Institutional Risks

The outputs of the Focus Group Discussions among the stakeholders and the Manila Bay Sustainable Development Masterplan [57] include the comments and sentiments of the communities and stakeholders concerning the flooding situation in their respective areas. It appears that the communities, overall, have resigned to co-exist with the occasional and periodic flooding. They feel, however, that the flooding incidents have become more pronounced and are affecting more areas compared to 20 years ago.  Currently, the overriding interests of the communities are:

    • Bringing back the cleanliness of the rivers and waters to regain their productivity;

  • Rescue and relief procedures during occasions of deep flooding; and

  • Building more concrete dikes to reduce flooding in affected areas.

The concerns and issues of the stakeholders were used to determine the weaknesses and inadequacies in the current governance structure and systems in the context of flood mitigation. In addition to the Focus Group Discussions, reference reports such as the Manila Bay Sustainable Development Masterplan, Climate Responsive Integrated Master Plan for the Pampanga River Basin [54], and discussions by academics and experts in social media were used in the analysis:

Perceived Weaknesses of Governance Institution

Evidence

Disclosed Institutional Situation and Bias

Possible Responses to DISB

Ring dikes surrounding communities facing the sea half-done or destroyed in part.

  The municipalities are biased towards employing complex structures as flood mitigation measures. NBS, not a popular option;

  The LGUs have limited funds for rigid structures flood mitigation measures. Due to a lack of resources, many are left uncompleted, rendering them ineffective.

  Higher Internal Revenue Allotment by LGUs (23% increase) beginning 2022 can be used to fund flood mitigation measures;

  Add NBS as part of the “tools” of LGUs as these are cheaper and more sustainable;

  Closer work with congressional district representatives to obtain funding for complex strategic structure and accompanying NBS.

Floods are more profound compared to 20 years ago.

Reliance on river dikes, levees, and river dredging as flood mitigation measures.

Dependence on the national budget and national agencies (mainly DPWH) for the LGUs’ flood mitigation measures. The scheduling of construction – and meeting their objectives – cannot be predicted.

Destruction of community mangroves due to sea level rise, transformation into fishponds, and allowing these to remain in disrepair; mangrove areas becoming smaller

  Weak monitoring by environmental and engineering offices;

  Inadequate attention and investments on the protection of community mangrove and support for community mangrove replanting efforts

More investments from municipal and provincial LGUs for:

Breakwaters to also protect the mangroves from destructive typhoons;

  support for barangay volunteers and NGOs year-round replanting efforts in former mangrove areas;

  expropriation or purchase of marginal fishponds to restore mangrove areas;

  prior and free consent relocation of ISF from mangrove areas.

ISF in danger areas along the riverbank and environmentally critical areas

  Lack of personnel and equipment in key offices result in weak enforcement of zoning ordinances and

environmental laws.

  Lack of “political will” among municipal and village administrators might effectively implement ordinances and laws or pass regulations that serve the majority rather than the elite.

  Capacity-building and professionalization of appropriate office to consistently enforce the laws and regulations.

  Creation of private sector groups assisting formal offices (i.e., “force multiplier”) in monitoring environmental and fishery laws, including monitoring the effectiveness of flood mitigation measures.

Pollution of riverways from chemical feeds in fishponds

Use of illegal fishing methods by some fisherfolks

  Many fishing communities have no established fisherfolks associations;

  Many communities have no cooperatives or private sector associations (i.e., women, food processors, vendors, etc.)

  Input of private sector stakeholders not material to the conceptualization of policies and activities;

  The community members most affected by flooding may not be able to participate in the NBS

Organize the private sector stakeholders into associations and cooperatives as part of NBS activities to participate and benefit from the ancillary livelihood projects.

People most affected by flooding appear resigned to their fate; they require timely rescue and relief goods.

Frequent dislocations and disruptions created by flooding lessen average incomes and lower quality of life.

Creation of alternative livelihood accompanying and arising from NBS

Adaption capacity-building and support

Floods are more profound because of land subsidence. This also has the effect of preventing the planting of more mangroves along the littoral zone.

Under service by water districts, Reliance on a deep well. While deep wells are already prohibited, some communities persist in the practice for lack of alternative

Expand water district services; establish “no-build zones” in areas of ground subsidence.

More effective intergovernmental relationships are required to make decentralised approaches for coastal management work. This includes capacity support (e.g., availability of experts, knowledge transfer, and training) from DENR, DPWH, and DILG to the LGUs to include ICZM/DRRM/CCA principles and the integrated thinking into their CLUPs and projects, as well as proposals to the Regional Development Council. As use of NbS is new in the Philippines, there is a lack of knowledge and practical implementation experience and best practice external technical knowledge transfer (capacity-building) will often be needed. Ultimately, it also requires the political will of LGUs to facilitate the coordination between all the different stakeholders involved.