-DRAFT COPY-

RESILIENCE APPROACH TO WATER GOVERNANCE: A STUDY OF

RURAL MUNICIPALITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

by

Bertrand Alexander Jacob Lesaca

Page 1 of 47
 University of the Philippines National College of Public Administration and Governance

Center for Public Administration and Governance Education

Diliman, Quezon City

PHILIPPINES

November 4, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract__________________________________________________________________________3
I. Introduction________________________________________________________________________4
A. Institutional arrangements and the role of Government____________________________________5

Page 2 of 47
B. About The Study__________________________________________________________________7
1. Scope_________________________________________________________________________8
2. Research Objectives______________________________________________________________8
3. Significance Of The Study_________________________________________________________8
3.1 Social Relevance_____________________________________________________________9
3.2 Significance To PA & Governance________________________________________________9
3.3 Gaps In Literature____________________________________________________________10
4. Limitations____________________________________________________________________10
II. Literature Review_________________________________________________________________12
A. From Governance to good water governance__________________________________________12
B. Resilience______________________________________________________________________16
III. Methodology____________________________________________________________________20
Definitions________________________________________________________________________21
A. Research design_________________________________________________________________22
B. Water governance framework_______________________________________________________23
C. Resilience Model________________________________________________________________23
C. Field Study site__________________________________________________________________24
D. Data Collection__________________________________________________________________25
1. Sources_______________________________________________________________________26
2. Instruments____________________________________________________________________26
E. Data Analysis___________________________________________________________________26
1. Evaluative criteria______________________________________________________________27
2. Tools for analysis_______________________________________________________________28
IV. Research Timeline (2016)__________________________________________________29
V. Bibliography_________________________________________________________________30
Appendix A - Map of Tarlac____________________________________________________37
Appendix B - hazard maps_____________________________________________________38

ABSTRACT

Page 3 of 47
 Water is essential to life and the quality of an individuals life depends on the
availability and access to fresh and clean water (United Nations, 2015). While the
authority granting permits and access to water resources has been decentralized and
devolved to the local government units through the Local Government Code (RA 7160),
the sector is very prone to corruption and abuse (Halpern, Kenny, Dickson, Ehrhardt, &
Oliver, 2008). The resulting inequity from granting usage permits and other ways to gain
control of the access to potable water together with increasing financial loss due to the
lack or inadequacy of existing water delivery infrastructures and wasteful consumer
practices exacerbates the creeping water crisis in the country. Further, the Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Act of 2010 (RA 10121) added more duties and
responsibilities to the LGU in the face of impending disaster due to climate change.

The capacity of rural municipalities is enfeebled when politics steers the focus
toward infrastructure development instead of building needed capacities for good water
governance. These rural local government units (RLGUs) need the knowledge and
information that are relevant to their specific needs and situation. Traditionally, the
national government takes up the cudgels for the LGUs on such matters and coordinates
government and foreign-funded projects, activities and programs to meet local needs for
assistance. However with decentralization and devolution, the additional functions and
responsibilities given these rural LGUs only put further stress on its already limited
resources, resulting in inefficiencies and ambiguity, leading to poor, if not failed, water
governance.

This paper looks at the current literature on good water governance and resilience to
come up with a framework and used as an approach to realize a sustainable good water
governance regime. A resilience approach can determine the state and ultimately enhance
rural water governance regimes in a way that meets the needs of local constituents and is
sustainable even in times of disasters. Specifically, it tries to add resilience as an
encompassing dimension to the four pillars of good water governance (UNDP, 2013),
namely, the economic, social, political and environmental pillars (Tropp, 2007). Based on
this, it proposes a set of indicators to assess the sustainability of a water governance
regime in rural municipalities in the Philippines.

Page 4 of 47
I. INTRODUCTION

It is common knowledge that water, freshwater in particular, plays an essential role in the
existence and sustainability of life on the planet. Like other living systems, human
activities and habitation revolve around the access to and availability of water (United
Nations, 2015). But with the steady rise in world population, increased human
consumption and demand has put extreme pressure on the water sector to the point where
it exceeds nature's ability to replenish itself (UN-Water, 2006).

In the Philippines, in addition to overpopulation and rapid urbanization, the geology and
geography of the country makes it highly vulnerable to natural hazards of either volcanic
origin (such as earthquakes) or powerful typhoons. Changing weather patterns due to
global climate changes have made these hazards more pronounced and unpredictable
posing greater risk of damage and loss to life and property.

The steady population growth in our country has contributed to the increase in human
activity to the degree that it has now affected the natural order of the hydrologic cycle in
the water sector and believed to be the cause of disturbances to the fragile
interrelationships existing within the biosphere (United Nations, 2015). This growth
represents continued and additional stress on the water sector through increased
consumption, inefficiencies in the delivery of services and other issues raised that may
ultimately result in shortages and other water governance challenges. An example and a
cynosure of this paper is the access and delivery of fresh water services to the constituent
community and the role-played by the municipality in establishing a good water
governance regime.

Nevertheless, with limited natural, material and human resources, aggravated by

worsening weather conditions due to global warming, the countrys rural municipalities
are hard put to meet its mandated water governance functions largely due to limited
access to financing and support s well as limited talents from within its ranks. This paper
argues that for rural municipalities in the country, the resilience approach to water
governance is not only applicable to the local conditions but is also an affordable and
practical methodology that can lead to a water governance regime that ensures the
sustainable delivery of freshwater services to the local community.

The following questions are raised in this paper:

- What is the state of water governance in Philippine rural municipalities?

- What does the municipality need in order to improve and sustain the current water
governance arrangement?

- What indicators can be used to measure resilience?

The consumption, conservation and preservation of potable water subsumes the

Page 5 of 47
 social, political, economic and environmental domains in water governance (Eppell,
2014). It is therefore crucial for policy makers to clearly understand the impacts of their
actions and decisions to the local, national and even global arenas of the water sector.

Although domestic and household consumption ranks third behind agricultural and
industrial use, it has the highest, most visible and immediate socio-economic impact (The
Philippine water situation report, 2006). As well, since water has multi applications due
to its unique properties, the inter-relationships of different systems with water make it a
complex system by itself. For this reason, in introducing resilience as an approach to
good water governance, this paper uses a sectoral perspective focusing on the
domestic/household application of fresh potable water. An example and a cynosure of the
research are the access and delivery of fresh water to the community and the major role
played by the municipality in its pursuit to a sustainable and good water governance
regime. Such strategy makes the data gathering and subsequent analysis manageable.

Philippine rural local government units (RLGUs) are much challenged when it comes to
availability and access to domestic and foreign financial programs. As a result, rural
infrastructure development remains a pipe dream. In applying the resilience framework,
local water actors and stakeholders are called upon to talk about, discuss and brainstorm
their municipal water use issues. The data from the encounter are analyzed and the
resulting information shared with the municipality so they can design locally relevant
water policies as well as create more focused and targeted water sector intervention
programs

A. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

A brief profile

The Philippines is a Republic with three (3) co-equal branches of government,

namely the executive (for administration and enforcement), legislative (for law making)
and the judiciary (for the interpretation of the constitution and laws of the land).

The executive branch is headed by a President, who is also the chief executive, as
well as a vice-President, who will replace the President should the incumbent fail to
discharge its duties. Since most power and authority resides with the President, it is also
unitary in form (Manasan, 2004).

The legislature is bi-cameral with the upper (the Senate) and lower houses (House of
Representatives) of congress. Members of the lower house are elected as representatives
of each district (as defined by law) by a plurality of the people within each district while
the 24 member upper house is elected by a majority vote, for the highest 24 candidates,
of the national electorate.

The Supreme Court is the highest body in the Judiciary, whose members are
appointed by the executive. Other justices are appointed by the supreme court through a
vetting process of merit and fitness.

Page 6 of 47
 The government is also multi-level with the national, provincial, municipal and
barangay levels whose leaders are also elected by a majority of votes of the local
electorate for a specified term in office (i.e. Three (3) terms of three (3) years each).
While there have been significant transfers of authority and function from the national to
the local government, substantial power and authority continue to remain with the
national government.

Decentralization and devolution.

The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160) as well as the Organic Act
for Muslim Mindanao (Republic Act 6734, 1989) autonomous region (Manasan, 2004)
decentralized and transferred the provision of local basic services to the local government
units. These additional responsibilities however, came without the operational funding
and left the LGUs to make up for any shortfalls to meet their new mandate. Capacity
development among these local government units has been insufficient due to the income
disparity between them (Araral & Yu, Asia water governance index, 2009).

Additional functions and responsibilities were added to the LGU with the enactment
of RA 10121, known as the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010
(Primer on the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act., 2010). This Act
mandates LGUs to act as contingency planners and first responders during and after
emergencies and disasters.

