Comparative Policy Research on the

Best Practices in Ecosystem-Based

Planning and Management in the
Iloilo, Philippines and Canada1

John Paul G. Cabios

Paul Joseph N. Untaran
Professor Pepito Fernandez

1
A version of this manuscript was submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirements of Social Science 199.2 at UP
Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines.
1
 ABSTRACT

The Philippines is an examples of a developing country that is challenged by the lack of

sustainable development (i.e., economic growth, social equity vulnerable to natural disaster that
erodes soil and water quality. With the continuous evolution of watershed management practices and
the growing importance of climate change mitigation, there is a need to reassess the structure,
function, and policy approach of the different stakeholders.
And due to climate change and anthropogenic impacts, the environment especially watershed
and agricultural farms in Canada are greatly affected. Because of this, there is a need to create
environmental management practices to mitigate and minimize the effects of climate change and
human interventions.
The objectives of this paper is (1) to provide an analysis of the best watershed management
practices in Canada and Philippines, (2) to identify governance structures and inter-governmental
coordination, and (3) to determine planning approaches and community and stakeholder engagement.
This paper will discuss generic models of governance in environmental policy and the different
approaches to water management in both countries. This paper will also compare the differences
between the models and approaches used in the two countries. And lastly, this paper will evaluate the
use of watershed management practices in Canada and Philippines in order to find out the most
compatible and reliable method or approach of watershed management.

Part 1. Introduction

Watersheds are areas of land that drains water, sediment and dissolved materials to a common
receiving body or outlet. The term is not restricted to surface water runoff and includes interactions
with subsurface water. Watersheds vary from the largest river basins to just acres or less in size
(O’Keefe et al. 2001). Watersheds are reservoirs that receive and stock rain water that come from
high areas like mountains. The collected water and natural resources in watersheds have a huge
importance to the ecosystem and also to human communities near these watersheds.
But because of anthropogenic pressure and climate change, watersheds are also being affected
drastically and adversely. Human activities have negative consequences to watersheds. Pollution is
probably the most harmful outcome of anthropogenic activities. Because of pollution, the water in
watersheds would be contaminated and in effect humans and organisms would be negatively affected.

2
On the other hand, drought or flooding caused by climate change also translate to negative feedback
to socio-ecological systems in the watershed.
So in order to prevent the dangerous and damaging effects of climate change and human
activities to watersheds, watershed management practices should be considered and initiated.
Watershed management approaches or practices are guiding rules and codes of conduct among
various stakeholders in order to preserve and maintain watersheds. Watershed management practices
can be spearheaded by different institutions like government, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), private sector, or local communities. In practice, however, co-management or collaborative
systems are resorted to in the governance and management of complex and multi-level watersheds.

Part II. Summary of Reviewed Literature

PHILIPPINES

Cruz, R. (1999). Integrated Land Use Planning and Sustainable Watershed.

The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the key issues and concerns regarding sustainable
watershed management in the Philippines. Emphasis will be on the various requisites of
sustainable watershed management, sharply focusing on the critical roles of land use planning.
Watershed management is defined as the process of guiding and organizing land and other
resource uses in a watershed to provide desired goods and services without adversely affecting
soil and water resources (Brooks et Al. as cited in Cruz, 1999). It was also included in the
paper the basic objectives of water management and example of watershed management
strategies.

But Cruz our watersheds today suffer from severe soil erosion, erratic stream flow,
diminishing groundwater resource, and declining land productivity. These are the immediate
impacts of past and present human activities such as logging, cultivation, land conversion,
grazing, and mining. To achieve sustainability, management of watersheds will have to devise
ways of minimizing, if not completely getting rid of, the adverse impacts of human activities
inside and around the watersheds.

3
Daroub, S., Hourn, S., Lang, T., and Diaz, O. (2011). Best Management Practices and Long-Term
Water Quality Trends in the Everglades Agricultural Area.

Based on the research of Hourn et al., the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in South
Florida, part of the historical Everglades, was initially drained in the early 20th century for
agriculture and flood protection. The organic soils have been subject to subsidence caused by
organic matter oxidation. The area is mostly planted to sugarcane and other crops such as rice,
vegetables, and sod. Concerns about quality of water leaving the EAA led to a regulatory
program for mandatory Best Management Practices (BMP) since 1995 to reduce phosphorus
(P) loads out of the EAA by 25% compared to historical levels.

In the research, it was also said that the program is highly successful, with 100% grower
participation and exceeding phosphorus load reduction required by law. Trend analysis
conducted on selected EAA farms, sub-basins, and whole basin show, in general, decreasing
trends in phosphorus concentrations, drainage flow, and phosphorus loads. Differences are
noted between farms and sub-basins due to factors that include rainfall distribution, water
management practices, irrigation water quality, soil type/depth, and cropping systems.

As a conclusion, water management practices were the superior and vital factors affecting
phosphorus loads out of the EAA. Water management research that targets farms with deeper
soils is recommended to achieve additional phosphorus load reductions. Other practices to
improve BMP performance include minimizing generation and transport of sediments from
farm canals. The quality of irrigation water from Lake Okeechobee is of concern of its impact
on BMP performance.

Francisco, H. and Salas, J. (2004). Realities of Watershed Management in the Philippines: The Case
of the Iloilo-Maasin Watershed.

In this research, the presence or absence of elements needed to have an effective system of
watershed management in the Maasin Watershed, Iloilo Province are analyzed. The Maasin
watershed is a 6,150 hectare land-area that forms part of the Tigum-Aganan watershed; it is
headwater source of the Metro Iloilo Water District (MIWD) that supplies the water
requirements of the Iloilo City. It was also stated in the research that the Maasin watershed
was degraded because of the maintenance of people of their farms within the reserved areas.
And because of this, the immediate task on hand was the rehabilitation of the degraded
4
 watershed. This translated to the reforestation of the upper portion of the Maasin watershed,
this being the headwater of the Tigum River. Efforts to prevent further forest degradation were
likewise launched.

It was also pointed out that recommendation to implement community-based management in

the area has already been made to DENR even in the early stage of the project’s
implementation - the idea is to provide the community members opportunities to earn from
limited land use activities within the watershed - so that they would continue in providing
protection to the watershed. Also for the Tigum-Aganan watershed, the Local Government
Unit members have passed an ordinance that shall allocate 1% fund out of their annual IRA
for its watershed management programs. For the Maasin watershed, the lowland communities
have made some forms of payments through their contributions (in cash and in kind) in the
early efforts to reforest the 500 hectares portion of the headwater of the watershed. The MIWD
has also made this contribution through the P2 million payments it has made to the LGU of
Iloilo and the DENR, respectively.

Huang, M., Upadhyaya, S., Jindal, R., and Kerr, J. (2010). Payments for Watershed Services in
Asia: A Review of Current Initiatives.

This article reviews 15 Payment for Watershed Services (PWS) programs in Asia, most of
which are in early stages of implementation. Important constraints against PWS in Asia
include high population density that escalates transaction costs of contracting potential service
suppliers, and state control over most forestlands.

PWS is at an early stage of development in the Philippines and only a few PWS-like schemes
were identified. Legal and institutional frameworks exist in the Philippines that could facilitate
establishing PWS schemes. For example, the 1992 National Integrated Protected Areas
System (NIPAS) Act established an Integrated Protected Area Fund (IPAF) financed by
entrance fees, forest product sales, grants, and other income generated by protected areas. And
in addition to, government acts and regulations pertaining to electricity generation in the
Philippines require the power companies to set aside one centavo per kilowatt-hour of the
total electricity sales for the benefit of communities that house power plants.

Rola, A., Francisco, H., and Liguton, J. (2004). Winning the Water War: Watersheds, Water Policies,
and Water Institutions.
5
 Rosegrant et al. (as cited in Rola, Francisco, and Liguton, 2014), for instance, made the
projection that for 2025, only 10 percent of total renewable water shall have been withdrawn.
Viewed in isolation, this figure tends to suggest that the need to manage water use and
conserve water resources in the region and in the Philippines, in particular, is not a pressing
concern. But for the authors, they said that several facts quickly dispel this notion. First, the
per capita water availability has been declining over the years (Webster and Le-Huu as cited
in Rola, Francisco, and Liguton, 2014). This situation is brought about, on one hand, by
increased water demand arising from economic growth and population increases. Second, the
data on aggregate availability are illusory in that they indicate the average supply per capita
per year, without regard to the distribution of available supply. Finally, the Philippine
freshwater ecosystem faces severe problems of pollution and rising costs of potable water
supply.

And as a conclusion, the authors highlighted differences in the valuation of water between
users, indicating inefficiency in water allocation and suggesting that welfare could be
improved through appropriate interventions. Second, water valuation and allocation are also
influenced by policies directed not at water use but at other targets, most obviously
agricultural development. And third, the theoretical model highlights the interaction of water
policies and distributional concerns.

