A draft topic proposal arguing for a Resilience approach for water governance sustainability in rural settings.

1. 1
Thesis Proposal
(submitted by Bertrand Alexander J. Lesaca)
Resilience based sustainability approach in water governance: A study of 8
rural municipalities in Mindoro
Abstract
Of the many uses of water, its importance for domestic and household use remains at the
forefront of highly visible and relevant to daily human consumption needs, although
globally it represents only 8% of total water usage. The attached pie chart (at right,
facing page) shows a summary of the tussle
over water resource sector usage (United
Nations-World Water Report, 2001).
With water’s many applications that promote
poverty alleviation and help create quality of
life, conflicts are to be expected among the
water sector’s varied stakeholders. From
among homogeneous users to those coming
from different localities or jurisdictions that
share a common source of clean and fresh
water, disputes are better resolved with sound
water governance from both sides of the
conflict rather than apply the sovereign approach which may aggravate the disaccord into
full blown violence and turf war.
Still, such user rivalry remains a huge challenge. In our country, the allocation of water
access rights is still a demand driven process which is highly susceptible to corrupt
practices. And now more than ever, sound water governance is required for proper water
sector management, by balancing resource development and distribution (representing
the demand side) with that of resource protection and conservation (representing the
supply side). Good water governance also addresses corruption risks through the
participation of water sector stakeholders in the policy and distribution decision making
process. Such water governance practice ensures maximum representation of water
sector actors and establishes an internal control mechanism where a consensus is reached
prior to any final decision made and not based on unilateral acts of government. These
balancing practices leads to the realization of a set of sustainable water governance
practices and processes, the advantages and benefits of which will last and be enjoyed for
future generations to come.
In the Philippines, the municipal local government unit is given a major and legally
mandated role as the front line machinery that will implement and enforce water
governance efforts to ensure sustainability of our water resources1
. This includes the
current mainstreaming of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM)
approaches.
1
See Appendix A for a list of current laws and statutes that governs our country’s natural resource
development.

2. 2
With these new additional roles on top of the municipality’s regular day to day operations
and responsibilities, come additional accountabilities calling for renewed focus and
vigilance on good water governance. The question now is: are they capable partners in
good water governance? And because not all municipalities are equally endowed with the
same capacity for good water governance, rural municipalities are traditionally at a
disadvantage over access to national resources and financial support compared to their
urban counterparts. This study will focus on rural municipalities with particular attention
paid to assessing and evaluating its capacity to partner in a water governance
arrangement that ensures sustainable access to clean water and adequate sanitation to the
community it serves. A Resilience based approach will be employed in order to
determine the sustainability of the water governance arrangement for the efficient and
effective consumption/depletion and replacement/recharging of our precious water
resources, whose benefits can be enjoyed anytime and expected to last for all future
generations of Filipinos to come.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Of the many uses of water, its importance for domestic and household use remains at the
forefront of highly visible and relevant to human household and domestic consumption
needs, although globally it represents only 8% of total water usage.
With water’s many applications that promote poverty alleviation and help create quality
of life, conflicts are to be expected among the water sector’s varied stakeholders. From
among homogeneous users to those coming from different localities or jurisdictions
sharing a common source of clean and fresh water, disputes are better resolved with
sound water governance from both sides rather than the sovereign approach which may
aggravate the disaccord into violence and turf wars.
In the Philippines, the municipal local government unit is given a major and legally
mandated role as the front line machinery that will implement and enforce water
governance efforts to ensure sustainability of our water resources. This includes the
current mainstreaming of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) approaches
to mitigate the pronounced effects of hazards brought forth by regional and global
climate changes.
Sustainability, with regard to water governance providing household/domestic use access
to clean water and adequate sanitation, is not an end by itself2
. Nor should it be construed
as an objective to be met or a goal to be attained. In this study, Sustainability is
understood as an evolving construct that involves change and how organizations and
other social systems3
positively reacts to such change. For public services to be
sustainable this paper will argue for a Resilience approach to sustainability. This model
utilizes available local resources and existing traditional methods and practices with no
additional costs to the LGU, making it practical and acceptable to rural municipalities
that are in constant need of financial and human resources support and assistance.
2
Center for Resilience. Ohio State University. ND
3
Systems can be an individual or an organization