Institutional Arrangements

The legal basis of the country's institutional arrangement to manage its water sector
begins with article 1 (on National Territory) of the 1987 Philippine constitution that states
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless
of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.Currently, the country has an extensive array of water-related legislation
that serves as the legal bases for policy decisions and regulatory interventions that affects
the water sector.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is the recognized lead
agency in charge of the nation's water resources. But the authority and control for its
management and development are strewn about and shared with other departments,
bureaus, and attached agencies. This creates overlaps in authority and represent an
institutional fragmentation that result in enforcement failures. Consequently,
opportunities for corruption are created further bogging down the water governance
processes leading to its weakening and eventual failure.
Financial stress to the municipality is felt when additional legal mandates and
responsibilities from RA 7160 as well as RA 10121 were prescribed but without the
operating funds required to run them. LGUs are also required to provide and maintain
water supply subsystems, communal irrigation, social forestry and local flood control
projects on their own but with the oversight control of the Department of Environment
Page 7 of 47
 and Natural Resources (DENR) (Local Government Code of the Philippines (RA 7160),
1991).
Figure 1 shows the current institutional arrangements between government agencies,
where overlaps in function and authority creates inter-agency conflicts and enforcement
failures. This incongruence promotes corruption and paves the way for water sector
deterioration. And failed governance.

Figure 1. Major institutions involved in water governance in the Philippines

(SOURCE: Pasimio,
2011)

Institutional fragmentation brings forth the question of authority and jurisdiction.

With the absence or insufficiency of operational funding and other needed resources,
RLGUs will need to rely on its own capacities and human development programs to seek
creative and novel ways for their communities to thrive inspite of the lack of training and
shortages in human development programs. Without resilience, confusion sets in and
chaos takes over during sudden emergencies and disasters.

B. ABOUT THE STUDY

The dynamics involved in a complex system such as the water sector (Eppell, 2014)
Page 8 of 47
 are often too technical for the rural municipality to comprehend and relate to much less
absorb. In order to effect a good water governance regime, the active participation and
engagement of the LGU is essential if sectoral and other stakeholders are expected to get
involved (Tropp, 2007). With current impetus on Disaster risk mitigation (DRRM), more
targeted intervention programs that increase the resilience capacity of the LGU are
needed for effective risk reduction and management to take place.

The study focuses on the rural1 local government unit (RLGU), at the municipal and
barangay level, and takes a perspective from the sectoral use of water for household
consumption (such as drinking, washing, bathing, etc) in order to enable the RLGU to
design and develop their custom-made and targeted interventions to improve and sustain
a good water governance regime as well as demonstrate how a resilience approach
enhances a water governance regime in such a context. The method can then be applied
to other water perspectives using customized measures appropriate for the locality. The
capacity to engage and administer a water governance regime together with the resilience
approach maintains, and therefore sustains, a water governance regime.

In determining the municipal state of water governance, an assessment will be

performed from field data collected through primary (e.g. focus groups, interviews and
direct observation) and secondary sources (such as municipal planning and land use
reports, municipal websites, National Statistics Office, DENR-WMB and NEDA reports).
The aim of this assessment is to have an understanding of the state of water governance
of the municipality and reveal areas of vulnerability to inform and make the municipality
and other water sector stakeholders aware and take precautionary measures. Such
information can also be used to design and create customized and more targeted policy or
intervention. This part forms the ex-ante activity portion and allows the RLGU to prepare
for emergencies brought forth by endogenous and exogenous shocks and stresses in order
to avert or mitigate the effects of disasters.

The second assessment measures the resilience of the water governance regime of
the RLGU using indicators of resilience2. This assessment will provide the needed
information and guidance that will be needed by the municipality in prioritizing programs
and activities to further develop and strengthen their resilience capacity.

1. SCOPE

Realizing the wide scope covered by the water resources sector and in order to be able to
quantify and manage the collected data, the study takes a sectoral perspective and will
focus on the domestic and household utilization of water. Specifically, the access and
provision of water services to the constituent communities (barangays) of the
municipality. The unit of measure includes the municipal and barangay leadership
together with its staff and employees that are involved in the water sector.

1
For this study, Rural refers to municipalities not within or part of a metropolitan, commercial business
district (CBD) or conurbations.
2
Using the Resilience Index designed by the FAO
Page 9 of 47
 Guided by the river basin watershed approach to IWRM, the province of Tarlac will be
the field study site due to the Agno river, a major source of water for Central Luzon and
Metro Manila, which deposits into the Tarlac river watershed as it meanders through the
province3 on its way south.

2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to inform, understand and apply the concept of resilience in
the context of good water governance and disaster risk management.

The following questions are raised in this study:

- What is the state of water governance in rural municipalities? How can it improve and
be sustainable?
- What capacities are needed for resilience, in the context of good water
governance, to develop and grow?

The objective of the study is twofold:

1) To assess the state of water governance of the rural municipality and;

2) To describe and define the resilience capacity of the RLGU, taken in the context
of good water governance.

3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

With its focus on developing the needed capacity for governance from a multi-
disciplinary viewpoint, this research builds on governance theory by considering inputs
from other academic disciplines such as the Social, Behavioral and Bio-Eco sciences.
This broadens the participative base of a water governance regime by providing more
feedbacks, inputs and ideas.

The high cost from the destruction brought by intensified typhoons produced by the
changes in weather patterns due to the global climate change makes this study very
timely and important. The resilience approach to a good water governance that is
sustainable, affordable and easy to implement by rural municipalities, make this study a
proactive contribution to the efforts at disaster risk reduction and management at the
municipal level.

From Behavioral science, we learn that individuals know what is best for them and with
proper guidance, gives them a sense of ownership of their future. This process occurs
over a period. Behavioral theorist John Watson (1878-1958) argued that changes in
3
See Appendix A for map of Tarlac province.
Page 10 of 47
 people do not occur sequentially in phases but through a continuous process of reacting
and adapting as we interact with the environment. In psychoanalysis, even the presence
of conflict, shocks and stresses can be viewed as a source of growth, strength and
commitment of the individual (Erikson & Erikson, 1997). From the bio-sciences we
have the epigenetic principle that supports Watson's view of personal development as a
continuous process, and that from a grand natural plan, the parts arise at its proper
moment until it finally gives rise to a functioning whole (Erikson E. H., 1968). These
theories, though coming from different branches of science through design or accident,
play an important role in water governance theory because of the focus on personal and
capacity development, which empowers the individual to become active and productive
participants in the RLGUs processes for water governance further strengthening the
community.

3.1 S OCIAL R ELEVANCE

A resilient water governance regime implies a certain degree of sustainability in the

utilization of both natural and man-made water systems (Center for Resilience at the
Ohio State University, 1999). With continued access to potable water, the well- being of
the community is improved. This amelioration paves the way to poverty alleviation
(UNDP, 2002).
The inequitable distribution of wealth in the country mirrors the water governance
situation it finds itself in. Blessed with an abundance of freshwater sources, the country is
far from the problem of water supply when compared to most countries (Rockstrm, et
al., 2014). However, the unsuccessful attempts to protect and conserve the water sector of
the country, attributed to the misprision of our water managers, brings us closer to that
conjecture.

The resilience approach provides municipal and barangay leaders with a better
understanding of the dynamics involved in its water sector. Such approach enables the
LGU to act on their own and come up with processes and decisions that are written and
presented in a language they understand in order to guide them in the development and
institution of a good water governance regime that is fitting for their locale. A resilient
good water governance regime also results in more equitable and transparent water
sector transactions as more actors and stakeholders become better informed, more aware
and empowered to participate in its governance.

3.2 S IGNIFICANCE T O PA & G OVERNANCE

The study provides a criteria that identifies good water governance as seen from the
resilience lens. This marks a first in finding ways to improve water governance and sets
the tone for future assessments for the country. In addition, by identifying the elements
that increases the resilience capacity of the municipality, public administration praxis
becomes more accountable, transparent and participative which strengthens good water
governance practices.
Page 11 of 47
 From existing water governance literature, a trend from quantitative to qualitative
participation can be observed, clearing the way to a broader knowledge and
understanding of the local water governance regime. This enables the LGU to confidently
proceed and take over their own water resource governance arrangement.

Finally, this study applies multi-disciplinary concepts to good water governance

theory thereby contributing to the current discourse on water governance.

3.3 G APS I N L ITERATURE

The following gaps in water governance and resiliency literature have been observed and
are summarized as follows:

Water Governance

Most definitions in water governance literature tend to describe the regime, resulting
in unclear and imprecise water policies which causes un-intended operational impacts
(Araral, E. and Wang, Y., 2013). As such, there is a need for more analytic coherence
and diagnostic value research on water governance at the micro level and the emergent
behaviors that arises as a result (Harich, Bangerter, & Durlacher, 2012). This information
will be of great value for disaster prone and far-flung communities that government
service cannot reach.

Capacity building for good water governance at the LGU level is inadequate,
insufficient and periodic. Public officials, actors and stakeholders of the water sector need
to be able to relate to innovative and novel development efforts and focus should revolve
around human development and its relationship with the environment.

Current literature is silent on the definition of good water governance. The terms
governance and good governance are often used interchangeably to mean the same
thing (UN-ESCAP, 2009). There is a need for a common understanding of what makes
water governance good in order to accurately identify its indicators and memorialize best
practices, which can serve as a model for other rural municipalities to follow.

Resilience

LGUs need to understand that the quality and longevity of a good water governance
regime is directly affected by the normative behavior of the community. The success or
failure of such good water governance would largely depend on the resilience capacity
present in the community. Current literature on resilience is still silent on the importance
of gaining an understanding of neighboring water governance plans and initiatives for the
purpose of coordination and integration, lessening overlaps and conflict resolution that
may arise between such jurisdictions.