Salas, M. (2012). Academic Exercise Inputs to Davao City Watershed Protection, Conservation and
Management Framework Plan.

As stated by Salas (2012), there are ten major issues in the watershed areas of Davao City.
These ten major issues are consist of: (1) absence of perimeter survey and boundary
demarcation of conservation areas, agricultural non-tillage areas, and prime agricultural lands;
(2) lack of harmonization of national policies vis-à-vis local policies and actual land use; (3)
degradation of watershed areas due to deforestation and unsustainable and unregulated
activities; (4) lack of alternative livelihood and development programs for occupants; (5) titled
areas within protected areas; (6) expansion of agricultural plantations within Conservation
Areas; (7) deliberate misinformation and lack of information dissemination on the Watershed
Code provisions; (8) weak enforcement and monitoring of provisions on buffer zones; (9)
improper wastes management and presence of pollutants in rivers and other bodies of water;

6
 and lastly, (10) LGU and government agencies have limited resources to enforce laws and
implement programs on watershed management.

And as an answer to these issues given, Salas (2012) suggests that WMC (Watershed
Management Council) Secretariat must have an office and clear personnel to act as secretariat
and coordinating body. Technical personnel in the barangays should also focus on
implementing the projects. Another is that NGAs must have clear role and tasks in the project
implementation not as person-in-charge to avoid role conflict. Funding is very important. It
was observed that counterpart scheme among government agencies usually fail or difficult to
manage. Concrete funding from donor agencies or from NGO programs are good options.
And not only that, viability of budget and its fund source needs to be verified in terms of
actual costs, detailed timeframe of each activity and availability of actual manpower.

Tuddao, V. (2012). The Pampanga River Basin: A Case Study.

In the study, it explains that the Cabinet Cluster on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
Chaired by DENR Secretary has approved on May 02, 2012 a resolution “Adopting the 18
Major River Basins in the Country as Priority Areas of the Government. The Pampanga River
Basin is one of the Priority River Basin identified under this resolution.

The study also identified the major environmental, social and institutional issues that affected
the Pampanga river basin. These comprise flooding, degradation of watersheds, river and
riverbank erosion, siltation and sedimentation of rivers and reservoirs, excessive groundwater
extraction, water shortage for irrigation during dry season, water pollution reaches Manila
Bay due to poor solid waste management & sanitation, land conversion and mangrove
destruction, presence of illegal structures and hyacinth growth which impede regular flow of
river, conflicting water usage, and inadequate financial mechanism to sustain river basin
rehabilitation.

And due to these factors that affected the Pampanga river basin, the government created an
Action Plan based on the identified priority projects or programs under the Integrated Water
Resource Management (IWRM) Plan and seek funding assistance for its implementation. The
Pampanga River Basin Committee was also formed to serve as river basin organization to
provide critical link between national level policy direction and local level river basin and
water development and management action plans. It is also intended to plan, integrate,
7
 collaborate and execute or implement integrated and convergent plans through its member
government agencies in accordance with its respective agency mandates. Another role is to
review and recommend local river basin level policy to improve institutional capacity,
governance and operational capability thereby improving river basin management and
sustainable development. Its last function is to develop and apply effective financial
mechanism to sustain effective management of the basin and to seek funding assistance to
support the implementation of its major and priority projects and programs.

Uy, N., Takeuchi, Y., and Shaw, R. (2012). An Ecosystem-based Resilience Analysis of Infanta,
Philippines.

The study attempts to identify the level of resilience of Infanta’s ecosystems as well as
determine the characteristics and linkages which can provide insights into ecosystem-based
adaptation. It seeks to understand how ecological knowledge can be utilized in the
development of local systems to deal with ecosystem dynamics.

By assessing Infanta’s ecosystems from ecological, physical, economic, social and

institutional perspectives, ecosystems are the central focus while considering the forces that
influence the ability of the system to adapt which may be the drivers or determinants of
resilience and adaptive capacity.

The study attempted to show an approach to assessing resilience which considers the
ecosystem alongside the external forces influencing it. The concept of resilience is used as an
analytical tool in understanding ecosystem dynamics because of its potential usefulness in
developing ecosystem-based adaptation strategies. The variations in the levels of resilience as
found in this study suggest that decision makers need to understand the cumulative effects of
human–environment interactions to be able to create positive incentives for enhancing
ecosystem resilience.

Wilson, D. (2014). Agroforestry Systems Can Repair Degraded Watersheds.

The research of Wilson (2014) mainly argues that Agroforestry, combined with land and water
management practices that increase agricultural productivity, can save watersheds from
degradation. A study conducted by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in the Gabayan
8
 watershed in eastern Bohol, Philippines, has shown that agroforestry systems create a more
sustainably managed watershed that allows people living there to benefit from the ecosystem.
The benefits include higher crop yields, increased income and resilience to climate change.

Agroforestry is an integrated land-use management technique that incorporates trees and

shrubs with crops and livestock on farms. Over the years, many watersheds throughout the
world have suffered from intensive resource extraction and mismanagement. In countries like
the Philippines, several watershed areas in the country are now degraded due to deforestation
and soil erosion. But SWAT or the Soil and Water Management Assessment Tool was used
to simulate the impacts of current land-use practices and conservation agriculture with
agroforestry in strategic locations.
The study results showed a significant reduction in sediment yield (20%) and sediment
concentration (35%) in the Gabayan watershed under agroforestry and conservation
agriculture. And the study was therefore able to provide scientific evidence that agroforestry,
combined with improved land management practices, are an effective land use strategy for
the watersheds.

CANADA

Chilima, J., Gunn, J., Noble, B., and Patrick, R. (2013). Institutional considerations in Watershed
Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management.
This research examines the role of institutional arrangements as either facilitating or
constraining the practice of watershed cumulative effects assessment and management (W-
CEAM) within the context of the Grand River watershed (GRW), Canada. As mentioned by
Sheelanere et al. 2013 (as cited in Chilima et al., 2013) Cumulative effects assessment (CEA)
and management is an exercise in both science and institutional governance. Institutional or
governance arrangements refer to the rules and regulations, both formal and informal that
govern resource use or environmental planning and management actions.

One of the primary facilitating factors for W-CEAM is institutional goodwill, that is, good
working relationships. The citizenry of the GRW also appears to be aware of watershed
management issues and involved in planning and management efforts. And for the conclusion,
the authors stated that the results indicate that W-CEAM consists of both of managerial ethos

9
 and a scientific ethos, and that W-CEAM is more likely to be successful if it is first approached
as a managerial exercise, and then as a scientific one.

Filson, G., Sethuratnam, S., Adekunle, B., and Lamba, P. (2009). Beneficial Management Practice
Adoption in Five Southern Ontario Watersheds.

The research presents an analysis of 481 landowners’ self-administered questionnaires from

recent surveys in five southern Ontario watersheds. The main problem in the reading is that
farmers opposed excessive regulation and directive but still wanted government financial
support for implementing environmental practices voluntarily.

Social and regulatory pressures also are important factors affecting why farmers adopt
Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) and it may be that proximity to urban areas
induces more farmers in the vicinity to adopt environmentally Beneficial Management
Practices (BMPs). The reasons for why they may not adopt EMSs include lack of money, too
much time/ paperwork, mistrust of Government, and aging farmers.

As what also stated in the research, logistic regression models for adoption rate and gross
sales helped identify the variables that predicted the Adoption Rate Index (ARI) and Gross
Farm Sales (GFS). The authors also assert that farm size, the adoption rate of best management
practices, age and education predicted and projected the gross farm sales for combined data
sets. While minimum regulations, financial incentives, outreach and technical support for
voluntary programs geared to different farm types and sizes are needed for effective
environmental management.

The research also suggests that wider adoption of Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs)
by landowners in these regions could be achieved if there were a better rapport between
various levels of government and farm organizations and also if more funding were provided
to compensate farmers for their introduction of practices, which reduce their yield such as
expanded buffer strips between their crops and streams.

In the research, the compensation/subsidy method seems to be the most preferred incentive to
foster the use of BMPs by both to farmers and to government agencies. And agencies need to
focus on such farmers and promote issues like local/organic foods which are gaining ground
in Ontario at a rapid pace and help build farmer networks. These networks will then provide
10
 enough economic incentive for the farmers to adopt BMPs, which are environmentally
beneficial.

Parkes, M., Morrison, K., Bunch, M., Hallstrom, L., Neudoerffer, R.,Venema, H., and Waltner-
Toews, D. (2010). Towards Integrated Governance for Water, Health and Social-ecological
Systems: The Watershed Governance Prism.

