto Protocol yet. I know that it is not just the US who have transferred their manufacturing plants elsewhere, but some European nations too, but generally from by observation through the books that I’ve read, from past travels and documentary TV shows, most European countries, have already advanced their efforts on environmental protection as early as the 70’s. Some European nations consider recycling as daily habit and an old lifestyle, have pilot-tested hybrid cars and were pioneers in operating bullet trains as public transport. Most of us know that the Kyoto Protocol sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries until 2012, including the United States, and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Because developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHH emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on them. The US signed the protocol, ungratified because it was not rallied in front of the US legislature for the past administrations have strong objections arguing that the protocol shall also require developing countries to keep greenhouse gas levels at targeted minimums. They felt that the Kyoto Protocol is unfair in that a country like itself will be harmed economically because they will have to make the most adjustments in order to adhere to targeted levels of CO2 levels set forth in the Kyoto Protocol.

Solid waste is a telltale sign of how citizens’ lifestyles change as a result of economic progress. Moreover, the distribution of waste generation in the different regions of a country is indicative of its degree of urbanization. We all know that in cities, where standard of living is higher, there is usually a higher waste output as compared to rural areas. I have always admired Japan for the technology and innovation that have applied on solid waste disposal. It is reassuring to get an affirmation from our readings that 70% of wastes in Japan is incinerated and used as fuel to generate electricity. (Cohen, 2006) Recycling waste to energy per se, not considering the ill effects that incineration causes to human health, though initial investments on conversion are costly, is still the best way to eradicate solid waste problems in the long run. Unlike in New York City where it must export all its garbage to out-of-state landfills and incinerators in each of New York’s 5 boroughs even though it had enough land to dump most of its garbage in landfills. The city’s current method is the most expensive environmentally damaging option one could imagine. The politics of situating waste-to-energy plants causes the city governments to pursue a policy of waste export. (Cohen, 2006) The same situation of exporting waste also happens in highly urbanized cities of developing nations like Metro Manila. Metro Manila generates almost ¼ of the country’s total waste generation according to a study by World Bank in 2001. (Cohen, 2006) In the past, it was the San Mateo Waste Disposal Facility (SMWDF) in Rizal, which took in majority of Metro Manila’s solid waste. Incineration was also banned so there’s no way we can adapt the model of what Japan is doing. The situation is still very difficult even until now even if we are exporting our wastes at controlled and open dumpsites at the Montalban Solid Waste Disposal Facility in Rodriguez, Rizal, and San Pedro, Laguna and some parts within Metro Manila. I remembered in 2002 when Metro Manila was declared to be in a “state of emergency” to ask for government assistance due to the unmanageable heaps and piles of garbage found everywhere in the metropolis. The not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) problem makes the task of searching for locations for future solid waste disposal facilities for the LGUs and the MMDA a bigger problem.

I have always thought that environmental ethics is relative to one’s culture, traditions and moral standards. The part in the readings where it discussed values as an environmental issue pointed out this reason. For a citizenry, the type of environment and surroundings that they wish to live in dictates not only the environmental policies, but also the value and care they tend to their natural resources. (Cohen, 2006) Contrary to the note on the readings, I think that policy approaches on the environment doesn’t necessarily reflect the way a people value their ecosystems. In the case of the some environmental policies in our country, we might be setting policies and laws that are just dictated by international grant agencies and/or sister countries from where we get our environmental protection funding from, but that doesn’t automatically conclude that the nation really puts a value on it ecosystem. Sure, we put importance to the environment to protect our health, but we as a people have very short-term memories and vision for our next generations. We tend to forget that good environmental policies are made with a purpose of eventually bringing not only economic progress, but also moral progress to our country. I also totally agree with the reasoning that it is difficult to halt economic development and its associated environmental impacts. The desire for economic development is an expression of values. A good life, includes a high level of resource consumption. (Cohen, 2006) Civilization and development itself paved way to the exploitation of the earth’s natural wealth from the time of the Roman Empire to the construction of the tallest skyscrapers in the deserts of Dubai and Abu Dhabi. It was also mentioned that the environmental ethic for most people in most countries has been a form of enlightened self-interest. If we stick to this kind of value system, environmental protection is not traded off against the value of economic consumption. (Cohen, 2006) That is why environmental policies are made to focus on developing less damaging methods for fulfilling our insatiable human appetite for consumption.

Land Administration and Land Management

Efficient and effective land management is very much dependent on land administration. Land administration supports land management decision-making because it involves processes in determining, recording and disseminating information about the tenure, value, use of land and land taxation systems when implementing land management policies. It includes land registration, cadastral surveying and mapping, fiscal, legal and multi-purpose cadastres and parcel based land information systems. Land administration is intertwined also with the broad prospects of land management like land ownership and transfer, land titling and registration, land sub-division.
Land administration system should provide the infrastructure to manage land covering a whole range of activities which include land use allocation, land conversion or reclassification, land acquisition (land assembly or consolidation, land banking, land swapping), land disposition (sales patent, homestead patent, free patent, voluntary confirmation, compulsory confirmation), land development and its regulation, and conservation of lands. Until recent times the primary aim of land administration was seen as the provision of secure title to land. Insecure property rights inhibit investment and hence good land use. They also hinder good governance and the creation of an involved and committed society. Without effective access to secure property rights, national economies cannot progress and sustainable development cannot be achieved. . The land administration infrastructure in our country will be critical to the implementation of any sustainable development or land/environmental management policy. If land records in our country are computerized, a critical mass of data will already be converted into digital form and we are now in a position to analyze this data and monitor trends in the land market. It will now be possible to compile even very general statistics for management information.

If you have a good land administration system, it automatically improves the land management system. An efficient land administration system has a land information system that serves as the basis for decision-making for efficient management of our valuable and limited land resources. In the case of local municipalities, the complete knowledge of what land is referred to and who owns that land, would give them an accurate base of information on which to implement its municipal governance functions relating to land use management, valuation, development control etc.