Page 12 of 47
 4. LIMITATIONS

The case study approach was employed in this research. As well, the resulting time
restraints caused by limited resources played a limiting factor to the study since resilience
can be best demonstrated through changes that take place over time. More assessments
can yield more changes observed and the chances of being able to generalize increases.
Fewer focus groups that are reported has the possibility that it may not be fully
representative of the target population; however, under similar conditions may be used as
a roadmap to guide a good water governance regime as well as predict and possibly
avoid, future disaster occurrences.

Impacts brought about by recent changes due to a new Administration (from previous
to current) was not taken into consideration. This may greatly affect results since water
governance is politically influenced and policy processes and decisions shifts with
changes in the administration.

There is a risk of bias due to informed judgments made in the course of the research
and analysis. Further, bias pitfalls of self reported data such as selective data recall,
telescoping of events, attribution and exaggeration may possibly occur. To mitigate such
risks, an independent review to audit for such biases in the analysis and results will be
sought from selected colleagues and faculty.

Finally, researcher limits requires disclosure in order to ensure that the study proceed
as objectively as possible without research prejudice. These include limits to information
access, longitudinal restrictions and cultural bias. To address these limitations, it shall be
declared, reported and addressed in the course of the field study.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. FROM GOVERNANCE TO GOOD WATER GOVERNANCE

The literature on governance has been extensive but bereft of a common definition of
governance and good governance as well as water governance and good water
governance. The following tables represent a summary of what leading authorities say
about these concepts4:
On governance and good governance:
(World Bank, 1994) Good governance is epitomized by predictable, open and enlightened policy making; a
bureaucracy imbued with a professional ethos; an executive arm of government
accountable for its actions; and a strong civil society participating in public affairs;
and all behaving under the rule of law
(UNDP, 1997) The exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nations affairs. It
is the complex mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and
groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights and obligations, and
mediate their differences

(World Bank, 1997) good governance have three (3) key elements: internal rules and restraints; voice and
partnership; and competition.

(Carino, 2000) the criteria for good government would be the same as good governance.. it includes
accountability and ethics in decision making and implementation, transparency and
predictability, rule-bound decision making and action, responsiveness, a long-term
view of the public interest.

4
Italized contents in the second column were directly taken from noted source to better capture its meaning.
Page 13 of 47
 responsiveness to the will of the people must be recognized as a criterion for good governance.
And as the whole spectrum of views is encouraged to be asserted, tolerance becomes a
necessary qualification for all those who engage in the debate.

(European Union, 2001) Five principles of good governance:

Openness where governance institutions are transparent and inclusive, communicating freely
about what they do and the decisions that are taken, using language that is accessible
and understandable to all stakeholders;
Participation where the quality, relevance, and effectiveness of policies, legislation, regulation,
and practice depend on public participation from conception to implementation, to
create greater confidence in the institutions of governance and the outcomes of policy;
Accountability where every role in the legislative, administrative, and executive processes is
made clear, and where there is appropriate clarity and responsibility from everyone
who is involved in developing and implementing policy at every level;
Effectiveness where policies are timely and appropriate, delivering what is needed, based on
decisions made during participative decision-making processes;
Coherence where policies and implementation actions are consistent with other initiatives, and
are clearly aligned and well understood by all participants.

(UNDP, 2001) the exercise of authority by the state over its economic, political and social institutions in
managing the affairs of the nation at all levels using mechanisms and processes that
provide information regarding socio-economic interests of the constituency and is used
to determine policy direction to meet its obligations as well as adjudicate conflicts that
may arise

(Kooiman, 2003) Governing can be considered as the totality of interactions, of which public
as well as private actors participate, aimed at solving societal problems, or
creating societal opportunities; attending to the institutions as contexts for these governing
interactions; and establishing a normative foundation for all those activities.
And: Governance can be seen as the totality of theoretical conceptions on governing. In fact we
see three levels in this definition of governing/governance:
the level or layer of the problems to be solved or the opportunities to create,
the level or layer of the institutions,
the level or layer of the normative foundation.

(Graham, Amos, & it is about how governments and other social organizations interact, how they relate to citizens,
and how decisions are taken in a complex world. Thus governance is a process
Plumptre, 2003) whereby societies or organizations make their important decisions, determine whom
they involve in the process and how they render account
Governance is a process whereby societies or organizations make their important decisions,
determine whom they involve in the process and how they render account. Since a
process is hard to observe, students of governance tend to focus our attention on the
governance system or framework upon which the process rests that is, the
agreements, procedures, conventions or policies that define who gets power, how
decisions are taken and how accountability is rendered.
- 5 Principles of Good governance:
Legitimacy and voice, Direction, Performance, Accountability and Fairness
(Kaufmann, Kraay, & The traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes the
process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of
Mastruzzi, 2005) the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and the respect
of the citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social
interactions among them.

(Turton, et al., 2007) governance can manifest itself through stakeholder participation and their interactions with one
another, such as society-government-science interactions

(Tropp, 2007) governance can manifest itself through stakeholder participation and their interactions with one
another, such as social-political-environment-economic interactions

(UN-ESCAP, 2009) The process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not
implemented).

(World Bank, 2013) The way power is exercised through a countrys economic, political and social institutions

Page 14 of 47
(Fukuyama, 2013) Governance as a government's ability to make and enforce rules, and to deliver services,
regardless of whether that government is democratic or not. The quality of governance
is different from the ends that governance is meant to fulfill. That is, governance is
about the performance of agents in carrying out the wishes of principals, and not about
the goals that principals set.

(Eppell, 2014) governance can manifest itself through interactions within complex systems

From the foregoing discussion on governance and good governance, three (3)
thematic categories become apparent. These are: 1. as a way for governments to exercise
their power and authority over the land and its people (UNDP, 1997), (UNDP, 2001),
(Kaufmann, Kraay, & Mastruzzi, 2005), (World Bank, 2013), (Fukuyama, 2013); 2. as an
opportunity for society to partner with government in making policy decisions (World
Bank, 1994), (Kooiman, 2003), (Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003), (UN-ESCAP,
2009); and 3) as a roadmap to show under what conditions and situations governance and
good governance can thrive, flourish and be effective (World Bank, 1997), (Carino,
2000), (European Union, 2001), (Turton, et al., 2007), (Tropp, 2007), (Eppell, 2014).
On water governance and good water governance:
(Global Water Water governance can be described as a range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are
in place to develop and manage water resources and the delivery of water services, at different levels of
Partners society.
hip,
2002)
(Malayang, Water governance is a complex of institutional dynamics of power. The power to influence water decisions and
actions (which, to an institution, is largely derived from a combination of its mandate, resources, public
2004) recognizance of its legitimacy, and the scale of its constituency) lies at the heart of water governance.
It is the flux of power across institutions (e.g., which among them are able to forward their preferred
decisions or actions, and which are able to prevent others from doing so) that creates the dynamics,
content, and direction of water governance

(Rogers & Water governance has been defined as . . .the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems
that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different
Hall, levels of society(GWP,2002)
2003)
(Tropp, 2007) Water governance system must be able to allocate water to ensure food and urban security, but also be able to
assess for whom and for what purposes water is provided
(Pasimio, Water governance in the Philippines, however, has become too complex with so many institutions involved, all
with different hierarchical coverage, varied mandates and representing the interests of diverse
2011) constituencies
(Miranda, Water governance is thus not only about dialogue and consensus, it is also about dealing with uncertainties,
conflicts and corruption
Hordijk
, &
Molina,
2011)
(UNDP, 2013) Water governance has emerged as one of the most critical areas to improve the sustainable development of water
resources and services and in order to respond to a global water crisis a crisis which is not about
having too little water to satisfy our needs, but rather a crisis of managing water and making it
accessible to all.

UNDP Water water governance should address, among other things, principles such as equity and efficiency in water
resource and services allocation and distribution, water administration based on catchments, the need
Govern for integrated water management approaches and the need to balance water use between socio-
ance economic activities and ecosystems. It also calls for the clarification of the roles of government, civil
society and the private sector and their responsibilities regarding ownership, management and
Facility administration of water resources and services.
(2013)
(Araral & Argues for a water governance 2.0which pays more attention to the study of incentive structures, is multi and
inter-disciplinary in orientation and with clear policy implications. Theories drawn from public

Page 15 of 47
 Wang, economics, new institutional economics, political economy and public administration can help
diagnose incentive issues associated with water governance such as integrated water resources
2013) management, improving efficiency of water utilities, privatization of utilities and public-private
partnerships, water pricing reforms, virtual waters/water trading, among others

(DROught Water governance is about the way the management of water resources is guided and organized. Alongside
encouraging the application of appropriate technical solutions, it is comprised of the organizational,
AdaPtat legal, financial and political aspects that guide and organize the interactions among and collective
ion actions taken by all actors involved in the management of water resources. The concept of
"governance" is widely used both in practice and in policy science literature, with a great variety of
Govern meanings
ance
Team,
2013)
(Hall, et al., Water managers are not grounded in policy shifts, have little understanding of formal water rights and settle
local conflicts with little reliance on formal mechanisms. The select cases reveal that water rights
2015) provide weak currency in local contestations. Water as a policy area in the Philippines exhibits multi-
layered complexity and fragmentation. Multiple institutions with hierarchical areas of coverage,
varying mandates (regulatory and customary) and sectoral representations inhabit its universe

(Havekes, et Water governance refers to the way the management of flood risk and water resources, fresh water supply and
waste water treatment are organized, and the interaction between the organizations responsible for the
al., related political, administrative, social, legal and financial elements.
2016)

Similarly, the three (3) thematic categories of governance and good governance
equally apply to water governance and good water governance. Again, these themes are
1. as a way for governments to exercise their power and authority over the land and its
people (Global Water Partnership, 2002), (Malayang, 2004), (Rogers & Hall, 2003),
(DROught AdaPtation Governance Team, 2013), (Havekes, et al., 2016); 2. as an
opportunity for society to partner with government in making policy, (Tropp, 2007),
(Pasimio, 2011), (Miranda, Hordijk, & Molina, 2011), (UNDP, 2013), (UNDP, 2013),
(Araral & Wang, 2015), (Hall, et al., 2015), (Havekes, et al., Building Blocks for good
governance, 2016); and 3) as a roadmap to show under what conditions and situations
water governance and good water governance can thrive, flourish and be effective
(United Nations Water task force on reporting, 2009), (Araral & Yu, 2009), (Araral &
Wang, 2013), (IWMI, 2015), (Havekes, et al., 2016).