As said by Parkes et Al. (2010), the case for governance that explicitly integrates social and
environmental concerns with the determinants of health and well-being is strongly supported
by a range of international institutions and reports. So, the article mainly proposes a shift
toward the integrated governance of watersheds as a basis for fostering health, sustainability
and social-ecological resilience. The authors also suggest that integrated watershed
governance is more likely when different perspectives, including health and well-being, are
explicitly understood, communicated, and sought as co-benefits of watershed management.
Because of this, a new conceptual device – the watershed governance prism – is introduced
in relation to the multiple facets of governance that characterize contemporary water resources
management and examined as an integrative framework to link social and environmental
concerns with the determinants of health in the watershed context. The authors assess the
diagnostic and communicative potential of such a framework, discussing its utility as a
concise depiction of multiple, interacting policy priorities and as a guide to integrate different
research and policy domains into the governance of water, health and social–ecological
systems.
Parkes et Al. (2010) concluded that our health and well-being are linked to the watersheds in
which we live, but our experience with managing and governing watersheds for health is
limited. In order to address this deficit, it is critical to provide by providing an overview of
watersheds as a useful and globally applicable context within which to analyze and debate
challenging issues related to social and inter-generational health and equity, environmental
change and social-ecological resilience. And the authors argued that argue that governance
systems that support human health and well-being in a watershed context are well-positioned
to contribute to building social–ecological resilience. However, we need considerably
improved tools to both foster and ground conversations around diverse perspectives to realize
the multiple ecosystem, social and health benefits of watershed governance in general, and
the converging benefits of eco-health approaches to Integrated Water Resources Management
(IWRM).

11
Savan, B., and Gore, C. (2014). Translating Strong Principles into Effective Practice: Environmental
Assessment in Ontario, Canada.

This paper examines two fundamental and inter-related tensions relating to Environmental
Assessment (EA) between the desire to be proactive, promoting sustainable development and
the more traditional practice of preventing harm, as well as the need to balance a predictable,
expeditious and efficient process with transparency and inclusive deliberation. In the paper,
proposed reforms to the environmental assessment process in Ontario, Canada are examined
as a case in point, showing how the recommendations in Ontario are consistent with
international trends. In particular, over-arching principles need to be embedded in more
precise sector-specific policies to enable environmental assessment processes to meet these
competing goals.

Using the case of Ontario, Canada’s largest province, and international literature on EA
implementation challenges, the evidence suggests that meeting the two fundamental
challenges is very difficult. The paper argues, however, that governments can implement
mechanisms that respond to these twin challenges. Building on international scholarship that
has demonstrated that general principles of good EA practice are not sufficient to ensure
consistency, and recognising the likelihood for variation in implementation across
jurisdictions and sectors, this paper argues that guiding principles for EA implementation
must be complemented by sector-specific policies and procedures that clearly and specifically
embed guiding principles into EA application.

Unger, J. (2009). Consistency and Accountability in Implementing in Implementing Watershed Plans

in Alberta: A Jurisdictional Review and Recommendations for Reform.

Unger (2009), emphasizes that watershed management planning has become the norm in
much of North America in the past two decades as governments and communities attempt to
deal with the myriad of issues that impact water resources. Typically, watershed planning has
focused on achieving environmental outcomes, but social and economic outcomes are often
considered as well. Alberta initiated collaborative watershed planning in 2003 pursuant to its
policy, Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability. The provincial government
reinforced the commitment to the watershed approach in 2008.
The author also stated that watershed planning has been promoted by provincial governments
across most of Canada but the focus of most structured planning deals with the protection of
12
 drinking water. Where watershed planning does exist it is largely policy driven and has not
been subjected to serious evaluation and assessment. This is in part due to the fact that
collaborative watershed planning in Canada is relatively new. Implementation of watershed
plans relies heavily on voluntary application of plan actions by individuals and organizations
within the watershed. In this regard, the implementation of watershed plans can be
characterized as opportunistic and ad hoc, insofar as the extent of plan implementation will
depend on the actions and choices of each government agency, organization or individual
within the watershed in any given instance. Government approved water management plans
limit government discretion in prescribed instances under the Water Act. Specifically, an
approved water management plan may set out matters and factors that must be considered in
various decisions of the Director, the central decision maker under the Act, including the
issuance of approvals and licences and approval of licence transfers.

And implementation of watershed plans is in the early stages in Alberta and a broad
assessment of plan implementation has not been conducted. A water management plan is in
place for the South Saskatchewan River Basin and has had significant implications for the
basin, including the closing of the basin to further water allocations from surface water. In
this regard implementation of the water management plan may result in environmental
benefits. However, the closing of the basin has resulted in an increased focus on transfers of
water allocations that may actually increase the intensity of water use. Avoiding further
environmental impacts will depend on future government policies and decisions in relation to
water allocation transfers.

OTHERS

Achet, S., and Fleming, B. (2007). A Watershed Management Framework for Mountain Areas:
Lessons from 25 Years of Watershed Conservation in Nepal.

In this study, Achet and Fleming created a watershed management framework for mountain
areas which is based on the lessons learned from watershed management experience, social
and institutional learning, and the use of a watershed management program evaluation in
Nepal. The lessons led to the adoption of a sub watershed-based ecosystem approach based
on local participation at the sub watershed level.

13
 The study also explains the Integrated Watershed Management Framework (IWMF) which
consists of eight steps with three checklists. This framework was developed focusing on
improvement-oriented adaptive management. The eight steps lead to the preparation of a
watershed management plan. In the process three checklists are used and the first checklist
has general questions pertaining to watershed analysis. The second checklist allows
participation analysis of stakeholders in terms of their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats and opens up new prospects for further reinforcing or building new user group
institutions based on consensus. The final checklist consists of hierarchical watershed
management objectives, including goals, results and activities leading to a program planning
matrix.

In the end, the study concludes that significant difference in quality and substance of the
output, with and without the use of the framework, suggests that an integrated framework is
a useful tool for an ecosystem-based approach to natural resource management and socio-
technical conservation.

Alamgir, M., Pert, P., and Turon, S. (2014). A Review of Ecosystem Services Research in Australia
Reveals a Gap in Integrating Climate Change and Impacts on Ecosystem Services.

According to the study, the benefits that people obtain from the ecosystems are called
Ecosystem Services (ES). A substantial part of human well-being is dependent on the
sustainable flow of ES. Climate change, economic growth and an increasing human
population has placed greater pressures on global ES. The authors claims that ecosystems in
Australia are included in the most vulnerable sectors to climate change thus a comprehensive
review was initiated to explore ES research that integrates climate change impacts.

In the study, the Australian ES research has primarily focused on the impact of land-use
change and management, policy and governance issues, but less on the impact of climate
change on ES. For the sustainable management of these ES – incorporating climate change –
ecosystem and ES specific adaptations are suggested as the best sustainable policy tools for
the future. Thus the authors provided the following recommendations for future ES research:
(1) evaluating the extent and trend of climate change impacts on ES through consideration of
different climate change scenarios; (2) preparing vulnerability maps of important ES that are
likely to be sensitive to climate change and (3) developing ecosystem and ES specific
adaptations to climate change that involve key stakeholders.
14
Bach, H., Clausen, T., Trang, D., Emerton, L., Facon, T., Hofer, T., Lazarus, K., Muziol, C., Noble,
A., Schill, P., Sisouvanh, A., Wensley, C., and Whiting, L. (2011). From Local Government
to Integrated River Basin Management at National and Transboundary Levels.

According to Clausen et Al. (2011), watershed face a range of degradation associated with
human activities, such as pollution, deforestation, and changes in sediment generation.
Although watershed play a critical role as the basic hydrological unit within a river basin they
are often neglected in river basin management. But over the past decade, principles and
practices have evolved to ensure that integrated water resources management (IWRM)
approaches used at the broader basin level to address sustainable development and
management of land and water resources also apply at the smaller watershed level. The IWRM
approach works best when it manages to take the different scales of the river basin into
account, embedding watershed management in river basin management. Experiences with
watershed and river basin management show that both top-down and bottom-up management
approaches are needed and that institutional arrangements must provide for the linkages
between the local and the national or regional levels.

As discussed in the study, the Mekong River system faces several major environmental
challenges over coming decades. Planned hydropower developments, expansion of irrigation
and waterway transport, together with the impacts of climate change will have major
implications for the environment and the livelihoods of basin communities. Balancing
development while maintaining ecosystem integrity requires a concerted planning effort that
is inclusive and transparent. An integrated management approach that guides overall planning
from the watershed to the basin level recognises the importance of multi-stakeholder
negotiations as a means of combining top-down policy implementation and bottom-up
participatory processes. Governance must also be both top-down and bottom-up and
watershed governance must be embedded into river basin management. And also included in
the study, economic forces and conditions underlie many of the activities that impact on
watersheds and river basins. Pressing, and often competing, economic demands lead
watershed degradation and significant costs and losses have often been incurred, especially
for poorer and more vulnerable groups.

