2Contents of the Budget Prop

7/31/2019 2Contents of the Budget Prop

1/15

INTRODUCTION

The Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) has recently submitted to the World HealthOrganization its Water Safety Plan (WSP) which gained a very satisfactory approval.

Thereby, ready to take off its implementation.

Part of the process in concretely realizing and achieving what is written in the plan, is for the

MCWD-WSP team to prepare the details of the action plan and its estimated budgetary

requirements.

The Water Resources Knowledge Center along with its three (3) Divisions are members of

the WSP Team. After the recent meeting that was conducted by the team, one of the agreed

items is for each team member to prepare their budget.

Henceforth, the Environment Division, is being directed to submit a budget proposal for the

following components, namely:

1. Catchment Management and Protection Program

2. Security and Enforcement Program

3. Eco-tourism Program

Thus, this document will tackle the components that have been discussed herewith.

It is, however, to be understood that the indicated budget is of its ball park figures

considered as estimates; such that, in any case of budget adjustments, it shall be requested

for reconsideration.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF CONCERNS


2/15

The Metropolitan Cebu Water District serves four (4) cities and four (4) municipalities within

its franchise area with a total number of one hundred eighteen (118) wells excluding the

bulkwater suppliers. Such wells traverse the whole span of the Metropolitan. The four (4)

cities includes Talisay City, Cebu City, Mandaue City and Talisay City; likewise, the four (4)

Municipalities are Consolacion, Liloan, Compostela and Cordova.

On the other hand, believing in the principle that for environment, everything interconnects,

the Environment Division, other than the eight Local Government Units served, also have

included the municipalities of Balamban, and Asturias and Toledo City as part of our

commitment in organizing the three (3) major and critical river systems of Central Cebu

which also covers the Central Cebu Protected Landscape. These interventions are part and

parcel of MCWDs being a signatory to the Memorandum of Cooperation of the Central Cebu

River Basins Management Council and being a bona fide member of the Protected Area

Management Board.

The total program area coverage is 68, 133 hectares with a total of 214 barangays.

Beginning in 2008, MCWD implemented its new core program which is the localization of the

integrated water resources management (IWRM). As a background, the Philippines is a

signatory to the 1992 Rio de Janiero Conference and has since then adopted IWRM as its

national policy on water.

To picture out IWRM, we see the river basin as the planning unit. The river basins identified

are as follows: the Buhisan River System, the Butuanon and Mahiga River Systems, the

Mananga-Kotkot-Combado-Lusaran Basins, the Guadalupe River System and the Bulacao

River Systems.

ISSUES AND CONCERNS


3/15

Mananga River Basin:

Validated Problems Based on the IWRM Elements

1. There is no RBO; there are POs but not designed as RBOs; LGUs not prepared to

take on functions of RBOs; there are apprehensions why RBOs should be formedwhen theres already the CCPL PAMB and other organizations

2. Upland and lowland POs take responsibility only in their areas; STAKEHOLDERS:

BLGUs also take responsibility only in their respective areas; the business group,

academe, and religious organizations have limited or no coordination as to

participation; MCWD coordinates with DENR and LGUs but limited; no coordination

between BLGUs and other water providers

3. Absence of a river basin plan; no strategy designed for river basin planning; some

POs have general strategic plans but these are not incorporated in barangay

development plans; other stakeholders are sector, sponsor, or donor based

4. Very limited IEC programs for IWRM5. Some upland and midstream areas do not have a centralized water distribution

system- mostly relying on level I or II water systems; water conflicts are resolved

through BLGU mediation; there is no water allocation program

6. Upland areas complain about why they should protect the watershed when they do

not have an efficient water distribution system; water is taken from the watersheds

but they have difficulty in accessing water or they are not provided with piping

systems

7. Business permits and ECCs are provided by LGUs / DENR to companies but there is

limited regular monitoring system; not all businesses/industrial companies have

wastewater/discharge permits

8. No government budget or private sector financing for IWRM; no budget for

IEC/advocacy

9. Absence of economic instruments for raw water pricing; lack of information on water

demand and supply; absence of coordination mechanism for Payment for

Environmental Services (PES); mechanisms for water revenue sharing are not well-

understood (Talisay City), limited coordination for joint meter reading in extraction

wells.

10. There are water regulatory frameworks with LGUs and MCWD, but there is absenceof regulatory framework for IWRM; environmental policies are not properly enforced;need for sharing of regulatory frameworks in a collaboration process to make IWRM

effective11. Presence of water education programs in schools but these are not sustained and

not yet included in the regular school curriculum; water education outside of the

formal educational system is limited or not sustained

12. Watershed management cannot be fully implemented because of limited funds within

DENR; dependence on external funding for watershed management; upland

residents are not keen in protecting forestal areas because of limited alternative

sources of income

13. Absence of policy and implementation framework for introducing environmental flows

14. Limited investments for disaster management; lack of investments in midstream and

downstream portions for flood mitigation


4/15

15. No warming systems in upland, midstream, and downstream areas during typhoons /

heavy rains.