In addition, the third category can inform the study regarding indicators which may
be used to measure good water governance, as summarized in the following table:

Indicators of good water governance:

Author/Year Indicator
(United Nations Water - Total water renewable resources per capita (trends-variability in time)
- Variability-frequency of extreme events (flood, drought) or change in
task force on annual distribution compared to long term average
reporting, 2009) - % of population with access to improved water sources
- Occurrence of hazardous substances in groundwater
- Waste water treatment
- Budget for water resource as a % of total municipal budget
- Existence of policies addressing sustainability
- Effectiveness of water institution

(Araral & Yu, Asia water Legal Dimension

1 Legal distinction of different water sources
governance index, 2 Format of surface water rights
2009) 3 Legal accountability of water sector officials

Page 16 of 47
 4 Centralization/decentralization trend within water law
(Based on the works of Saleth and Dinar, 2005)
5 Legal scope for private and user participation
6 Legal framework for integrated treatment of water sources
Policy Dimension:
1 Project selection
2 Finance available for water investments
3 Pricing policy
4 Linkage between water law and water policy
5 Linkages with other policies
6 Attention to poverty and water
7 Private sector participation
8 User participation
Administration Dimension:
1 Existence of independent water pricing body
2 Organizational basis
3 Functional capacity and balance
4 Accountability and regulatory mechanisms
5 Validity of water data for planning
6 Science and technology application

(Araral & Wang, 2013) Improving water governance is key to addressing water insecurity in developing
countries and argue for a second generation research agenda which pays
more attention to incentive structures, is more multi and inter-disciplinary
and with clear policy directions.
(IWMI, 2015) .. good governance of natural resources, including environmental sustainability is
accepted to be a cornerstone of sustainable development, with integrated
water resources management (IWRM
Principles include: integration, decentralization, participation, economic and financial
stability with the river basin as the unit for decision making.
Needs a cross-sectoral approach to managing water resources. Prescribe different
targets for countries at different stages of development
(OECD, 2015) Good water governance are the set of systems that control decision-making with regard to water
resources development and management. It is therefore more about the way in which
decisions are made than about the decisions themselves. It covers the manner in which
roles and responsibilities (design, regulation and implementation) are exercised in the
management of water and broadly encompasses the formal and informal institutions by
which authority is exercised.
The Multi-level Governance Framework is organized around seven
gaps. These gaps can be viewed as points of attention that may be
considered: administrative gap, information gap, policy gap, capacity gap, funding gap, objective
gap and accountability gap

Five basic building blocks for good water governance are:

(Havekes, et al., 2016) Evidence of a powerful administrative organization of water management;
There is a legally embedded system of water law;
An adequate financing system is in place;
The existence of a systematic approach to planning;
Observable participation of stakeholders.
Agreed with the Dutch Water Governance Centre definition.
In addition, introduced the three layer model of good water governance: The core element of this
approach is that good water management comprises three layers: a content layer, an
institutional layer and a relational layer.
A content layer: in addition to knowledge of the water systems and the nature of the problems, a
good information position and the experience and skills required to solve the problems
are also essential.
The institutional layer provides adequate organizational framework together with the necessary
legal instruments and a good financing structure which are fundamental requirements
for successful integrated water resources management.
The Relational layer covers the communication and cooperation between actors, stakeholders and
the public. This layer fosters transparency and builds trust

Page 17 of 47
B. RESILIENCE

This paper will argue for the use of the Resilience concept as a tool that advances
good water governance. While the concept of Resilience has been around for a while and
has evolved in its contextual use, it requires the capacity to adapt and absorb the effects
of everyday as well as extraordinary shocks and stresses without significant damage to
itself and the system. (Moberg & Simonsen, 2014). One prescription offered that kicks
starts resilience in a water governance regime is to recognize and understand that we
cannot be divorced from the natural environment since we are a part of it. It is thus
important to welcome change and diversity (Moberg & Simonsen, 2014). Observable
common themes in resilience studies are variations of a common construct that of
sustainability.

Sustainability and resilience are different concepts although are often times
incorrectly used interchangeably. Sustainability, in the context of socio-ecological and
complex systems, refers to the ability to preserve the dynamic inter-relationships and
processes of a system for a prolonged time. Resilience refers to the Capacity to deal
with change, shocks and stresses while continuing to grow. It is about tolerance and
adaptability to the effects brought about by such shocks and stresses (Moberg &
Simonsen, 2014). In short, resilience leads to sustainability but sustainability does not
necessarily lead to resilience.
The following reprises current literature and discussions on Resilience:

Author/Year Discussion

(Holling, 1973) resilience determines the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure of the
ability of these systems to absorb change of state variable, driving variables, and
parameters, and still persist.

(Adger, 2000) ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of
social, political and environmental change

(Intergovernmental Panel on resilience is defined as the amount of change a system can undergo without changing state.
Climate Change,
2001)
Resilience appears to be a common phenomenon that results in most cases from the operation of
basic human adaptational systems. If those systems are protected and in good working
order, development is robust even in the face of severe adversity; if these major
(Masten, 2001) systems are impaired, antecedent or consequent to adversity, then the risk for
developmental problems is much greater, particularly if the environmental hazards are
prolonged.

In a resilient system, change has the potential to create opportunity for development, novelty and
(Environmental Advisory innovation. In a vulnerable system even small changes may be devastating. The
Council to the concept of resilience shifts policies from those that aspire to control change in systems
assumed to be stable, to managing the capacity of social-ecological systems to cope
Swedish with, adapt to, and shape change.
Government, 2002) The antonym of resilience is often denoted vulnerability. Vulnerability refers to the propensity of
social and ecological system to suffer harm from exposure to external stresses and
shocks. It involves exposure to events and stresses, sensitivity to such exposures (which
may result in adverse effects and consequences), and resilience owing to adaptive
measures to anticipate and reduce future harm. Coping capacity is important, at all
stages, to alter these major dimensions.
The less resilient the system, the lower is the capacity of institutions and societies to adapt to and
Page 18 of 47
 shape change. Managing for resilience is therefore not only an issue of sustaining
capacity and options for development, now and in the future, but also an issue of
environmental, social and economic security.

(Folke, et al., 2002)
(Godschalk, 2003)
.resilience for social-ecological systems is often referred to as related to three different
characteristics: (a) the magnitude of shock that the system can absorb and remain in
within a given state; (b) the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization,
and (c) the degree to which the system can build capacity for learning and adaptation.
a series of characteristics of resilient systems that can be applied to physical and social systems
to create disaster-resilient cities, including:
redundancy - systems designed with multiple nodes to ensure that failure of one component
does not cause the entire system to fail
diversity - multiple components or nodes versus a central node, to protect against a site
specific threat
efficiency - positive ratio of energy supplied to energy delivered by a dynamic system
autonomy - capability to operate independent of outside control
strength - power to resist a hazard force or attack
interdependence - integrated system components to support each other
adaptability - capacity to learn from experience and the flexibility to change
collaboration - multiple opportunities and incentives for broad stakeholder participation
Godschalk's model emphasizes resilience as a way to cope with uncertainty. Because we can
rarely predict the frequency and magnitude of hazard agents, and because the
vulnerability of community systems cannot be fully known before a hazard event, cities
must be designed with the strength to resist hazards, the flexibility to accommodate
extremes without failure and the robustness to rebound quickly from disaster impacts

(Walker, Holling, Carpenter, Resilience is defined as the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and re-organize while
undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity
& Kinzig, 2004) and feedbacks

(International Federation of the capacity to survive, adapt and recover from a natural disaster. Resilience relies on
understanding the nature of possible natural disasters and taking steps to reduce risk
Red Cross and Red before an event as well as providing for quick recovery when a natural disaster occurs.
Crescent Societies, These activities necessitate institutionalized planning and response networks to
minimize diminished productivity, devastating losses and decreased quality of life in the
2004) event of a disaster.
(Gopalakrishnan, 2013) Resilience refers to the ability of a country to bounce back and achieve stability after being
subjected to serious economic and human losses resulting from natural disasters.
Although there have been sporadic references in the past to the concept of resilience in
water disaster management, a systematic analysis and discussion of the concept has
been lacking until recently.