Biedenweg, K., Hanein, A., Nelson, K., Stiles, K., Wellman, K., Horowitz, J., and Vynne, S. (2014).
Developing Human Wellbeing Indicators in the Puget Sound: Focusing on Watershed Scale.
15
 On the word of Biedenweg et Al. (2014), planning for and monitoring human wellbeing
(HWB) as a component of ecosystem recovery is a growing trend in environmental
management. HWB is a multifaceted concept that incorporates various aspects of our quality
of life, including our physical and mental health, economic stability, and cultural and spiritual
practices. Although the field of ecosystem services has significantly advanced the translation
of ecological benefits to humans, there has been minimal work identifying the suite of HWB
attributes related to environmental health. One of the primary reasons natural resource
agencies wish to identify and measure how HWB relates to the status of the environment is a
perception that this knowledge will enhance the effectiveness of natural resource planning,
strategy design, and monitoring by highlighting social values as well as key drivers and
impacts of human behaviors in the environment.

Also stated in the study, there are methods in selecting potential HWB indicators. The
methods used to develop and refine indicators were adapted from several international efforts
to incorporate social and cultural indicators into coastal and watershed planning processes.
The process involved iterative phases of gathering and refining potential attributes and
indicators with soliciting feedback from stakeholders, policymakers, and social scientists in
participatory, on-line, and one-on-one formats. And the study presents the final indicators,
detail the methods for getting them, and discuss how they will be applied to enhance
watershed recovery in the Hood Canal watershed.

Campbell, J., Koontz, T., and Bonnel, J. (2011) Does Collaboration Promote Grass-Roots Behavior
Change? Farmer Adoption of Best Management Practices in Two Watersheds.

The article stresses that collaborative watershed management has been prescribed as a means
to foster environmental behavior change among resource users. Yet little empirical research
has examined this claim. This article compares the adoption of agricultural best management
practices between collaborative and non-collaborative settings. Using survey and interview
data, the authors compare farmers in two watersheds: one with a grass-roots collaborative
partnership and one without. In addition, they compare participating and nonparticipating
farmers within the watershed that has the collaborative partnership. Results indicate farmers
in the watershed with the partnership do not have higher rates of best management practices
(BMPs) adoption than farmers in the watershed with a traditional, agency-based approach
encouraging BMP adoption. However, this does not mean collaboration has no effect on BMP
16
 adoption, as partnership participants exhibited higher levels of BMP adoption than did
nonparticipants in the same watershed. Thus collaboration is not a panacea; rather, it is more
appropriate for some contexts than others.

Also as discussed in the article, results from this study suggest that different policy approaches
in different contexts can lead to similar results. It is important for policymakers to recognize
that the ‘‘agricultural community’’ is not a homogeneous population, but one characterized
by a wide diversity of operations, cultural and ethnic properties, soil and water characteristics,
and political structures. This complicates policy choices because collaborative watershed
management is often based and influenced strongly by local factors, including the local
environment and grass-roots stakeholders. Therefore, there is no single best policy tool for
the remediation of water quality in agriculturally dominated watersheds.

Overall, the article asserts that further investigation is warranted to understand the causal
chain from different policy tools, including collaboration, to BMP adoption. Without such
understanding, collaborative theorists and policymakers alike will be handicapped in their
ability to predict and prescribe how and when collaborative partnerships might help address
vexing environmental problems.

Dereynier, Y. (2014). U.S. Fishery Management Councils as Ecosystem-Based Management Policy

Takers and Policymakers.

According to Dereynier (2014), the United States has a new national ocean policy that adopts
Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) as its first principle for managing U.S. ocean spaces
and marine resources. However, U.S. laws that govern the uses of ocean spaces present a
challenging tangle of authorities and mandates that do not easily facilitate ecosystem-based
policies. For over 30 years, U.S. marine fisheries management has been guided by eight
Regional Fishery Management Councils. Working under the many laws that guide setting
stewardship priorities for ocean ecosystems, councils provide the Federal Government advice
on fisheries harvest levels, fish habitat protections, and fishing community needs.
Implementing EBM for any ocean ecosystem requires a careful examination of the laws and
policy processes that affect human interaction with that ecosystem. This article explores the
U.S. perspective on federal ecosystem-based fisheries management, its part in U.S. national

17
 ocean policy, and how fishery management councils might position themselves as both EBM
policymakers and policy takers for ocean resource management.

As what was stated in the article, fisheries management cannot stop marine pollution, global
warming, ocean acidification, or the host of other ills affecting ocean productivity. It will take
an act of Congress, perhaps several, for the United States to untangle its laws and priorities
for ocean spaces and to set a working national ocean policy. Fishery management councils
can and should use Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs), and
other vehicles to make a public case for their priorities for a productive environment, defining
EBM principles for their regions and using Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other laws to bring
those principles to the attentions of others. Councils also can and should set the tone for
national and regional conversations on the needs and rights of people within coastal
communities and participating in U.S. fisheries, and the place of those people within our living
ocean ecosystems.

Erickson, A. (2014). Nested Localized Institutions for Adaptive Co-Management: A History of State
Watershed Management in the Pacific Region of the United States.

As what was discussed in the article, collaborative watershed management incorporates a

number of recent innovations in natural resource management, from ecosystem-based
management to adaptive co-management of social-ecological systems. Facing jurisdictional
barriers to compliance with landmark federal environmental laws, state governments in the
Pacific region embraced collaborative watershed management to simultaneously address
diffused water pollution and habitat loss on private land. Collaborative watershed
management functions by leveraging local social capital through monetary and nonmonetary
incentives, enabling the application of common property regimes to multi-owner landscapes.

As tackled also in the article, California’s water geography is shaped by conveyance. The
north–south disparity in freshwater resources heavily influences the ‘‘hydro political’’
governance of California’s watersheds. California’s watershed management is centered on the
state’s hub of freshwater resources, the Bay-Delta System. California’s current State-wide
Watershed Program grew from the CALFED Watershed Program, part of a failed co-
management effort to restore the Bay-Delta System. And California’s experience with co-
management began with southern California groundwater user associations in the 1940s.
18
 Watershed groups first emerged in northern California in the 1980s, while the state’s
watershed restoration experience likely began with the Fisheries Restoration Grant Program
in 1981. At the time, a new state Forest Practices Act combined withf the Porter–Cologne
Water Quality Act, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and NEPA to provide
support for grant-based habitat restoration.

And as a conclusion, Erickson (2014) said that states implemented nested localized adaptive
co-management to meet federal environmental mandates, utilizing federal funding. Nested
localized adaptive co-management was the culmination of management innovations
surrounding mixed-ownership landscapes with complex social–ecological dynamics. The new
frameworks targeted whole ecosystems, rather than single species under the ESA (Endangered
Species Act) or individual pollutant loadings under the CWA (Clean Water Act).

Gupta, Saurabh. (2014). Worlds Apart? Challenges of Multi-agency Partnership in Participatory

Watershed Development in Rajasthan, India.

According to the research, effective management of natural resources in ecologically fragile

regions has remained a major concern for international development donors, project
implementing agencies as well as for resource-dependent communities. The reading also
suggests that multi-agency partnerships involving various stakeholders (donors, governmental
agencies, non-governmental organizations or NGOs, etc.) could ensure better management of
common property resources, such as water, pastures or forests.

The research also presents a critical analysis of multi-agency partnership in a participatory

watershed development project implemented in the late 1990s in rural Rajasthan. Based on
multi-sited ethnography and qualitative research in the post-project period (2003–2005), it
demonstrates that while the theoretical argument in favor of multi-agency partnerships is very
strong, there are several practical challenges that come in the way of successful realization of
such partnerships. Unrealistic donor expectations, differences in cultures and incentive
structures, widespread corruption in the government sector and diverse agendas of NGOs may
hamper multi-agency partnerships in watershed development. Policy-makers and project
functionaries need to address these issues for multi-agency partnerships to work.

And lastly, donor agencies need to refrain from adopting fancy (and rhetorical) slogans (such
as, ‘people’s action’) while devising their projects. Instead, they should concentrate on what
19
 could realistically be delivered in the course of the project cycle if they are to ever realize the
goals of both ‘participation’ and ‘partnership’ in sustainable rural livelihoods.

Hibbard, M., and Lurie, S. (2011). Creating Socio-economic Measures for Community-based
Natural Resource Management: A Case from Watershed Stewardship Organisations.

