Collaborative Governance: Lessons from Tigum-Aganan Watershed in Central Philippines

1. Collaborative Governance: Lessons from Tigum-Aganan Watershed in Central Philippines Joy Lizada, Rosalie Arcala Hall, Teresita Espinosa, RhodellaIbabao, Ida Siason University of the Philippines Visayas 8th National Social Science Congres Lyceum of the Philippines University Batangas City

2. Outline of the Presentation • Rationale • Objective of the Study • Framework of Collaborative Governance • Methodology • Study Site • Results and Discussion • Starting Conditions • Institutional Design • Collaborative Process • Leadership • Perception of UP Visayas • Analysis and Conclusion

3. Rationale • In the midst of water scarcity and frequent occurrences of water-related conflicts, the institutional arrangements governing water resource development, allocation, and management are receiving growing policy attention worldwide (Saleth, 2004). • Institutional arrangements are affected by the multiplicity of the water resource and changes in the economic, social and political landscapes in the management of the resource (Ingram et al., 1984; Sakthiyadivel, Bhattacharya and Scott, 2004; UNCED (2012).

4. Rationale • Scholars and practitioners recognise collaborative process as effective institutional arrangements for managing complex natural resource problems, such as watershed governance (Mandarano and Paulsen, 2011; FAO, 2006; Genskow and Born, 2006; Mandarano and Paulsen, 2011). • In the Philippines, Malayang (2004) expounded that water decisions and actions are not events that occur by themselves, but as a product of complex competition and collaboration among institutions in different hierarchies of governance.

5. Objective of the Study • The paper examines the interactions and relationships among stakeholders of Tigum Aganan Watershed (TAW) and how these influence collaborative actions in the context of collaborative governance framework of Ansel and Gash (2007). • It describes: • Drivers of the collaborative engagement. • Existing collaborative governance processes • Institutional dynamics • Role of the academe in the collaborative • process

6. Framework of Collaborative Governance Source: Ansel and Gash, 2007

7. Methodology • Content analysis of roundtable discussions, dialogues and meetings conducted (14 October 2014, 8 April 2015, 24 April 2015, 24 May 2015, 24 July 2015, 17 September 2015, 14 April 2016) • focus group discussions and key informant interviews

8. Study Site Tigum Aganan Watershed

9. Results and Discussion

10. Major Institutions Shaping the Governance in TAW

11. Major Institutions Shaping the Governance in TAW (con’t)

12. P Other players: PENRO provided technical support to all watershed council; initiates the meetings and keeps documents; disburses 30,000 pesos/year to TAWMB Kahublagan Sang Panimalay facilitated programs and projects for TAW communities; conducted researches on TAWand their results have been used as references in project formulations Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) provided capacity enhancement training program to TAWMB members towards the formulation of the State of the Watershed Report; served as Secretariat for the duration of their engagement with TAWMB

13. Results and Discussion Starting Condition • Incentives for Participation opportunity to discuss site-specific issues (disposal of wastes, wastewater treatment, siltation, quarrying, unspecified fund source for operations) by various members • platform to raise issues with management implications (overlapping membership of TAWMB and PAMB; agency responsible for solution of siltation & issuance of quarry permits; absence of body that oversees comprehensive water management plan; point person changes within project duration; absence of an operational manual MOA; infrequent meeting attendance; unwieldy membership structure lost documents due to temporary Secretariat)

14. Results and Discussion History of conflict or cooperation • The RTD transcripts show that conflicts occur for at least three groups of stakeholders over management issues. • The first one is disagreement between two agencies over management of resources in protected zones and in the watershed areas. • The second group is between PENRO and the TWG of TAWMB. • The third group of actors in disagreement with each other is between the Chair of TAWMB and the PENRO representative. • All these observed conflicts have yet to be resolved.

15. Results and Discussion Institutional Design • early RTDs had a wider reach in terms of agenda and participation- resource persons invited for comparative and national insights; local NGOs with projects and water policy advocacies invited as participants • clear ground rules and process transparency; documentation of proceedings • “consensus oriented” -amending the memorandum of agreement as the first step towards the revitalization of the Board. • Realistic engagement timetables and deliverables (but were not observed due to changes in key actor appointments and local election dynamics)

16. Results and Discussion Collaborative Process • Roundtable discussions and dialogue to build a relationship of trust within the multisectoral members • Seven RTDs initiated by the EIDR Water Governance research team with three phases: 1) assessment and collaboration with partners wherein institutional stakeholders mapping, series of fora, and assessment of existing laws that govern activities within TAW were conducted; 2) prioritization of problems and planning strategies to address water problems; and lastly 3) management strategies to address identified problem.