(Moberg & Simonsen, Resilience is the long-term capacity of a system to deal with change and continue to develop.
For an ecosystem, such as a forest, this can involve dealing with storms, fires and
2014) pollution, while for a society it can involve an ability to deal with events such as
political unrest and natural disasters in a way that is sustainable in the long-term.
resilience refers to the capacity of a system to deal with change and continue to develop;
withstanding shocks and disturbances and using such events to catalyze renewal and
innovation

(Southwick, Bonanno, resilience is a complex construct that may have specific meaning for a particular individual,
family, organization, society and culture; that individuals may be more resilient in some
Masten, Panter- domains of their life than others, and during some phases of their life compared with
Brick, & Yehuda, other phases; and that there are likely numerous types of resilience (e.g., acute
resilience; emergent resilience) that depend on context (e.g., resilience for a
2014) traumatized Cambodian refugee may be different than resilience for an American who
lives through a hurricane, or than an individual suffering with chronic schizophrenia).

From the literature, we see how resilience and sustainability are closely linked
(Folke, et al., 2002). But being different concepts, it can mean different things to other
people considering changes to factors that affects it. Owing to its conceptual complexity,
measuring resilience is very difficult to perform (Southwick, Bonanno, Masten, Panter-
Brick, & Yehuda, 2014). At best and based on current resilience literature, we can come
Page 19 of 47
 up with indicators that closely approximates the presence (or absence) of resilience.

Despite a deadlock at a universal definition, scope and best approach, resilience

literature provides characterizations of the components which guides the study on ways
to measure the concept. It has also provided field-tested tools to assess water governance
regimes for resilience. This paper will make use of available information and proven
tools to expedite and facilitate data identification, collection and recovery.
Through the discourse on resilience, experts have come up with descriptive measures
and indicators in order to quantify its presence in a individual or organization. Although
no consensus with regard to the nature of resilience can be explicit from the literature,
there seems a common and implicit acceptance in its treatment as a capability instead of a
process. In fact, Masten in 2001 argued that resilience is an innate character that
everyone is born with and can be developed through knowledge and information as well
as personal and social experiences obtained rough the passage of time.
The following table summarizes the literature on indicators for resilience:
Indicators of Resilience
AUTHOR/YEAR Indicator

(Ahmed, 2006) The four dimensions of resilience:

people
organizations in the community
resources in the community
community process
All four dimensions are linked, reflecting the reality that the parts of community are all related and
independent. The first three describe the nature and variety of resources available to a
community for development. The fourth dimension, community process, describes the
approaches and structures available to a community for organizing and using these
resources in a productive way

(Wiek & Larson, 2012) Social-ecological system integrity

-Maintain minimum flows in surface water
-Maintain or enhance the quality of water resources
-Ensure aquifers are not over-taxed to points of instability
-Recognize and coordinate resource uses and impacts within appropriate
physical units.
Socio-ecological civility and governance
-Involve all groups who affect or who are affected by water governance
efforts into decision making.
-Elicit the full array of interests and perspectives through various stages
of governance
-establish collaborative endeavors for water governance
inter and intra generational equity
-ensure fair distribution of benefits and costs among all actors and
stakeholders
-facilitate stakeholder representation based on demography, geography
and interest
-ensure representation of future generations through guardians
who represent their interests.
Interconnectivity from local to regional to global scales
-Reduce or eliminate negative impacts on other regions
-Plan within the watershed or groundwater basin context
-Recognize and coordinate between local actors and broader scale
stakeholders.
Mitigation and adaptability
-Anticipate potential water shortages and water quality problems.
-Mitigate potential water shortages and water quality problems.

Page 20 of 47
 -Adapt to water shortages and water quality problems

7 Principles of resilience
(Simonsen, et al., 2014)
Maintaining diversity and redundancy
Manage connectivity
Manage slow variables and feedbacks
Foster complex adaptive systems thinking
Encourage learning
Broaden participation
Promote polycentric governance
Polycentricity is a governance system in which multiple governing bodies interact to make
and enforce rules within a specific policy area or location

(UNU-IAS, International, the toolkit introduces an approach for monitoring SEPLS using a set of indicators designed to
IGES, & UNDP, capture their essential attributes.

2014) The Indicators of Resilience in SEPLS consist of a set of 20 indicators designed to capture different
aspects of key systems ecological, agricultural, cultural and socio-economic. They include
both qualitative and quantifiable indicators, but measurement is based on the observations,
tallies, perceptions and experiences of the local communities themselves. They are to be
used flexibly and can be customized to reflect the circumstances of each particular
landscape or seascape and its associated communities

(Hills, et al., 2015) Increasing capacity of people to adapt

- Awareness and knowledge of, and access to, locally relevant
resilience-building approaches
- Commitment of leadership
- Capacity to learn and self organize
- Engagement and responsive governance
Enhanced livelihoods and farm functioning
- Asset abundance
- Asset diversity
- Production efficiency
Ecosystem services that foster resilience
- Regulating Services
- Supporting, Provisioning and Cultural Services

Finally, in addition to the above information, there is a current trend to customize

resilience that presents itself as a subject specific concept such as economic resilience,
social resilience, medical patient resilience and the like. As in its application for water
governance, the concept has now become contextual with its meaning.

III. METHODOLOGY
In addressing water governance and resilience measures, assessments are best called
into play. Two (2) assessments will therefore be performed. First, with the primary
objective to determine the current state of water governance in the RLGUs through an
assessment guided by the principles of good water governance and its indicators as
prescribed by UN-Water (United Nations, 2015). The second assessment, will assess the
RLGU resilience capacity to maintain and therefore sustain the water governance.

Data collection will involve instruments such as focus groups, interviews (formal
and informal) and direct observation. The target population includes all officers of rural
local government units (RLGUs) at the municipal and barangay level, whose function
and responsibility is specific to potable water resource management.

Page 21 of 47
 The resulting document report will inform the RLGU in order for them to design and
program more targeted policies and interventions well suited to their jurisdiction. These
efforts will necessarily lead to the enhancement of their resilience dimension that
reinforces the municipalitys behavior and enables them to progress toward a sustainable
good water governance regime.

Because resilience, involves a good understanding of the concept of capacity in the

context of resiliency, appears more qualitative than quantitative, this paper applies a
mixed/meta-data research approach, using the internet as primary search engine identify
relevant literature as well as for literature research and secondary data collection. The
search engines used are Google, Mozilla-Firefox browsers, EBSCO Academic and
Goggle search engines, where information about the state of academic literature on
governance, resilience, sustainability, capacity, adaptability and good water governance
can be found.

This mixed research considered the meta-data approach in the assessment. It is mixed as
it determines the qualitative and quantitative rural municipalitys capacity to engage in a
sustainable good water governance regime and meta-data, because it interposes resilience
as an effective approach in the establishment of a good water governance regime for rural
municipalities, which can be better observed over time.

Using the internet and applying this hybrid approach, existing data from current
research and assessment tools for water governance and resilience based sustainability
field studies are utilized to identify and describe the weak and vulnerable areas of the
municipality, which can then be appropriately addressed and strengthened. The results
will be shared with the municipality in order to inform as well as for them to take over
ownership of their water governance regime and develop it according to their unique
situation and specific needs. By doing so, their resilience capacities improves and
develops, which further help ensure the sustained delivery of water services to their
constituency.

DEFINITIONS
The following are the operational definitions for this research:
Adaptive Capacity: Refers to the general capacity of a system to create additional value from
previous experiences (Morgan, 2006) and live with natural and man-made
hazards specific to their locale (Thapa, et al, 2010).
Capacity: Refers to the overall ability of an individual or system to create value. It is that
emergent combination of attributes that enables a human system to create
developmental value. (Morgan, 2006).
Disaster: An event that arises only if the community's vulnerability and resources are
exposed to a hazard (RA 10121, 2012).
Exposure: The likelihood to which life and property will actually experience the hazard
(RA 10121, 2012), putting them in harms way.

Page 22 of 47
Governance: covers the manner in which allocative and regulatory politics are exercised in
the management of natural, economic, and social resources while recognizing
both formal and informal institutions by which authority is exercised (Rogers
and Hall, 2003).
Hazard: An event or occurrence that may lead to injury, loss of lives and damage to
property and the environment (RA 10121, 2012)
Resilience: Refers to the Capacity to deal with change, shocks and stresses while
continuing to grow. It is about tolerance and adaptability to the effects brought
about by such shocks and stresses (Moberg & Simonsen, 2014). In this paper,
resilience will be concurrently treated as a State or condition of the system
as it changes through time.
Sustainability: Ability to continue a defined behavior indefinitely (Political Persuasion
Knowledge Base, ND). Non-reducing (Daly, 2002).
Tolerance: Ability to withstand daily shocks and stresses (Muberg and Simonsen, 2014).
Vulnerability: A characteristic of a community that makes it susceptible to a hazard or make
it unable to cope and recover from its disastrous effects (RA 10121, 2012).
Water Governance: Refers to the range of political, social, economic and administrative
systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources as well as the
delivery of water services, at all levels of society under its jurisdiction
(Rogers and Hall, 2003. pg 7).
Good Water Governance: Good water governance are the set of systems that control the
decision-making process, with regard to water resources development and
management. It is more about the decision making process than about the
decision itself. It is also a determinant of the manner in which roles and
responsibilities (design, regulation and implementation) are manifest and
exercised in the management and operation of water and encompasses the
formal and informal institutions by which such authority is exercised (OECD,
2015).