The paper explains that the consequence of the transition of rural communities from
industrialised agriculture and natural resource extraction to sustainable development
principles has been the rise of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). In
the paper also defines CBNRM as collaborative efforts, typically involving local, state and
federal agencies, private firms and landowners, non-governmental organisations such as
environmental and economic development groups, and watershed councils. There are no
agreed-upon metrics or even broadly accepted approaches for assessing the effectiveness of
these new institutions. A good deal of work has been done on evaluating collaborative
processes and some on environmental outcomes, but almost none on the socio-economic
effects of their activities.

In order to bridge the gap, the authors have been conducting a long-term action research
project in Oregon, an analysis of the most effective approaches to the design and
implementation of measures of the socio-economic health of communities in which watershed
stewardship organisations are active. In this paper Hibbard and Lurie presented a participatory
process developing socio-economic measures for monitoring CBNRM. The authors describe
the process and the resulting measures. The case study illustrates the necessity and challenges
of developing measures for CBNRM that are locally meaningful.

The paper also points out the potential role of socio-economic metrics in helping to foster new
community-level political narratives around prosperity from natural resources. Developing
relevant socio-economic metrics that are readily accessible and easy to interpret accomplishes
several things. It alerts and educates responsible for community economic development
regarding the contribution of New Natural Resource Economy (NNRE). And adopting an
NNRE approach may provide the essential spark for entrepreneurialism around a new
paradigm for natural resource restoration, management and utilisation that adds to local wealth
and economic diversification.

20
O’sullivan, P. E. (2007). The Ecosystem-Watershed Concept in the Environmental Sciences – A
Review.
The article talks about the ecosystem-watershed concept which originated with the Hubbard
Brook Watershed Ecosystem study. This concept provides an integral framework for research
into contemporary processes in many environments and suited to integrative and
interdisciplinary analysis of many environmental problems. The study also has two important
conceptual significance. First, it represents the first attempt at comprehensive investigation
and measurement of all energetic and material pathways in a discrete watershed system.
Second, it involves the integration of the approach and findings of a number of previously
separate areas of research, in particular those of ecology, hydrology, and meteorology.

O’sullivan argues also that although most human activities are not consciously operated
within ecosystem-watershed, many of man's effects upon other parts of the environment are
transmitted, and manifested as problems, through the energy and material pathways of
ecosystem-watersheds. And the solution to the many of Man's most pressing environmental
problems may well lie in the care and maintenance of ecosystem-watersheds.

Sandler, R. (2013). Climate Change and Ecosystem Management.

The article discusses that predominant approaches to ecosystem management are reserve
oriented and restoration oriented. Reserve oriented strategies involve creating areas where
stressors, such as pollution, extraction and recreational use, on nonhuman species populations
and their habitats are eliminated or reduced. Ecological restoration involves assisting the
recovery of a degraded space to some approximation of what it was or would have been absent
anthropogenic impacts.

The article generally addresses the implications of rapid and uncertain ecological change, and
global climate change in particular, for reserve oriented and restoration oriented ecosystem
management. Sadler argues for the following conclusions: (1) rapid and uncertain ecological
change undermines traditional justifications for reserve oriented and restoration oriented
ecosystem management strategies; (2) it requires rethinking ecosystem management goals,
not just developing novel strategies (such as assisted colonization) to accomplish traditional
goals; (3) species preservation ought to be deemphasized as an ecosystem management goal;
(4) reserve oriented ecosystem management remains well justified, but the goals for it must
be revised.
21
 As what stated in the article, Global climate change undermines the predominant ecosystem
management strategies. To the extent that global climate change occurs, ecological restoration
and place-based protection are less effective in accomplishing traditional management goals.
As a result, ecosystem management must adapt.

Also said in the article, traditional ecosystem management goals need to be critically
reassessed and new goals need to be considered for their appropriateness under conditions of
rapid and uncertain ecological change, something that has not yet seriously begun. Moreover,
these issues need to be addressed in ways that are sensitive to different types of systems—
novel systems, hybrid systems, mixed systems, transitional systems, recent communities, less
impacted systems, and highly manipulated systems—since different types of values are
prominent in different types of systems. Here the focus has been on less human developed
systems. For such systems, species preservation is an increasingly inappropriate goal, but
reserve oriented approaches to ecosystem management remain well justified for non-
preservationist reasons.

Shoeman, J., Allan, C., and Finlayson, F. (2014). A New Paradigm of Water? A Comparative
Review of Integrated, Adaptive and Ecosystem-based Water Management in the
Anthropocene.

The article discusses the three related approaches to water management that are emerging in
a new water paradigm. According to the author, the new paradigm resulted from growing and
expanding human settlements, habitat conversion, pollution and climate change which are
affecting the world’s ecosystems. Human-induced global change is now very pervasive which
enabled the Earth to enter a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. In the study, water
resources in the Anthropocene are threatened by increasing mean global temperatures, altered
frequency and intensity of rainfall and evaporation, rising sea levels and altered discharge
from rivers.

The three management approaches discussed in this article – integrated water resources
management (IWRM), ecosystem-based approaches (EBAs) and adaptive management (AM)
– are emerging from a new pattern of thinking or ‘paradigm’ in water management. IWRM is
most frequently defined as a process that “promotes co-ordinated development and
management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise economic and social
welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital systems”.
22
 EBAs share a similar philosophical operating framework with IWRM. They promote an
integrated approach that influences perceptions and management of social-ecological systems
towards the goals of sustainable use and equity. And lastly, AM involves ‘learning by doing’,
as adaptive practitioners treat management interventions as experiments. This approach uses
feedback mechanisms from the environment (biophysical and/or social) to shape policy,
followed by further systematic experimentation and learning, in a never-ending cycle.

The authors analysed that though IWRM, EBAs and AM are not working perfectly, they do
complement each other. Building on the strengths and managing the tensions between these
concepts could lead to a more robust, systemic approach to water management as social and
environmental interactions become more complex in the Anthropocene.

Unalan, D. (2013). Ecosystem-based Management in Challenging Conditions: Implications of a Case

Study from North-eastern Turkey.

This paper studies ways to implement Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) regardless of

data and governance conditions. It focuses on a case study from Turkey and considers how
EBM can be implemented under certain specific challenging conditions. The case study
provides conceptual context diagrams of actual and hypothetical situations and compares
them using soft systems methodology. This comparison emphasizes the need for a firm
political will that fully enforces regulations on the protection of water resources. The paper
also recommends a productive stakeholder engagement that empowers locals and uses local
knowledge to meet information requirements for progress towards EBM implementation
under challenging conditions.

This paper also emphasizes the advantages of the EBM approach to managing human
activities affecting water resources and natural cycles, and discussed how EBM can be utilized
under the challenging conditions of poor data and weak governance. In doing so, the paper
has investigated water management in the C¸ oruh River basin in Turkey using soft system
methodology (SSM). SSM has been used to conceptualize the actual and the hypothetical
situations and stimulate thinking on what changes are needed for the possible EBM
implementation.

The paper suggests that a focus on the traditional and experience-based knowledge
accumulated in the local communities can supply information for the planning authority to
23
 account for cumulative ecological, social, cultural and economic impacts. For this to happen,
there is need for a change in valuing documented quantitative data as the only source of
information about complex ecosystems. And according to the paper, there is also need for a
change to give the ecosystem and its services more weight in policy formulation and strategic
decision making than conventional policy-making applications do. Recognizing ecosystems
as a third party and maintaining information flow between stakeholders can only be
accomplished by ecologically sensitive and participatory policy formulation.

Part 3. Classification of Cases Via Governance Model

As mentioned by Glasbergen and Meadowcroft (1998), the governance models mentioned in

Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 are the most prevalent in environmental policy. Although they are presented
as a set of ideals, the context boundaries are fading because these ideals are often combined to satisfy
certain specificities and conditions. No longer are they used as linear approaches in governance but
the type of method in addressing problems depends primarily on the issues at hand.
In this study, the generic models will be used to identify the different approaches in watershed
or environmental management are seen as falling into the five categories mentioned. But considering
that watershed management is constantly evolving as different factors such as climate change, actor
dynamics, bureaucratic effectivity, citizen participation, and human behavior become apparent, the
need for a more dynamic approach should be accommodated. By removing mutual exclusivity and
combining a multitude of methods, environmental governance becomes more responsive.