3. 3
The growing global population also means additional demand for clean, fresh water that
puts further stress on the municipality’s resources and water governance initiatives and
efforts at good water governance.
Finally, with marked changes in global weather patterns, the debate revolving around
identifying whether such changes were man-made or part of a natural cycle continues.
Meanwhile socio-economic costs of global climate change have dramatically increased
due to the massive damages brought forth by the resulting hazards triggered by these
weather pattern changes, creating new challenges to the local socio-economic
community, not to mention the adverse effects and continued pressure on the local,
regional and national political leadership.
Just within just the past decade, our country has seen and experienced the increase in the
frequency and intensity of typhoons and other weather conditions and patterns, such as
the El Niño and the monsoon cycles4
. Apart from this, the sudden variations in
temperature, atmospheric pressure and humidity have made the difficult task of weather
forecasting even harder. Natural disasters have now become more destructive, costly and
socio-economically disruptive. While man-made disasters most often aggravates the
already deadly effects of natural disasters, it nevertheless poses as a major threat that puts
lives and properties in harms way.
Alarmed by these changes in global climate patterns and the extreme hazards that are
created as a result, domestic and global governments at all levels, have now shifted their
attention to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) approaches, which is considered a better
model to follow than the reactive traditional short term assistance and support that is
provided after disasters (Sendai Framework. 2015). This shift also gave impetus to the
importance of governance as an enabling environment for sound water sector
management practices to take root and develop.
Because of its unique properties that make life possible, water has always been an
essential requirement for our very existence on this planet. Disaster victims need water to
prevent dehydration and help the body normalize and recover from the shock and stress
of the experience. Rescue workers and other first responders need water as well to keep
them hydrated and help prevent the body from over exhaustion as well as provide relief
from heat. In fact, day-to-day living will be very difficult, if not impossible, without the
use of water. With water’s many uses (e.g. personal/household, recreational, agricultural
and industrial) and users (from individuals to organizations/institutions), consumption for
personal/household (including sanitation) use ranks number 1 in usage. This study
focuses on this aspect of water usage.
Cognizant of the essential role that water plays on this planet and realizing the urgent
need for good water governance at all levels of government (from regional to global) to
ensure the effective and efficient management and development of our water resources
sector in a sustainable fashion, initiatives and efforts toward DRR necessarily involves
the community and calls for sound water governance of our water resource sector.
As front line implementors for both water governance and DRR, the municipality is hard
4
As compiled by Alojado, D. And Padua, DM. 2015. Weather Philippines foundation. SOURCE: Unisys
Hurricane Typhoon Website.