A. RESEARCH DESIGN
A focused literature review was done online, searching for recent academic papers on
water governance, resilience, capacity and sustainability using databases of peer-
reviewed academic journals (proQuest Central, Academic Onefile, ABI/Inform Global
and EBSCO Host). Additional keyword filters include adaptability, absorptive capacity
and good water governance. Abstracts were used to determine relevance to the study.
Finally, search engines such as the Academic Journal, Google and Mozilla-Firefox, were
used to locate other potential sources.

Page 23 of 47
 B. WATER GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
The Four (4) dimension model of water governance (from Tropp, [2007] and Turton et al, [2007])

C. RESILIENCE MODEL

Page 24 of 47
 This research postulates the existence of a 5th dimension - that of Resilience, which
encompasses a water governance regime. Resilience may be present in an individual,
organization, or both and is where we learn adaptability and tolerance to
shocks/stresses/sudden unexpected changes. A dynamic mechanism enables a system to
recover and parlay after emergencies and disastrous events.

The resilience concept operates much like the way a gyroscope does, where spinning
circular disks creates a balancing force that keeps the gyroscope from falling off a
ledge. The spinning can be seen as the dynamic relationships that constantly occur
between water governance components while the resultant balancing force is the
resilience dimension at work.

C. FIELD STUDY SITE

Brief Profile

The province of Tarlac is centrally located in the main island of Luzon, and is land
locked by the provinces of Pampanga to its south, Nueva Ecija in the east, Pangasinan to
its north and Zambales in the west. As a result, the province is also known as the
melting pot of central Luzon owing to its multi-sectoral and multi-cultural diversity.
And like the rest of the country, Tarlac has two (2) distinct seasons: dry (November
April) and wet (May October) for the rest of the year (NSCB).
Selection Consideration
The selection of the venue for the field study is based on the River-basin
management approach toward IWRM as advocated by global institutions. From the map
titled Major River Basins and Watersheds in Appendix B, we see the proximity of
Tarlac province to the Central Luzon watershed network that brings fresh water to the
central and southern plains including Metro Manila. The Agno River, a major freshwater
artery, deposits into the Tarlac River watershed as it passes through the province.
Further, owing to its geographical location, Tarlac is a province landlocked by the
Page 25 of 47
 Source: DENR, 2006

provinces of Pampanga, Zambales, Nueva Ecija and Pangasinan. As such, major

vulnerabilities have been identified as shown in the following box:

TARLAC RISK
th
13 Rank Risk to projected rainfall change
19th Rank Risk to typhoons
15th Rank Risk to combined climate disasters
6th Rank Risk to earthquakes

SOURCE: (Center for Environmental Geomatics-Manila Observatory,

2005)

D. DATA COLLECTION

Data collection will be conducted in the province of Tarlac, specifically at the following
four (4) municipalities5 whose jurisdictions intersect the Agno River Basin and Tarlac
Watershed. These are Paniqui, San Jose, Mayantoc and Capas. Additional information
which were considered in the selection of these municipalities are shown in the following
table:

Land
6
Population Ar Income Class8 # of Barangays Hazard Risk
ea7
Tarlac X Increased
precipitati
(Pro munici
1,273,240 3,053.6 1st on,
vinc palities Typhoons,
e) Y barangays Combined
Climate
Mayantoc 29,987 311.4 3rd 24

5
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority, 2010.
6
Based on 2010 census
7
In km2
8
1st Class = 55M+ (average annual income), 3 rd Class = 35M < 45M (average
annual income)
Page 26 of 47
San Jose 33,960 592.8 3rd 13 disasters
and
Capas 125,852 376.4 1st 20 earthquak
Paniqui 87,730 105.2 1st 35 es

Although the four municipalities account for approximately 22% of the provincial population,
they represent around 45% of the total land area of the province.

The field research has two (2) objectives:

1 To determine the state of water governance in the selected LGUs using the water
governance assessment tool (UNDP, 2013) and;

2 Find out the municipal resilience capacity in the context of good water governance
through the resilience index assessment tool (Food and Agriculture Organization,
2010).

1. SOURCES

Primary data will be collected from focus groups composed of water sector actors from
the Municipal and barangay level. Face to face interviews will also be conducted with
municipal and barangay leaders (e.g. Mayor or Vice-Mayor and Barangay Captains). The
collection activity from these two sources will be separate to ensure spontaneous
responses. Additionally, direct observation is also applied. All observations shall be duly
Page 27 of 47
 noted and recorded using current information and communication technology tools such
as the smart-phone video, camera and other research and data collection applications
(such as Mendeley and Zotero).

Data from secondary sources (such as DENR agency reports, municipal plans and
records, etc) will be obtained and if necessary requested for exigency and economy. The
resulting information derived from the two assessments will inform the LGU of the state
of their water governance regime and the municipal resilience capacity that will enable
them to sustain and identify a more targeted intervention for improvement and
development.

2. INSTRUMENTS

The main unit of measure for this study is the rural municipality, with the engagement
and participation of barangay officials to obtain a broader water governance base. These
include elected officials, appointees, and CSO/NGO representatives who have stakes in
the water sector.

Main research instrument for this research is the focus group with 5 per group and no
more than 90 minutes per group, and formal and informal interviews, local anecdotal
stories and ocular/anecdotal experiences from local social gatherings in the duration of
the field study.

E. DATA ANALYSIS

To capture as much qualitative data in the field, instead of an impassive questionnaire

survey, the questions will be pre-formulated (based on the measures and indicators
previously discussed) and asked by way of focus groups (FC). This will provide the study
with more empirical evidence as participant interactions are observed. These FCs will be
composed of the LGUs water sector personnel (including their barangay level
counterparts) who reports to a supervisor.
Municipal and barangay leadership will be interviewed separately, through face-to-
face interviews (FtF). This is to allow for more freedom and candidness in the conduct of
focus group data gathering.
Each encounter (e.g. FC or FtF interview) will have 2 parts. The first will seek to
assess the state of water governance from the perspective of the LGU. The second
measures the resilience capacity of the LGU in the context of good water governance
(GWM) and DRRM.

1. EVALUATIVE CRITERIA

To come up with a snapshot of the state of water governance of the municipality, the
following measures and indicators will be considered:

Component Measure/Indicator Data Source

Economic - Average daily income per person (Peso/person/day)

Page 28 of 47
 - Average per person daily expenditure (Peso/person/day)
- Household use of water (liters per person) Base=
(Efficient Use) - Water sources used for cottage industry
- type of work available for females and males.
- average working age
- Housing (# of rooms owned and # people living in it)
- Luxury items abound? (i.e. TV, Car, Boat. etc...)
- Domestic Livestock available?
- Financial ability to pay for water services Level of
educational attainment (academic and non-academic)
- Proximity to water source / level of water service (I, II or
III)
- Employment opportunities / livelihood programs
- Availability of choices for water service
- Level of technology available (WiFi, internet access,
number of cellphones available, etc)

- Frequency of assistance (number of times assistance was

received in the last six months) availed.
Social - Are assistance properly targeted? Who decides? Do they
(Fair allocation and target the needy; to some who are not; or no
distinction?
access) - Evidence of monetary and non-monetary support?
- Are jobs or livelihood assistance provided? How does one
find gainful employment??
- How sufficient are the assistance provided? Are they
allocated fairly?
- Are there evidence or strategies that demonstrate coping
and adapting
- how is water allocated? Who decides?

- Physical access to water services are at what level? (I, II or

III)
Political - Water quality
- Mobility and transport system
(Equal and
- Presence of water networks
Democratic
access and
allocation)

- Number of household members that have lost their job

(count)
Environmental - Income change (ordinal; increased, the same, decreased)
- Expenditure change (ordinal; increased, the same,
(Sustainable
decreased)
consumption - Capacity to maintain stability demonstrated?
, protection - Safety net dependency (share of transfers on the total
and income)
conservation - Education system stability (ordinal; quality increased, the
) same, decreased)

In assessing the resilience capacity of the municipality, the following indicators are
considered:
Page 29 of 47
 Component Measure/Indicator Data Source
- Diversity of income sources (count, 0 to 6)
Resilience - Educational level (household average)
- Employment ratio (ratio, number of employed divided by
(Adaptability and
household size)
Parlay - Available coping strategies (count, 0 to 18)
capacity) - Food consumption ratio (Share of food expenditure
divided
by total expenditure)

Others Direct Observation

Recovery time
Connectivity / Slow
variable /
Feedback
Diversity /
Redundancy
Adaptive thinking /
Learning
Participation /
Polycentric
governance
Average age of
municipal
population
Community
relationships
(weak-
moderate-
strong)
Level of education
(average for
the
municipality
)
Population diversity
Ecological diversity
Change resistant
factor
Overall health of the
municipality
Social support system
Available resources
allocated to
water
resource
management

Page 30 of 47
 2. TOOLS FOR ANALYSIS

Guided by the UN Water governance assessment procedure, the state of the

municipal water governance regime is determined. The results are provided to the
municipality so they can come up with targeted ways to improve.
Resilience assessment takes its cue from the resilience index developed by the FAO
and provides the resilience capacity of the municipality in the context of water
governance
Approaching a water governance regime with the resilience framework acknowledges not
only the complexity of the water system but also its dynamism that makes change a
constant and resistance would not only be futile but puts future generations at risk and in
jeopardy (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2010).