Table 1.1

Model Orientation Key Characteristics Assumptions

Regulatory Law • Governments are the regulators • Society is manageable
• Change occurs through (people will follow
the alteration of rules rules and regulations)
and policies
• Starting model for environmental
policy

Market Economics • Price mechanisms provide • Markets can resolve

Regulation control and are facilitated by environmental problems
governments through price signals
• Aggregating individual

24
 • Change occurs by reconfiguring preferences in a market
price mechanisms leads to socially optimum
outcomes
Civil Society Political • Engaged citizens play • An informed and engaged
Science a dynamic role in civil citizenry exists and is willing and
society able to play a role
• Change occurs through • Critiquing governments
dialogue and debate can induce strong environmental
policy
Co-operative Political • An array of actors • Actors are willing and
Management Science (e.g., government, nongovernmental able to act in a collaborative
organizations, private) interact in a manner
collaborative • The world is complex
manner and uncertainty is high
• Communication and
dialogue is the basis for the
voluntary agreements
• Focus is on organized
interests, rather than on
individual citizen participation
Contextual Law and • Sub-systems or actor networks • Actor networks will
Control and Political form and address form and engage in
Self-regulation Science environmental issues appropriate self-regulatory
• Network formation is behaviour
an outcome of self-reflection
regarding appropriate actions for the
social context and
the environmental challenges
• Governments intervene
to provide corrective
measures when necessary

Table 1.2

Model Strengths Weaknesses

Regulatory • Clear rules for action • Reactive in nature
• Basis for retribution • Unclear ability to address uncertainty and
• Adherence can lead to improvements complexity
• Standardized policies and mechanisms • Requires monitoring and
applicable to enforcement
a broad geographic area • Cost effectiveness is uncertain

25
 • Economic

Market • Integration of ecosystem services into • Price mechanism may not

Regulation markets
• Recognition of the full cost of production
• Behaviour is altered by making choices
with negative impacts less financially
attractive
Civil Society • Public participation enhances
legitimacy
• The connection between
personal actions and environmental
impacts is highlighted
Co-operative • Encourages pluralistic inputs and can lead
Management to effective and efficient processes
• Strives to make mutual dependencies
productive, incorporate multiple knowledge
systems and is a mechanism for building
consensus
• Coordinated and complementary
effort to assert change
• Stresses flexibility and learning, which is
well suited to complexity and uncertainty
Contextual • Resistance to government driven policy is
Control and mitigated
Self-regulation • Highly democratic and fosters engagement
Source: Adapted from Glasbergen (1998) and Meadowcroft (1998)
be able to accurately incorporate
environmental externalities
• Relatively few examples in
practice
• Form of regulation
• Accountability concerns
• The assumption that public debate will result
in positive policy improvements is questionable
• Potential for “productive conflict”, where
ideas are exchanged and debated openly, is
ignored
• Power differentials between
actors and what the actors represent
• No guarantee for efficiency gains
• Negotiated and deliberative process take
considerable time and resources
• Incompatible with some political cultures
• Insufficient capacity undermines
effective participation
• Blatant protection of self-interests
is possible
• Government may be required
to take corrective action
• Ideal of self-regulation may be illusionary in
light of extensive legal preconditions

Table 1.3 illustrates a hybridized perception towards environmental governance. Governance

in this study will be defined as the different ways that society organizes itself to accomplish its goals.
It has emerged as a critical concern in a host of settings, including international relations, the proper
functioning of corporate boards, and the manner in which societies should address environmental

26
problems (de Loe, R. C. et al, 2009). Governance is a perspective that has different definitions existing
in different scholarly works. One specific of governance perspective is inclined towards the
environment. Simply put, environmental governance can be studied through the processes and
institutions through which societies make decisions that affect the environment. With the idealized
concepts on environmental governance mentioned in the table, there is a need to critically recognize
its dynamic characteristics and the possibility of reconfiguring the existing linear theories. To further
support this claim, the generic models mentioned earlier are not mutually exclusive and are often
combined as two or more systems working together. As an example, Meadowcroft (1998) argues that
the co-operative model of governance will not replace existing regulation. Instead, the cooperative
model of governance can work effectively within a system of government regulations and is
compatible with the market model.
Figure 1. The Hybridization of Environmental Governance: An Illustration

Source: Lemos and Agrawal (2006)

As mentioned by Pavola (as cited by de Loe et al, 2009), argues that an inclusive view is
required with a focus on institutional design solutions. Alternative institutional forms of governance
are emerging as conventional models of governance give way to hybridization (Lemos and Agrawal
as cited by de Loe et al, 2009). Lemos and Agrawal (as cited by de Loe et al, 2009) also illustrate this

27
phenomenon with a schematic (Table 1.3) that positions three of the idealized governance models
(state, market and community) in relation to nuanced or hybridized forms that cross the boundary
between two of the governance models. Building on this idea, Duit and Galaz (as cited by de Loe et
al, 2009) draw attention to the idea of multilevel governance to emphasize that governance occurs
through both processes and institutions across scales (e.g., geographic, organizational). In the
Philippines similar models of governance have been have been identified. Figure 2 is an example of
a multi-actor and multi-level governance model in the Philippines.

Source: Fernandez 1999

Veering away from the idealized models, the hybridized form of environmental governance
seeks to concentrate on innovative ideas and strategies to promote changes. Lemos and Agrawal
(2006) (as cited in de Loe et al, 2009) identified three major strategies for environmental governance
that illustrate this trend: co-management, public-private partnerships and private-social partnerships.
Despite these strategies, there is still the need to hybridize and improve the concept. One example is
focusing on the linking and trust building functions of collaborative management, and on flexible and
social learning aspects of adaptive management, has led to the emergence of adaptive co-management
(Plummer and Armitage 2007b; Armitage, et al. 2009; as cited in de Loe et al, 2009).
There are no simple categories to emphasize the importance of hybridization but what this
study will do is to indicate whether the literatures used in gathering the data will fall under any generic
models or if it is a product of a popular hybridized theme. Thus, we can see if there is already a shift
in the use of simplistic models to the virtually endless permutations of interrelatedness between the
social and ecological systems or at least towards the three paradigm shifts in watershed management.

28
Part 4. METHODOLOGY
In this study, secondary data analysis was dominant research method utiliz. Different
academic journals and literatures were used to supply the data needed for a comparative view of
watershed management practices in the Philippines and Canada. Other literatures not falling under
Philippine or Canadian practice served as supporting documents and case examples in the study of
approaches for effective watershed management.
Using the annotated bibliographies as data, the different practices were categorized into
different models and themes falling under the three identified area of application (i.e., Philippines,
Canada, and others). The results served as indicators of the current trend being used by the Philippines
and Canada in addressing watershed management issues. The “models” used can be seen in Table 1.1
and 1.2, while the “themes” refer to paradigm shifts in watershed management, such as: Integrated
Water Resources Management (IWRM), Ecosystem-based Approaches (EBA), and Adaptive
Management (AM).

Part 5. Results and Discussion

Table 2.1 below is an attempt to categorize the literature utilized for this study.

Table 2.1

Philippines Canada Others

Cruz, R. (1999),
Daroub, S., Hourn, S., Lang,
T., and Diaz, O. (2011),
Environmental Science for
Social Change. (2012),
Francisco, H. and Salas, J.
(2004),
Huang, M., Upadhyaya, S.,
Jindal, R., and Kerr, J. (2010), Unger, J. (2009).
Chilima, J., Gunn, J., Noble, Achet, S., and Fleming, B.
B., and Patrick, R. (2013), (2007),
Filson, G., Sethuratnam, S., Alamgir, M., Pert, P., and
Adekunle, B., and Lamba, P. Turon, S. (2014),
(2009),
Bach, H et al. (2011),
Parkes, M. et al (2010),
Biedenweg, K. (2014),
Savan, B., and Gore, C.
(2014), Dereynier, Y. (2014),
Erickson, A. (2014),

29
 Rola, A., Francisco, H., and Gupta, Saurabh. (2014),
Liguton, J. (2004),
Hibbard, M., and Lurie, S.
Salas, M. (2012), (2011),

Tuddao, V. (2012), O’sullivan, P. E. (2007),

Uy, N., Takeuchi, Y., and Sandler, R. (2013),

Shaw, R. (2012),
Unalan, D. (2013).
Wilson, D. (2014).

According to Director Marlo D. Mendoza, the OIC Director of the Bureau on Forest
Management, the Philippines was depicted as an impressive ecological nation decades ago, but
because of mismanagements and unregulated human activities, the state of ecological stability has
worsened. In order to reduce the ecological degradation in the county, different approaches were
integrated. One of the methods was the sustainable management of watersheds in the country. Due
consideration is now given to the comprehensive approaches to management of upland and lowland
areas as well as coastal/marine systems. Watershed management is necessary because it doesn’t only
increase forest cover but also contributes positive impacts such as improved health, economic
progress and different trade-offs that lessens value cost of resources.
Despite the optimistic view on watershed management, the Philippine practice is far from
effective. One of the reasons for this is that the Philippine watershed management practice is
constantly confronted by different challenges that reduce the effectivity of the approaches being used.
Some of the major issues opposing sustainable watershed management programs includes: (1) land
and resource use conflicts; (2) forest conversion, development goals and plans; (3) mining in
watersheds, natural forests and protected areas; (4) overlapping institutional roles: LGUs, DENR,
and, (5) weak enforcement of environmental laws. The Philippine government initiated different
programs to combat some of the factors that lessen the probability of a successful watershed
management practice. The laws and policies formulated and the development plans on reforestation,
timber production and agro forestry, delineation of forest lands, issuance of appropriate tenurial
arrangements, corporate and community-based area development, structural migration for natural
disaster prevention, opening of denuded areas are only some of actions done by the government.

