Existing local institutional structures

The governance system in the LGUs has a substantial impact on flood management efforts. The local context is evidenced and implemented through the documents and offices set forth below. Summarized are the comments and observations regarding these governance components.  

Governance instrument and structures that impact on flood management measures

Institutional Structure & Governance System

Observations and Weaknesses

Proposed Responses

Comprehensive Land Use Plans of Provinces and Municipalities – main guidelines of the LGUs for planning and use of land (and water) areas

There is a need to review the CLUPs – and their accompanying documents (Zoning Plans, Investment Plans) if these promote the measures that mitigate flooding.

Amending the CLUP is a long-drawn-out process (i.e., 2-8 years) and is not practical for the purposes of this Project. It is best to work on the parameters set by ordinances. The proponents would just “cherry pick” areas set out in the CLUP that best serve this project’s measures.

Zoning Plans - delineates and manages the uses of land features

General weakness in the enforcement of zoning plans. This led to ISF’s existence and unsustainable land and water resources.

It is vital to develop the key offices' human resources whose mandates impact flooding mitigation and its effects.. There is also a need to create a corps of trained regulators insulated from political and personal pressures to implement the laws and regulations.

Investment Plan – another companion document of the CLUP. This sets out the vision and mission statements set out in the CLUP into activities with financing estimates and funding sources.

Complex structures as flood mitigation measures are generally “big-ticket” items and rely on the national government for funding

LGU Offices -responsible for implementing rules and regulations

At the municipal level, they are generally lack in personnel, resources, and training. At the village or barangay level, the regulators are volunteers. While committed, these lack training, resources, and material support.

Environmentally Critical Areas [48]–areas declared by DENR after procedure required by law to be of such character, nature, and use to merit special protection from the government. Once proclaimed said as ECA, the jurisdiction of LGUs over these areas would be correspondingly limited.

The protected areas in the North Manila Bay coastal area are not popularized. Moreover, all of these faces Manila Bay. There is no ECA along the riverbanks. Jurisdiction by the LGUs over the ECA is limited and subject to regulations set by DENR. The ECAs merit special protection and material support. The lack of ECA declarations makes it harder for national agencies to protect environmentally critical areas or implement activities in them.

Key portions of the coastline and floodplains of international importance as defined by conventions and multi-lateral partnership agreements should be declared ECA. This will allow stricter enforcement of environmental laws, allow management and better protection of ECAs and funnel in more resources from the national coffers to protect and enhance the area’s ecology. These ECAs selected must have features that will assist in the reduction of flooding and its accompanying risks.