16. Wetlands in downstream areas are being reclaimed / covered for commercial or

residential purposes

17. Absence of measures to protect fisheries and other life forms in the river; river in

downstream portion is biologically dead18. Absence of knowledge and technical capability for groundwater management among

LGUs; salt water intrusion in coastal areas; groundwater has gone deeper in coastal

areas; technical capability and information inadequately shared and disseminated

19. Policies and implementation framework for water use, conservation, and recycling

are only available in urban areas but weakly enforced

20. Limited information mechanisms for promoting IWRM; absence of plans for

information sharing

Kotkot River Basin:

Validated Priorities Based on the 25 IWRM Elements

Water

Quality of water polluted, poor quality of potable water

Improper waste management improper waste disposal (human, animal,agricultural, toxic/hazardous, industrial waste)

Limited access to potable water

Limited water-related infrastructures

Lack of equity of resources (water rights)

Institutional Development

Low awareness/lack of knowledge on IWRM

Lack of coordination among LGUs, government line agencies, POs, NGOs,private sector

Lack of financial resources at barangay level to implement projects within theriver basin area

Lack of disaster risk reduction and management and preparedness plans

Policy / Law Enforcement

Poor implementation of environmental laws

Non-conformity with the MOA

Watershed Management

Siltation of river beds

Cutting of trees in river basin area, especially within protected areas

Illegal extraction of sand and gravel

Tenurial problems, e.g. security of tenure (uplands) land ownership

Increased population growth and illegal settlements

Lack of alternative sources of income/no social equity

Zones not properly managed

Non-delineation of protected areas


5/15

Combado-Lusaran River Basin:

Validated Priorities Based on the 25 IWRM Elements

1. River basin organization Absence of an RBO; some local organizations have weak

institutional capability and limited coordination processes with the government

2. Stakeholder participation Stakeholders are not mobilized for river basin planning

and management; limited capability building activities for stakeholder participation

3. River basin planning No activities for river basin planning; planning is sector-based,

not integrated with other sectors

Cebu City River Basins

Core Problem Analysis

Eco-Zone Causes (Roots) Core Problem(Stem)

Effects (Branches andFruits)

Forested/UplandAreas

Denudation/ Illegal cuttingof trees

Poor enforcement ofRegulations andOrdinances

Quarrying

Flooding

Landslides

Landslides

Contamination of watersources

Destruction ofproperties of lowlandsettlers

Agricultural

Areas

Presence of pests

requiring pesticides andchemicals

Organic farming notpracticed

Safe farming technologynot practiced

Cutting of trees forcharcoal making

Water

Contami-nation

Health hazard/

diseases caused bychemicals

Limited agriculturalproduction/ Livelihoodof Farmers

Built-UpAreas

Improper sanitation (Lackof toilets and septic tanks)

Improper GarbageDisposal (Lack of

discipline) Irregular schedule of

garbage collection andFrequency of garbagecollection insufficient

Improper/ poor drainagesystem

Prioritization system ofbarangay (low priority forthe environment)

Lukewarm acceptance by

public of " NoSegregation, No

Flooding

WaterScarcity

Health hazard (Dengueand cholera epidemics,liptosphyrosis)

Destruction/ loss of

properties of lowlandsettlers, includinginfrastructure

Water contamination

Dislocation/Displacement offamilies

Water and Air pollution

Landslides


6/15

Collection Policy"

Over population

No relocation site

No Political will toimplement environmental

laws Lack of information and

education

Housing Project/subdivision development

Mountain SubdivisionDevelopment requiringEarthmoving/ Bulldozing

Spraying of ChemicalInputs/ Pesticides

Waterbodies Presence of structuresalong the riparian zones

Sand and Gravelextraction/ quarrying

Improper disposal ofgarbage, animal, andhuman wastes, includingplastics

Clogged-up Waterways

Backyard piggeries/ hograising

Poor drainage

Siltation

Non-implementation oflaws and ordinances

Poor governance

No available land forrelocation site

Poor groundwaterrecharge

Siltation

Flooding

andLandslides

InformalSettlersalongCoastline,andRiparianZone(rivers,creeks)

Pollution

Soil Erosion

Contamination of watersources

Poor Water Quality andPoor sanitation

Drying-up of springs/water sources

Health hazard(respiratory, dengue,cholera epidemics,liptosphyrosis, andother water-borne

diseases) Informal Settlers along

Coastline, and RiparianZone (rivers, creeks)