4. 4
put to task. Their duties and responsibilities have been outlined and expressed in the the
1987 Philippine Constitution, Local Government Code of the Philippines (RA 7160.
1991), Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 (RA
10121.2010) and the Climate Change Act of 2009 (RA 9729.2009). With these additional
and important duties, the question now is: Do our municipalities have the capacity to
meet the challenges of operating a good water governance arrangement?
This study will look into and explore rural municipalities’ capacity to partner in a water
governance arrangement, using a resiliency based approach to predict, attain and
maintain sustainability in the distribution and delivery of clean water and adequate
sanitation to the community it serves.
Due to the challenges brought about by the inequitable distribution of financial and
human resources among rural municipalities, this paper will focus on the assessment and
measurement of the LGUs water governance capacity in terms of the following:
a. Capacity for conflict resolution between all water sector stakeholders;
b. How decisions on allocation and distribution of water sector access and rights are
arrived at;
c. The level and degree of stakeholder participation in policy and decision making
process affecting water sector access rights and usage;
d. Ability to collaborate and partner with the different stakeholders of its water sector;
e. Propensity to adherence to the rule of law and its equitable and speedy enforcement;
f. Ability to foresee and anticipate hazards in order to prepare for any contingencies
needed to prevent or mitigate the effects of hazard exposure; and
g. The degree of resiliency that the LGUs have in anticipating and preparing for
external shocks and stresses.
The absence, or near absence, of any of the above criteria indicates a gap in its capacity
for water governance5
and help in identifying appropriate actions to develop and nurture
such needed capacity.
Without the needed capacity to partner in a water governance arrangement, these LGUs
will take on the traditional authority and control method as a way of attaining its public
service goals (Carino, L., 2004). History has time and again shown that such
authoritarian style of management and administration will most likely fail, resulting in
the escalated deterioration of peace and order as the distribution of public water and
sanitation services become more subjective, less equitable and unsustainable as the water
needs of other sectors of society are ignored.
Rural municipalities also face the additional challenge of access to financial and human
resources, available external support and assistance, and access to an effective and
influential network, from both outside and within the municipality, which will no doubt
affect the level of municipal capacity for water governance. These access and
opportunities are readily available to urban, or close to urban, municipalities.
In water governance, as in DRR, these challenges, if not addressed in a timely manner,
5
Legaspi, P. E. HRD And Globalization: Improving Competencies at the Local Government Level.

5. 5
Resilience Dimension
(Socio-Economic)
Resilience Dimension
(Socio-Environmental)
eventually becomes a vulnerability that makes them dangerously predisposed to hazard
exposure.
1.2 Problem statement
Are rural municipalities capable of water governance to ensure the sustained delivery of
clean water and adequate sanitation to the community it serves?
1.3 Research Sub-Problem
What indicators can this paper use to measure and assess the rural municipality’s
capacity for water governance?
1.4 Research Objectives
The main objective of the study is to measure and assess the capacity of a rural
municipality’s water governance to ensure access to water and sanitation services from a
sustainable development perspective using a resiliency based approach.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The research will provide significant contributions to the New Public Administration
movement, specifically in the fields of organization, governance and resiliency theories.
Additionally, this paper adds to the current debate on the various meanings,
interpretations, and meanings of the key terminologies in organization, governance and
resiliency.
Finally, this paper also contributes to the debate and current literature on water
governance, sustainability, disaster risk reduction and resilience.
1.6 Theoretical Framework
＋
Five Dimensions of Water Governance
Social
Dimension
Governmen
t
Society
Science
Political
Dimension
Political
Dimension
Political
Dimension
Political
Dimension
Water
governa
nce
Turton’s Governance Trialogue (2006) Tropp’s 4 dimensional water governance (UNDP.2006)

6. 6
Resilience Dimension
(Political-Economic)
Governmen
t
Resilience Dimension
(Political-Environmental)
In adapting the model of the four (4) dimensions of water governance, developed by
Tropp for UNDP in 2006, together with Turton’s Trialogue Theory of governance
(above), that suggests 3 typologies of water governance actors as Society, Government
and Science, we can visualize the dynamics in a water governance. The conceptual
dimension features serving as its foundations are essential to the examination, analysis
and prognosis of the underlying challenges in a water governance. The figure above
shows the synchronicity and relational interactions among the stakeholders and
institutions involved.
The resultant hi-breed water governance framework preserves Turton’s and Tropp’s
models except for the recognition of a 5th
dimension of Resiliency that encapsulate the
whole water governance domain. In this framework there are the 3 governance actor-
typologies of Society, Science and Government (Turton, et. al. 2006). Acting on these 3
types of stakeholders, as they interact among each other to reach a consensus, are the 5
dimensions of Politics, Environment, Economic, Social and Resilience. And since good
water governance necessarily requires interactions between people and organizations, the
dimension of Resilience can be said to be inherently present within all individuals as well
as in all the organizations involved in the water governance.
This 5th
dimension of resiliency kicks in as threatening hazards are identified that would
possibly expose the water governance community at large. In fact, news articles on
Filipino resilience was much touted after the super-typhoon Yolanda (International name:
Haiyan), said to be the largest and strongest typhoon ever recorded, directly hit the
Visayas region of the country.
Environmental
Dimension
Economic
Dimension
Sustainable
Utilization
Equitable
Utilizatio
n
Science
Socie
ty
Efficient Utilization
Equal
&
Democr
atic
Opport
unities
Political Dimension
Water
Governance
Adapted from Tropp, H. 2006. And Turton, et. Al. 2006