17. Results and Discussion • Facilitation was employed by the academe as a mechanism to guide sharing of information, generation of ideas and arriving at a consensus • Consensus points: • Harmonization of plans • Revitalization of the Tigum Aganan Watershed Management Board with three outputs: Amendment of the TAWMB Memorandum of Agreement; Strategic Plan and Operations Manual

18. Results and Discussion • Leadership • Formal leadership nested within interlocking management structures (Boards/Councils) arising from local and national legislations. • Differentiated formal leadership • Leadership foregrounded by presumed vertical relationships • Shadow leadership exercised by base offices that supply secretariat work • Outside projects by national government agencies or foreign donor as alternate leadership platform (provided crucial funding and access to material benefits by the formal leaders)

19. Results and Discussion Leadership Among the TAWMB-TWG members, the real person who runs things in the organization is the TWG Chair. TAWMB participants generally acquiesced to the PENROs dominant voice in the RTDs DENR acknowledged as having leadership given implementing role in various national mandates; but serious gaps given DENR’s lack of presence on the ground disconnect between expressed notions of leadership during the RTDs and more relevant institutions for water matters (not assertive- MIWD, NIA)

20. Results and Discussion Perception of UP Visayas Engagements features: 1) RTD introduction explaining rationale of UPV’s engagement; RTD working papers provided to participants; UPV team roles: resource persons for comparative or theoretical insights and facilitators; RTD synthesis of the key agreements/points, a way forward (tasking) and setting of date for next RTD. 2) RTD Invitations sent out to members of the various management structures and others with relevant concern on water. 3) individual meetings with identified “champions”— persons in leadership positions who can leverage UPV’s engagements- Iloilo City Councilor Gerochi (City Council Environment Committee Chair), Ms. Sol Sucaldito (PENRO head officer), former TAWMB Chair Mayor Alipao and current TAWMB chair Mayor Cajilig.

21. Results and Discussion • Rate of participants perception on roundtable discussions participation, academe intervention and conducted UPV engagements

22. Results and Discussion • Perception of UP Visayas • Positive views of UPV’s role: • provided forum to settle or iron out things • taking charge and starting discussion on national issues that impact on the ground; providing updated data (e.g. Tigum Aganan Water Balance) • depository of plans; interim/temporary Secretariat for TAWMB • important role of the academe in assisting the Board when it comes to watershed interventions • unique brand of participatory approach- clarified grey lines, friendly atmosphere, “inclusive but not intrusive.”

23. Analysis and Conclusion • Many factors under “starting conditions” affected the collaborative process. • Rooted dynamics from long history as an institution and involvement in external-funded projects • built-in asymmetry of resources arising from the inchoate funding for operations and documentation ; presumed supervisory role of PENRO over TAWMB adds to asymmetric relations- LGU representatives generally are acquiescent to PENRO’s directives. • frequency of and member attendance to TAWMB meetings declining since the completion of the CUI project in 2013

24. Analysis and Conclusion • Collaboration process affected by unresolved issues regarding management jurisdiction • Role of academe: UP Visayas neither a member nor a prior institutional partner for TAWMB • Despite tremendous by the UPV team, attendance fluctuated, was uneven and dwindled in latter RTDs • UPV engagement rated positive differential valuation amongst participants: for TAWMB Chair, a needed boost to his frustrations over TAWMB’s seeming stasis; for PENRO, an attempt to ease them out of the equation

25. Analysis and Conclusion • The less than stellar outcome in the collaboration process set up by UPV depicts the pitfalls of being an academic institution that had no institutional mooring on the local governance framework on water. • Despite not being an invested institutional player, UPV was accorded a place in the sandbox because of informal and personal connections with TAWMB members and because of UPV’s general repute. UPV has science-based data, is armed with scholarly frameworks and therefore has something to contribute to the table

26. Analysis and Conclusion • Outcome of Collaboration Process: less than stellar Factors: 1) participation in the RTD became problematicwith resignation of the TAWMB Chair, appointment of OIC PENRO and MWFR PASu, and the upcoming elections 2) academic institution had no prior institutional mooring on the local governance framework on waterbut was accepted because of informal and personal connections with TAWMB members, and general repute (i.e. has science-based data, scholarly frame) 3) UPV unable to read the power dynamics between TAWMB members in a timely fashion, and work this out into the collaborative process

27. Madamo gid nga Salamat