Dislocation/Displacement offamilies

Destruction ofinfrastructure andproperties of lowlandsettlers

Coastal

Areas Poor Drainage System

No barangay Ordinanceon disposal of garbage

Presence of structuresalong the seaside(coastline)

Lack of public toilets (orrehabilitation of existingones)

Improper disposal of fishgills and internal organs

Lack of barangay

cooperation during clean-up drive

Flooding Water contamination

Loss of lives andproperties

Health hazard

Air pollution


7/15

Cross-CuttingConcerns

No appropriate Office for environmental concerns (at the City and Bgylevels)

Uncooperative landowners

Lack of political will (to implement environmental laws)

No available land for relocation site

Contamination of water sources Destruction of marine life

Contaminated coastlines

The Butuanon River System

Problem tree analysis Major problem B


8/15

Loss of revenue

Changing river flow patterns; hampered water flow/diminished

water supply (B)

Poor water supply Drought Reducedbiodiversity

Flooding

Loss of lives and

property

Structures Poor

infiltration

capacity

Illegal quarrying

Sedimentation/e

rosion

Poor

drainage

Poor garbage

and solid

waste

management

POOR WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT

i.e. No soil and water

conservation measures,

deforestation, land

conversion

Informal

Encroachment by

land owners

To

health

hazard

Weak

enforcement ofwater laws and

weak monitoring

and evaluation

(Eco-

governance)

Weak political will

Inadequate Environmental Ethics

(Ignorance, Values, Attitudes and

Habits)

Problem tree analysis

Major problem A


9/15

The Buhisan River System

Environmental Priority Problems

Contaminated Water (A)

Low BiodiversityHealth hazrd

Lower income

Low real property

value

Loss of tourism

opportunities

Reduced sense

of place/pride

Ground water

mining

Improper solid

waste management

None or

inadequate

treatment

prior to

discharge

Inadequate

education/

IEC

program

Weak

enforcement of

water laws and

weak monitoring

and evaluation; no

local water laws

(Eco-governance)

Weak political will

Industry Agricultural al Domestic

Informal

settlers

Absence of

ordinances eg

CLUP

Poor potable water supply

Commercial

Inadequate Environmental

Ethics (Ignorance, Values,

Attitudes and Habits)


10/15

Priorities Rationale Hindrances Facilitating Factors

1. Degradation of

forest cover-Planting of exoticspecies-Illegal cutting oftrees

-Dwindling water

reservoir-Siltation / sedimen-tation-Less wildlife due toexotic species offorest trees

-Unaware public

- Absence of integratedwatershedmanagement plan-No proper orientationon tree growing-No tax incentives forplanting trees-Absence ofmanagementinformation system(decision-support tool)-Communitys refusal

to cooperate-Politicalaccommodation

-Environmental

awareness campaign-Multi-stakeholdercoordinated efforts-Buhisan RiverManagement CoreGroup-M&E mechanism(community-based)-Tax incentives toowners (tree-growing)

2. Illegal structuresalong the midstreamand downstreamportion of the river

-Throwing of garbagenear the river-Obstruction of riverflow-Risk to lives andproperties

-Limited governmentresources-Limited livelihoodopportunities-Funding constraints

-Policies/IRR-Community-basedreforestation

3. Inappropriate

waste management

-Water pollution

-Weather condition-Health andsanitation problems

-Fragmented

governance

-Massive growing of

native trees-Adoption ofappropriate technology-Re-greening/reforestation policy ofthe government

4. Informalsettlements-Encroachment ofsquatters

-Weak lawenforcement

-Conflict of interest(personal vs.community)-Inadequate knowledgeon proper sanitation

-Reproductive healthprogram-Livelihood skillstraining

5. Water scarcity This is the overall effect of the problems identified.

Socio-Economic Priority Problems


1. Population boom -Over-population -Lack of cooperation -Presence of health


11/15

increases thedemand for waterand other basicneeds

-No proper familyplanning-Strong opposition fromthe church towardsartificial methods

workers-On-going reproductivehealth programs

2. Lack of properinformation onenvironmentalprotection andmanagement

-Wrong informationresults toenvironmentaldegradation

-No logistics orinsufficient funds

-Presence of NGOs-Availability of datafrom concernedgovernment agencies

3. Unemployment -Promotes illegalactivities, which aredestructive to theenvironment such as:*charcoal making

*cutting trees*sand and gravelextraction

-In-migration-No alternativelivelihood

-Livelihood programs ofgovernment agenciesand NGOs

4. Illegal squattingalong river banks

-Increased pollution-Causes poorsanitation and healthproblems

-Poverty-Lack of governmentsupport-Presence ofprofessional squatters-No appropriate site forrelocation