30
 Watershed management practices in the Philippines is generally dominated by legalistic and
policy-driven frameworks. They serve as an institutionalized foundation for watershed issues to be
addressed. Some of the significant policies created for the effective utilization of watersheds are the
following: (1) RA 7586 (NIPAS); (2) RA 9147 (Wildlife law); (3) 1997 national biodiversity strategy
and action plan (NBSAP); and the (4) 2002 Phil Biodiversity Conservation Priorities Program that
strengthens protected areas system and prioritizes 132 areas. These were created in line for the
Millennium Development goals.
Acknowledging that government regulated programs are not enough to address the dynamic
characteristics of watershed management, the insights garnered from mainstream approaches
elsewhere were adopted. An example would be the adoption of lessons learned in the pilot testing of
the Mekong River watershed management dynamics. The Philippines is treated as fertile site to
replicate the Mekong River experience in instituting participatory mechanisms in watershed
management and in improving bureaucratic functions for effective governance. The goal is to create
a Watershed Management Councils at multiple scales that would be responsive to the different needs
forwarded through the use of “bottom-up” and participatory approaches, and a degree of openness
for innovative methods.
Veering away from the traditional practice of government initiated governance over resource
use and rights, the Philippine government is now espousing a participatory style governance with
various stakeholders in addressing resource related issues. Through the use of consultations, lobbying,
legislative representations, and other legal means, the concern on who controls what and by how
much or under what conditions can now be determined by coming into terms and agreeing with
different actors. One example is the Kaliwa Watershed Management Council which is a result of
participatory processes that were carried out from July 2000 to June 2004. Some of the methods that
were used were alliance and constituency building, capacity building, consensus building, social
negotiation, value orientation, scenario building/visioning, and legitimization.
By allowing different stakeholders to partake in the creation of a watershed management
council, there were different gains and changes in the dynamics of watershed management. As stated
by Pasicolan, P. and Pasicolan, S. (n.d.), the following were mentioned as indicators of a contextually
created WMC: change of local actors’ world view and project response; leveled the ground for
widespread local participation; facilitated the free expression of collective aspirations; instilled the
sense of worth of the one-time neglected sector; created communal concern over Kaliwa watershed;
challenged the LGUs to deeply engage; created more space for the locals to come to the fore of the
management system; slowly moved the power of balance towards the unheard and neglected sectors;
provided avenues for the stakeholders to discuss openly their resource concerns and conflicts, and;
challenged the bureaucracy to shift from top-down prescriptive to participatory governance.
31
 In the past, the Philippine government set limits on resource use and rights. However, under
participatory governance, various stakeholders can now agree on certain terms through consultations,
lobbying, legislative representations, and other legal means in resolving resource conflicts. In
essence, collaborative management resorts to participatory process because rights and limits to
exploitation are the core concerns of management, which determines who controls what, and by how
much or under what constraints (Ingles, et. al. 1999). It is also observable that in the Philippines,
civil society now can play a large part in watershed management practices. Communities are now
seen to be important actors in the watershed rehabilitation and preservation. Co-operative
management is needed where different players would take part so that there would be a more dynamic
and integrated efforts for the management and preservation of watersheds. In co-operative
management, actors work hand in hand to have a more effective and efficient watershed management
practices.
In Canada, there is a federal and provincial sharing of responsibility for water management.
Federal Water Policy (Environment Canada, 1987) states that the provinces have the authority to
legislate on all aspects of water supply, use, pollution control, hydroelectric and non-nuclear power
development, irrigation and recreation. The federal government has jurisdiction over fisheries,
navigable waters, shipping, specific aspects of environmental protection, drinking water in areas of
federal jurisdiction, water management on Indian reserves and territories, national parks and federal
lands, international water management and federal–provincial–territorial cooperation in water
resources planning and management.
The Federal Water Policy (Environment Canada, 1987) supports integrated planning on the
basis of a watershed, though, under the Constitution Act, the provinces exercise proprietary rights
over the resources within their borders and hence they exercise direct control over many aspects of
water management. As a result, varying forms of governance have emerged from province to province
within Canada.
Unger (2009) emphasizes that watershed management planning has become the norm in much
of North America in the past two decades as governments and communities attempt to deal with the
myriad of issues that impact water resources. In Canada, some provinces were innovative and
implemented very strong watershed management policies and programs, while others neglected
watershed management until disasters occurred (Senecal and Madramootoo 2004). Events over the
past 25 years, such as the severe pollution of the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes by industries,
municipalities and agriculture; the Red River flood in Manitoba; drought and water shortages in the
Prairie region of western Canada; and deaths caused by contamination of drinking water by a toxic
strain of E. coli in Walkerton, Ontario have focused public attention on water issues and prompted
government leaders to re-think provincial water policies.
32
 Across the Canadian territory, there are different forms of management practices that
progressed in response to a particular condition, social context, and legal frameworks. As such, great
diversity exists from one watershed to another in the land uses, population, landscapes, social
priorities and other key issues present.
Table 2.2

Countries Models
Regulatory Market Civil Society Co-operative Contextual
Regulation Management Control and
Self-
regulation
Philippines Cruz, R. Achet, S., and Alamgir, M.,
(1999), Fleming, B. Pert, P., and
(2007), Turon, S.
Huang, M., (2014),
Upadhyaya, Environmental
S., Jindal, Science for Environmental
R., and Kerr, Social Science for
J. (2010), Change. Social
(2012), Change.
Tuddao, V. (2012),
(2012), Francisco, H.
and Salas, J. Francisco, H.
Wilson, D. (2004), and Salas, J.
(2014). (2004),
Rola, A.,
Francisco, H., Rola, A.,
and Liguton, Francisco, H.,
J. (2004), and Liguton,
J. (2004),
Uy, N.,
Takeuchi, Y., Salas, M.
and Shaw, R. (2012),
(2012).

33
 Tuddao, V.
(2012),

Uy, N.,
Takeuchi, Y.,
and Shaw, R.
(2012),

Wilson, D.
(2014).
Canada Savan, B., Filson, G., Parkes, M. et Chilima, J.,
and Gore, C. Sethuratnam, al (2010), Gunn, J.,
(2014), S., Noble, B., and
Adekunle, Unger, J. Patrick, R.
Unger, J. B., and (2009). (2013),
(2009). Lamba, P.
(2009). Filson, G.,
Sethuratnam,
S., Adekunle,
B., and
Lamba, P.
(2009),

Parkes, M. et
al (2010),

Savan, B., and

Gore, C.
(2014)

Unger, J.
(2009).

34
Others Bach, H et Alamgir, M., Achet, S., and Achet, S., and Erickson, A.
al. (2011), Pert, P., and Fleming, B. Fleming, B. (2014),
Turon, S. (2007), (2007),
Campbell, J., (2014),
Koontz, T., Alamgir, M., Alamgir, M.,
and Bonnel, Unalan, D. Pert, P., and Pert, P., and
J. (2011), (2013). Turon, S. Turon, S.
(2014), (2014),
Dereynier,
Y. (2014), Biedenweg, Bach, H et al.
K. (2014), (2011),
Gupta,
Saurabh. Biedenweg,
(2014), Daroub, S., K. (2014),
Hourn, S.,
Hibbard, M., Lang, T., and Campbell, J.,
and Lurie, S. Diaz, O. Koontz, T.,
(2011), (2011), and Bonnel, J.
(2011),
Sandler, R. O’sullivan, P.
(2013). E. (2007), Dereynier, Y.
(2014),
Unalan, D.
(2013). Erickson, A.
(2014),

Gupta,
Saurabh.
(2014),

Hibbard, M.,
and Lurie, S.
(2011),

35
 Sandler, R.
(2013),

Unalan, D.
(2013),

In Canada, major key players in watershed management practices are more diverse than the
Philippines. Based on the data given, key actors are composed by either government, market, civil
society, or collaborative efforts among these actors. Unlike the Philippines where important actors
are the government and civil society, in Canada however, there is a variety of key actors that promote
watershed management practices. But both in Philippines and Canada, co-operative efforts are widely
used because of the fact that there is collaboration among actors then management of watershed would
become easier and more regulated.