Page 31 of 47
 IV. RESEARCH TIMELINE (2016)

Topic Proposal Dissertation

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER

Days = Days = Days = Days = Days =

(Total days: 152)

181

Target week for

Dissertation
Defense

field
work coding
Send out Final
notification Dissertation
for panel, submission
College
Sec and
Meet CPAGE
Draft
with Dissertation
Dr. Target
Pre-field
Berse preparations week for
dissertatio
n defense

Target
Submitted week
topic revision For
Topic Data
Collation and
Analysis
Finalize Topic
proposal
For submission

Page 32 of 47
V. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1987 Philippine Constitution. (1987). The 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Adger, W. N. (2000, September 24). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress
in human geography, 347-364. doi: 10.1191/030913200701540465

Ahmed, A. K. (2006). Concepts and practices of resilience: a compilation from various

secondary sources. Prepared for U.S. Agency for International Development by IRG-
Tetra Tech Joint. Bangkok: Joint Venture under Contract No. EPP-I-02-04-00024-00.

Alcances, R. 1. (1998). Environmental Impacts of Water Resource Utilization. In A. 1. Guerrero

R. and Calpe (Ed.), Water Resources Management: A Global Priority. International
Conference on Water Resources Management (pp. 291-299). Manila: National Academy
of Science and Technology. Retrieved November 14, 2015

Araral, E., & Wang, Y. (2013). Water governance 2.0: A review and second generation research
agenda. Water Resources Management, 27(11), 3945-3957.

Araral, E., & Wang, Y. (2015, April). Does water governance matter to water sector
performance? Evidence from ten provinces in China. Water Policy, Vol. 17(Issue 2), 268-
282. Retrieved May 24, 2015

Araral, E., & Yu, D. (2009). Asia water governance index. Lee Kuan Yew School for Public
Policy Institute of water policy.

Arellano, F. 1. (1996). Demand side management Water resources management: a global priority.
International Conference and Exhibition on Wate rResources Management (pp. 281-290).
Manila: National Academy of Science and Technology (DOST.

Asian Development Bank. (2013). Philippines: Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Assessment,
Strategy and Roadmap. Mandaluyong City: ADB. doi:ISBN 978-92-9092-941-3 (Print),
978-92-9092-942-0 (PDF)

Batchelor, C. (2007). Water Governance Literature Assessment. iied. London: iied.

Benson, M. H., & Criag, R. (2014). The end of sustainability. Society and Natural Resources,
27(7), 777-782. doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.901467

Bressers, H., & Lulofs, K. (Eds.). (2010). Governance and Complexity in Water Management:

Page 33 of 47
 Creating Cooperation Through Boundary Spanning Strategies. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing, Ltd. doi:ISBN 1849803242

British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA), 2. (2009). Guide to principles of good
governance.

Carino, L. (2000). The concept of governance. In V. Bautista, C. Alfiler, D. Reyes, & P. Tapales
(Eds.), Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader. (2nd Edition).
Quezon City: NCPAG.

Center for Environmental Geomatics-Manila Observatory. (2005). Mapping Philippine

Vulnerability to Environmental Disasters. Manila. Retrieved August 22, 2016, from
vm.observatory.ph/risk_maps.html

Center for Resilience at the Ohio State University. (1999). Retrieved November 30, 2015, from
http://resilience.osu.edu/CFR-site/resilienceandsustainability.htm

Cosens, B., & Stow, C. (2014). Resilience and water governance. In A. Garmestani, & C. Allen
(Eds.), Social-Ecological Resilience and Law (pp. 142-170). New York: Columbia
University Press. doi:ISBN 978-0-231-53635-6

Cosens, B., & Williams, M. (2012). Resilience and water governance: Adaptive governance in
the Columbia river basin. Ecology and Society, 17(4). Retrieved November 24, 2015,
from http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04986-170403

Curtis, D. 2. (2014, November 30). Coping with Crisis. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262829685_Coping_with_Crisis_the_Resilienc
e_and_Vulnerability_of_Pre-industrial_Settlements

Daley, H. P. (2002). Sustainable development: Definition, Principles, Policies. World Bank

conference. Washington DC.

De Stefano, L., Svendsen, M., Giordano, M., Steel, B., Brown, B., & Wolf, A. (2014). Water
governance benchmarking: concepts and approach framework as applied to Middle East
and North Africa countries. Water Policy, 16, 1121-1139. doi:10.2166/wp.2014.305

Diola, F. (2009). Social capital formation through peace and development initiatives in selected
conflict areas in Mindanao and implications for local governance. UP NCPAG, 1-34;418-
434.

DROught AdaPtation Governance Team. (2013). Water governance assessment tool. Retrieved
November 28, 2015, from DROP: http://doc.utwente.nl/86879/1/Governance-
Assessment-Tool-DROP-final-for-online.pdf

Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government. (2002). Resilience and

Page 34 of 47
 Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformation. (p.
73). Stockholm: Environmental Advisory Council. doi:ISSN 0375-250X

Eppell, E. (2014). Governance of a complex system: water. Wellington: Institute for Governance
and Policy Studies.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: WW Norton.

Erikson, E., & Erikson, J. (1997). Life cycle completed. New York: WW Norton.

European Union. (2001). European Governance: A White Paper. Brussels: Commission of the
European Communities. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/

Falkenmark, M., Berntell, A., Jagerskog, A., Lundqvist, J., Matz, M., & Tropp, H. (2007). On
the verge of a new water scarcity: A call for good governance and human ingenuity.
SIWI. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from
http://www.unwater.org/downloads/SIWI_PB_Water_Scarcity.pdf

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C., & Walker, B. (2002).
Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of
Transformations. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 437-440.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2010). Measuring Resilience: A Concept Note on the
Resilience Tool. Retrieved August 4, 2016, from http://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-
palestinian-territory/measuring-resilience-concept-note-resilience-tool

Fukuyama, F. (2013). What Is Governance? Retrieved May 15, 2015, from

http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1426906

Furlong, K., & Bakker, K. (2010). The contradictions in 'alternative' service delivery:
governance, business models, and sustainability in municipal water supply. Environment
& Planning, 349-368. doi:10.1068/c09122

Global Water Partnership. (2002). GWP Annual Report 2002: GWP in Action. Global Water
Partnership GWP. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from http://www.gwp.org/Global/About
%20GWP/Annual%20Reports/GWP%20In%20action%202002.pdf

Godschalk, D. (2003). Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities. NATURAL

HAZARDS REVIEW, 136-143.

Goodson, S., Mory, K., & Lapointe, J. (2012). The Role of Auditing in Public sector governance.
Retrieved November 24, 2015, from https://na.theiia.org/standards-guidance/public
%20documents/public_sector_governance1_1_.pdf

Page 35 of 47
Gopalakrishnan, C. (2013). Water and disasters: a review and analysis of policy aspects.
International Journal of Water Resources Development, 29(2), 250-271.
doi:10.1080/07900627.2012.756133

Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003). Principles for Good Governance in the 21st
Century. Institute on Governance. Otawa: Institute on Governance. Retrieved August 11,
2016, from
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNPAN/UNPAN011842.pdf

Hall, R., Lizada, J., Dayo, H., Abansi, C., David, M., & Rola, A. (2015). To the last drop: the
political economy of Philippine water policy. Water Policy, 17, 946-962. Retrieved
AUGUST 11, 2016, from https://ovpaa.up.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/WPOL-
D-14-00150-2.pdf

Halpern, J., Kenny, C., Dickson, E., Ehrhardt, D., & Oliver, C. (2008). Deterring Corruption
and Improving Governance in the URBAN Water Supply & Sanitation Sector: A
Sourcebook. Washinton DC: World Bank Group.

Harich, J., Bangerter, P., & Durlacher, S. (2012). Solving the Sustainability Problem with Root
cause analysis. Ecosystem Services Partnership Conference . Portland. Retrieved August
6, 2016, from
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/publications/papers/Harich_2012_SolvingSusProblemWit
hRCA.pdf

Havekes, H., Hofstra, M., van der Kerk, A., & Teeuwenj, B. (2016). Building blocks for good
water governance. The Hague: Water Governance Centre.

Havekes, H., Hofstra, M., van der Kerk, A., Teeuwen, B., van Cleef, R., & Oosterloo, K. (2016).
Building Blocks for good governance. Hague: Water Governance Centre (WGC).
Retrieved August 26, 2016, from http://watergovernance.s3.amazonaws.com/files/P085-
01-16-006-eindpubBB.pdf

Havekes, H., Koster, M., Dekking, W., Uijterlinde, R., Wensink, W., & WWalkier, R. (2015).
Water Governance: The Dutch Water Authority Model. The Hague: Opmeer BV, Den
Haag.

Hills, T., Pramova, E., Neufeldt, H., Ericksen, P., Thornton, P., Noble, A., . . . McCartney, M.
(2015). A Monitoring Instrument for Resilience. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program
on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Holling, C. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics, 4, 1-23.

Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Yalcin, R. (2009).
Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)
Page 36 of 47
 management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecology and
Society 14(1): 26., 14(1), 26. Retrieved May 23, 2015, from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis. In J. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. van der Linden, X. Dai, . . . C.
Johnson (Ed.). (p. 94). Cambridge: PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CAMBRIDGE. doi:ISBN 0521 80767 0 hardback; ISBN 0521 01495 6 paperback

Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2013). The

contribution of indigenous and local knowledge of systems to IPBES: Building synergies
with science. Retrieved from UNESCO.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2004). Worls Disasters
Report 2004. In J. Walter (Ed.). (p. 232). Vernier: ATAR Roto Presse. doi:ISBN 92-9139-
108-5

IWMI. (2015). Thinking inside the basin: scale in transboundary water management. Policy
Brief(39). Retrieved August 11, 2016, from
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Water_Policy_Briefs/PDF/wpb39.pdf

Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC). (2007). Rural Resiliency Index. Retrieved
September 20, 2015, from http://wp-rdrp-dev.jibc.ca/rural-resilience-index-rri/

Kaufman, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido-Lobaton, P. (1999). Governance matters. Washington DC:
World Bank.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2005). Governance Matters IV: Governance
Indicators for 1996-2004. The World Bank.

Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as Governance. SAGE publications. doi:9780761940364

Lautze, J., de Silva, S., Giordano, M., & Sanford, L. (2011, February). Putting the cart before the
horse: water governance and IWRM. Natural Resources Forum, 35(1), 1-8.
doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2010.01339.x

Leonard, D. (2008). Why are pockets of Effective Agencies likely in weak governance states and
why? A Propositional Inventory. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. doi:ISBN:
978 1 85864 698 7

Local Government Code of the Philippines (RA 7160). (1991, October 10). RA 7160. Manila:
Philippine Official Gazette. Retrieved November 21, 2015, from RP Official Gazette:
http://www.gov.ph/1991/10/10/republic-act-no-7160/

Malayang, B. I. (2004). A Model of Water Governance in the Philippines. In A. Rola, H.

Page 37 of 47
 Francisco, & J. Liguton (Eds.), Winning the Water Wars: watersheds, water policies and
water institutions (pp. 59-84). PCARRD. doi:ISBN 971-564-075-3

Manasan, R. G. (2004). LOCAL PUBLIC FINANCE IN THE PHILIPPINES: BALANCING

AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Masten, A. (2001, March). Ordinary Magic: Resilience Processes in Development. American

Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.3.227

McGregor, D. A.-5. (2014). Traditional knowledge and water governance. Alternative: An

International Journal Of Indigenous Peoples, 10(5), 493-507.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMAN WELL-BEING:

WETLANDS AND WATER Synthesis. Wasington DC: World Resources Institute.
doi:ISBN 1-56973-597-2

Miranda, L., Hordijk, M., & Molina, R. (2011). Water Governance Key Approaches: An
Analytical framework, A Literary Review. Amsterdam.

Moberg, F., & Simonsen, S. (2014). What is Resilience? An Introduction to Social-Ecological

Research. Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Science.

Morgan, P. (2006). The Concept of Capacity. Retrieved September 19, 2015, from
www.preval/files/2209.pdf

National Economic Development Authority. (2010). Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap,
2nd Edition. Pasig City: NEDA.

National Statistics Coordinating Board. (2015). Provincial Summary: NUMBER OF

PROVINCES, CITIES, MUNICIPALITIES AND BARANGAYS, BY REGION. NSCB.

OECD. (2015). Governance challenges and suggested tools for the implementation of the water-
related Sustainable Development Goals. UN-Water.

Pasimio, H. J. (2011). Turning the Tide: Improving water resource management in the
Philippines. Manila: Senate Economic Planning Office. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from
https://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PB%202011-08%20-%20Turning%20the
%20Tide.pdf

Philippine Statistics Authority. (2008, July 29). Philippine Statistics Authority. Retrieved July 21,
2016, from Philippine Standard Geographic Code Interactive:
http://nap.psa.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/articles/con_income.asp

Primer on the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act. (2010). Primer on the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act of 2010.) RA 10121. Metro
Manila.
Page 38 of 47
Republic Act 6734. (1989, August 1). ORGANIC ACT FOR THE AUTONOMOUS REGION IN
MUSLIM MINDANAO. Retrieved August 5, 2016, from
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1989/ra_6734_1989.html

Rockstrm, J., Falkenmark, M., Folke, C., Lannerstad, M., Barron, J., Enfors, E., . . . Heinke, J.
(2014). Water Resilience for Human Prosperity. Cambridge University Press. doi:ISBN
978-1-107-02419-9

Rogers, P., & Hall, A. (2003). Effective Water Governance. Sweden: Global Water Partnership
Technical Committee (TEC).

Satpathy, B., Muniapan, B., & Dass, M. (2013). UNESCAPs characteristics of good
governance from the philosophy of Bhagavad-Gita and its contemporary relevance in the
Indian context. Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, 7(2), 192-212.

Shah, T. (2015). Water governance: context is crucia. International Water Management Institute.

Simonsen, S. H. (2014). Seven principles to guide resilience approach. Agriculture and

ecosystems blog.

Simonsen, S., Biggs, R., Schluter, M., schoon, M., Bohensky, E., Cundill, G., . . . Moberg, F.
(2014). Applying resilience thinking: Seven principles for building resilkience in social-
ecological systems. Cambridge University Press.

Sosa, L. (1998). Water and Sustainable Development in the Philippines. In R. Guerrero, & A.
Calpe (Ed.), Water Resources Management: A Global Priority (Proceedings of the
international Conference on Water Resources management (pp. 8-46). Taguig: National
Academy of Science and Technology.

Southwick, S., Bonanno, G., Masten, A., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014, October).
Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges:Inter-disciplinary Perspectivfes. European
Journal of PSYCHOTRAUMATOLOGY, 5. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338

Tabion, G. (1993). The capability of the barangay as a management unit to absorb devolved
functions: Case studies of 15 barangays in the province of Tarlac. Quezon City: UP
NCPAG.

Tabios III, G. Q. (2012). Water governance in the Philippines and some thoughts on governance.
Quezon City: Institute of Civil Engineering and National Hydraulic Research Center.

Teh, A. (2006). Philippines: governance and local empowerment in the environment and natural
resources sector. Background paper presented at the International forum on globally
Important Agricultural Heritage System, (p. 86). Rome.

Thapa, S., Marshall, F., & Stagl, S. (2010). Understanding Peri-Urban Sustainability: The Role

Page 39 of 47
 of the Resilience Approach. Brighton: STEPS Working Paper 38.

The Philippine water situation report. (2006). Philippine water situation report. Metro Manila: A
project of the League of cities of the Philippines (LCP).

Tropp, H. 2. (2007). Water governance: trends and needs for new capacity development. Water
Policy, 919(30). doi:10.2166/wp.2007.137

Tuddao, V. (2014). POLICY RESEARCH ON WATER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND

COLLABORATION FRAMEWORK BETWEEN POLICY MAKERS AND
RESEARCHERS IN THE PHILIPPINES. Quezon City: DENR.

Turton, A., Hattingh, H., Maree, G., Roux, D., Claasen, M., & Strydom, W. (2007). Governance
as a Trialogue: Government-Society-Science in Transition. (A. Turton, H. Hattingh, G.
Maree, D. Roux, M. Claasen, & W. Strydom, Eds.) pp. 29-37.

UNDP. (1997). Human Development Report 1997. New York: Oxford University Press.
doi:ISBN 0-19-511996-7 (cloth) ISBN 0-19-511997-5 (paper)

UNDP. (2001). Human Development Report 2001. New York: Oxford University Press.

UNDP. (2002). Human Development Report. UNDP-Human Development Report.

UNDP. (2013). Use's guide on assessing water governance.

UN-ESCAP. (2009). What is Good Governance?

United Nations Water task force on reporting. (2009). Assessing progress in the water sector.

United Nations. (2015). World Water Development Report (UN-WWDR).

United Nations Development Program. (2006). Human Development Report. New York.

UNU-IAS, International, B., IGES, & UNDP. (2014). Toolkit for the indicators of Resilience in
Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS). doi:ISBN 978-92-9255-
006-6

UN-Water. (2006). The World Water Development Report (WWDR). Retrieved October 3, 2015,
from http://www.unwater.org/publications/world-water-development-report/en/

van Tilburg, M. (2010). Linking Natural Science-based Knowledge to Governance Strategy: A

case of regional water depletion analyzed. In H. a. Bressers.

Walker, B., Holling, C., Carpenter, S., & Kinzig, A. (2004, September 16). Resilience,
Adaptability and Transformability in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Scoiety,
9(2). Retrieved August 10, 2016, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/

Page 40 of 47
Wiek, A., & Larson, K. (2012). Water, People and Sustainability-A Systems Framework for
Analyzing Water Governance Regimes.

World Bank. (1994). World Development Report 1994: Infrasrtucture for development. World
Bank. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:ISSN 0163-5085

World Bank. (1997). World Development Report 1997. Oxford University Press. Retrieved
August 11, 2016, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5980

World Bank. (2013). Annual Report 2013. World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-9937-8

APPENDIX A - MAP OF TARLAC

Map of Tarlac

Page 41 of 47
 1st Class Province

Population (2010 census}:

1,273,240
Land area: 3,053.6
km2

(Source: Google maps and Philippine

Statistics Authority)

APPENDIX B - HAZARD MAPS

Page 42 of 47
 (SOURCE: Mapping Philippine vulnerability to environmental disasters. 2005)

Page 43 of 47
 (SOURCE: Mapping Philippine vulnerability to environmental disasters. 2005)
Page 44 of 47
 (SOURCE: Mapping Philippine vulnerability to environmental disasters. 2005)

Page 45 of 47
Page 46 of 47
 (SOURCE: Mapping Philippine vulnerability to environmental disasters. 2005)

Page 47 of 47