- Relocation site fromlocal government-Housing projects ofNGOs (e.g. GawadKalinga)

5. Absence ofintegrated approachin water resourcemanagement

-Need for unifiedeffort to monitorwater resources

-Attitude problems-Lack of resources-Time consuming

-Presence of DENRand CUSW-Willingness towardsintegration


12/15

Politico-Legal Priority Problems


1. Poorimplementation ofenvironmental laws-Non-implementation ofeasement laws-Non-implementation offorestry laws

-Important toimplement brgy.ordinances-Uncontrolled andunregulated activitieslead to environmentalneglect and pollutionof Buhisan River

-Absence of politicalwill-Fear of antagonizingviolators who arevoters-Unregulated drilling ofwater-Proliferation of illegalstructures along creeksand rivers-No local NWRB office

- Limited manpowerand financial resources-Poor resourceallocation to keyconcerns-Laws are notintegrated andcomprehensive

-Relocation sites andassistance-Partnership with otherstakeholders-Environmental lawsubject in law colleges-Brgy. Councilapprehending illegalloggers-Monitoring of activities-Restriction of water

extraction

2. Unclear territorialboundary

-Brgy. ordinancecannot be imposed

due to conflicts-Brgy. projects cannotbe implemented dueto conflicts

-Difficult to identify whois responsible for a

particular area-People are dependenton government officials-Inaccessibility tofunding for theimplementation of laws-Lack of information

-Availability of hazardmaps from DENR

-Territorial expansionincreases brgy. incomeand voter population

3. People do notknow their role inimplementingenvironmental laws

-People could createor add to problemsinstead of contributingwhat is good for watermanagement-People should beactive participants ingovernance

-Lack of communityinvolvement-Apathy-No information how toaccess royalty fees

-Values formation andteam building seminars-Existing educationactivities re:environmental laws


13/15

THE PROGRAM COMPONENTS

There are numerous issues and concerns affecting our river basins. For this proposal, the

proponent will only focus on issues affecting water quality and water quantity. The program

under the Water Safety Plan of the Environment Division will be called, HEALTHY WATER,HEALTHY PEOPLE.

Component 1. Catchment Protection Program

The Key Result Areas:

i. Solid Waste Management Interventions

ii. Mapping/GPS/GIS/Remote Sensing of the Entire Project Area

iii. Identification of all natural waterways, tributaries, creeks, rivulets, brooks and

streams

iv. Monitoring of Water Quality of the Natural Water Ways e.g. e.coli testing

v. Inventory and Assessment of Chemicals and Pesticide Uses in the River Basins

vi. Integrated Pest Management Interventions/Organic Farming Promotion

vii. Septage Management Interventions e.g. Communal Toilets and Wastewater

Treatment Facilities

viii. Social Marketing Activities

ix. Reforestation and Riparian Zone Regeneration Strategies

Ball Park Figure: (subject for detailed work and financial planning)

Budget Proposed: Two-Million Pesos (PhP 2,000,000.00) for the first two years (2012-2014)

Component 2. Security and Enforcement Program


i. Strengthening of the environmental enforcement and judiciary components for

security and safety that includes police officers, prosecutors, justices of

environmental courts.

ii. Capability-building activities and trainings of security personnel both for MCWD blue

guards, forest wardens, and tanods who will be involved in the security and

enforcement interventions

iii. Crafting of the Manual of Water Resources and Environmental Violations and

Penalties

iv. Mainstreaming of the security and enforcement programs in the Local Government

Units Annual Investment Plans.

v. Entering into multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral Memoranda of Cooperation to

ensure the protection of our water resources through security and enforcement.

vi. Crafting of a security and enforcement plan



14/15

Budget Proposed: Two-Million Pesos (PhP 2,000,000.00) for the first two years (2012-

2014)

Component 3: Eco-tourism Program


i. Resource Inventory Activities

ii. Eco-tourism Planning and identification of Eco-tourism Products

iii. Product Development and Marketing of Eco-tourism Areas and Products

iv. Resource Mobilization Activities

v. Social Marketing Activities for Water Orientations and Community Education and

Public Advocacy (CEPA)


Budget Proposed: One Million and Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 1,500,000.00) for

the first two years (2012-2014)

AFTERWORD

This budget proposal for the water safety plan as the deliverable of the Environment

Division looks forward to the detailed planning to be participated by the entire WSP

Committee Team Members.

Likewise, the basis for MCWDs strategic directions in undertaking water safety plan

deliverables are the various stakeholder workshops conducted in the previous years.

Thus, plans are products of the peoples observations and facts that need for MCWD to

focus and to keenly ensure its realization.


15/15

2Contents of the Budget Prop

Documents

Transcript of 2Contents of the Budget Prop