Table 2.3

Countries Themes
Integrated Water Ecosystem-based Adaptive
Resources Approaches (EBA) Management (AM)
Management
(IWRM)
Philippines Cruz, R. V. (2013), O’sullivan (2007),

Environmental Daroub, S., Hourn,

Science for Social S., Lang, T., and
Change. (2012), Diaz, O. (2011)

Francisco, H. and Uy, N., Takeuchi,

Salas, J. (2004), Y., and Shaw, R.
(2012).
Rola, A., Francisco,
H., and Liguton, J.
(2004),

Salas, M. (2012),
36
 Tuddao, V. (2012),

Wilson, D. (2014).
Canada Chilima, J., Gunn, J., Parkes, M. et al
Noble, B., and (2010),
Patrick, R. (2013),
Unger, J. (2009),
Savan, B., and Gore,
C. (2014).
Others Bach, H et al. Achet, S., and Alamgir, M., Pert,
(2011), Fleming, B. (2007), P., and Turon, S.
(2014).
Campbell, J., Dereynier, Y.
Koontz, T., and (2014), Biedenweg, K.
Bonnel, J. (2011), (2014),
Filson, G.,
Dereynier, Y. Sethuratnam, S., Erickson, A. (2014),
(2014), Adekunle, B., and
Lamba, P. (2009), Filson, G.,
Floress, K., Sethuratnam, S.,
Prokopy, L., Allred, Sandler, R. (2013), Adekunle, B., and
S. (2011), Lamba, P. (2009).
Unalan, D. (2013).
Gupta, Saurabh.
(2014).

Hibbard, M., and

Lurie, S. (2011),

In Philippines, IWRM or Integrated Watershed Resource Management is extensively used

across the country. In IWRM, there is the provision of political platform for broad stakeholder
participation, negotiation, and promotion of shared values in conducting watershed management
practices. EBA or Ecosystem-based Approaches are also somehow used in the Philippine context.

37
EBAs are more focused on environment and ecosystem rehabilitation and to build resilience
ecosystem services.
In Canada on the other hand has somehow equal and comparable usage of IWRM and EBA
watershed management practices. Watershed approaches in Canada are not really required to engage
in political platforms for actor participation as long as the goal of managing and maintaining
watershed ecosystem is achieved.
And both Canada and Philippines do not have Adaptive Management (AM) approaches in
watershed management mainly because both countries are satisfied to the efficiency brought by
IWRM and EBA. Adaptive Management involves ‘learning by doing’ where environmental impacts
are measured and experimented and being feed backed in order gain knowledge on how to adapt and
cope to complex environmental problems.

Part 6. Concluding Remarks

In the Philippines, there are more reasons to use participatory approaches that encourage
grassroots level participation. With the different topological characteristics that the country possesses,
it is necessary to accommodate bottom up approaches and restructure bureaucratic processes into a
more responsive and locally reflective management program. We can see that there is an increase in
the number of locally practiced watershed approaches with cooperative management and regulatory
characteristics. It is an evidence that in Philippines, government policies and regulations are much
needed in order to have a more conducive and organized watershed management practices. Local
communities are also required to take part in the watershed management programs because they are
the ones who are living near watersheds and have the job to maintain and preserve it. Also in
Philippines, cooperative management is primarily used so that different stakeholders help each other
in encouraging and practicing different watershed management approaches.
In the case of Canada, which is considered a developed and industrialized country, watershed
management practices are being implemented mainly by different sectors. The market sector, civil
society, and the government have their own major roles in conducting watershed management.
Because of industrialization, natural resources and the environment is greatly affected and also added
by climate change, the result may become more detrimental. So in order to have a more sustainable
environment and watershed ecosystem in Canada, different sectors do various and separate jobs from
others in enacting watershed management practices. And aside from individual initiatives, Canada
also has co-operative management models just like in the Philippines. Co-operative management is
popular for both countries because it is more practical in a sense that key stakeholders are gathered
in order to organize and supervise watershed management practices which we think that is more cost
efficient and beneficial to all participating actors.
38
References:

Achet, S., and Fleming, B. (2007). A Watershed Management Framework for Mountain Areas:
Lessons from 25 Years of Watershed Conservation in Nepal.
Alamgir, M., Pert, P., and Turon, S. (2014). A Review of Ecosystem Services Research in Australia
Reveals a Gap in Integrating Climate Change and Impacts on Ecosystem Services.
Bach, H., Clausen, T., Trang, D., Emerton, L., Facon, T., Hofer, T., Lazarus, K., Muziol, C., Noble,
A., Schill, P., Sisouvanh, A., Wensley, C., and Whiting, L. (2011). From Local Government
to Integrated River Basin Management at National and Transboundary Levels.
Biedenweg, K., Hanein, A., Nelson, K., Stiles, K., Wellman, K., Horowitz, J., and Vynne, S. (2014).
Developing Human Wellbeing Indicators in the Puget Sound: Focusing on Watershed Scale.
Campbell, J., Koontz, T., and Bonnel, J. (2011) Does Collaboration Promote Grass-Roots Behavior
Change? Farmer Adoption of Best Management Practices in Two Watersheds.
Chilima, J., Gunn, J., Noble, B., and Patrick, R. (2013). Institutional considerations in Watershed
Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management.
Daroub, S., Hourn, S., Lang, T., and Diaz, O. (2011). Best Management Practices and Long-Term
Water Quality Trends in the Everglades Agricultural Area.
Dereynier, Y. (2014). U.S. Fishery Management Councils as Ecosystem-Based Management Policy
Takers and Policymakers.
Environmental Science for Social Change. (2012). Communities and Watershed Governance in
Visayas, Philippines.
Erickson, A. (2014). Nested Localized Institutions for Adaptive Co-Management: A History of State
Watershed Management in the Pacific Region of the United States.
Filson, G., Sethuratnam, S., Adekunle, B., and Lamba, P. (2009). Beneficial Management Practice
Adoption in Five Southern Ontario Watersheds.
Fernandez, P. 1999. Understanding Politics and Governance in the Philippines: An Interdisciplinary
Perspective on People and their Environment (Philippine Commission on Higher Education
and Development Coursebook for Region VI). Mindset Publishing: Iloilo City.
Francisco, H. and Salas, J. (2004). Realities of Watershed Management in the Philippines: The Case
of the Iloilo-Maasin Watershed.
Gupta, Saurabh. (2014). Worlds Apart? Challenges of Multi-agency Partnership in Participatory
Watershed Development in Rajasthan, India.
Hibbard, M., and Lurie, S. (2011). Creating Socio-economic Measures for Community-based
Natural Resource Management: A Case from Watershed Stewardship Organisations.

39
Huang, M., Upadhyaya, S., Jindal, R., and Kerr, J. (2010). Payments for Watershed Services in
Asia: A Review of Current Initiatives.
O’sullivan, P. E. (2007). The Ecosystem-Watershed Concept in the Environmental Sciences – A
Review.
O’Keefe, T., Elliot, S., and Naiman, R. (2001). Introduction to Watershed Ecology. Retrieved from
http://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/modules/WatershedEcology.pdf on May 26, 2015.
Parkes, M., Morrison, K., Bunch, M., Hallstrom, L., Neudoerffer, R.,Venema, H., and Waltner-
Toews, D. (2010). Towards Integrated Governance for Water, Health and Social-ecological
Systems: The Watershed Governance Prism.
Rola, A., Francisco, H., and Liguton, J. (2004). Winning the Water War: Watersheds, Water Policies,
and Water Institutions.
Salas, M. (2012). Academic Exercise Inputs to Davao City Watershed Protection, Conservation and
Management Framework Plan.
Sandler, R. (2013). Climate Change and Ecosystem Management.
Savan, B., and Gore, C. (2014). Translating Strong Principles into Effective Practice: Environmental
Assessment in Ontario, Canada.
Shoeman, J., Allan, C., and Finlayson, F. (2014). A New Paradigm of Water? A Comparative
Review of Integrated, Adaptive and Ecosystem-based Water Management in the
Anthropocene.
Tuddao, V. (2012). The Pampanga River Basin: A Case Study.
Unalan, D. (2013). Ecosystem-based Management in Challenging Conditions: Implications of a Case
Study from North-eastern Turkey.
Unger, J. (2009). Consistency and Accountability in Implementing in Implementing Watershed Plans
in Alberta: A Jurisdictional Review and Recommendations for Reform.
Uy, N., Takeuchi, Y., and Shaw, R. (2012). An Ecosystem-based Resilience Analysis of Infanta,
Philippines.
Wilson, D. (2014). Agroforestry Systems Can Repair Degraded Watersheds.

40