7. 7
1.7 Conceptual Framework
Monitoring and Reporting
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
1.8 Operational Framework
In the measurement and assessment of a rural municipality’s capacity for water
governance, this explanatory research introduces a resiliency based approach to attain
sustainability in the delivery of clean water and adequate sanitation services for the
community. The study will measure a rural municipality’s water governance capacity in
terms of:
Functions
Inter and Intra-relationships
Actor Participation
Monitoring and Evaluation
Gov’t / Private
Civil Society
Science / Information
Service Quality
Relationship Quality
Effectiveness / Impact
Sustainability
Reports
F E E D B A C K (Community Action)
Based on Pahl-Wostle. 2007
Sustainable access to
water and sanitation
People / community
Responsiveness to
Disaster
C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y
HAZARDSDISASTEREXPOSURE
Partnership
Vulnerability
Private sector
Resilience
Science
Community
government
Poverty
Man-made hazards
Natural Hazards
NGO
s
Independent Variable
Dependent Variable

8. 8
a. Its capability to act promptly on arriving at solutions to problems through consensus
and for conflict resolution among stakeholders in its water sector;
b. How it decides on the allocation and distribution of access rights and usage;
c. Degree of participation involved in policy and decision making process;
d. Ability to collaborate and partner with the different stakeholders of the water sector;
e. Its adherence to the rule of law and its equitable enforcement;
f. Ability to foresee and anticipate hazards and prepare for it and;
g. Its degree of resiliency in anticipation of unexpected shocks and stresses.
2. Review of Literature
The turn of the 20th
century saw the word ‘governance’ crop up in the Public
Administration lexicon as a designated neutral definition of governance to underscore the
beginning of the movement from government being the sole provider of public goods and
services as well as the policy decision maker, into governance which involves the
participation of all concerned stakeholders in the public goods and services delivery as
well as in the decision making process. While the term has evolved into a myriad of
sometimes confusing definitions, there is a consensus that such stakeholder participation
based arrangement is the most effective and efficient way for government to be able to
do more using less resources. There are also some who assert that governance arose from
the neo-liberalist approach of the late 70’s as symbolized by Ronald Reagan as the
President of the United States of America and Margaret Thatcher during her term as
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that resulted in the “outsourcing” of government
functions and ushered the era of government downsizing. It can also be said that this shift
to smaller government also signified the shift from the Keynesian socio-economic view
to Hayek’s market based view.
Current literature on governance is strong on definitive theory and concepts covering a
wide range of governance insights, opinions and interpretations, that are either
prescriptive, descriptive or analytic. Methods and concepts are introduced for a
sustainable framework that are designed and expected to result in Transparency,
Accountability and Participation (TAP) - 3 of the pillars of governance6
.
There are studies that provide governance typologies and an equivalent foundational
concept that serves as its governance pillar. Depending on the type of governance, there
may be 3 to 7 (sometimes even more) pillars offered.
Araral, et. al. (2015), in their study of 10 provinces in China, reports that there is no clear
scope and definition of water governance and the literature available are not multi-
disciplinary but conducted along the lines of the researcher’s academic discipline.
Additionally, there seems to be an abundance of descriptive, and sometimes debatable,
studies with very little actual empirical proof to show how water governance actually
affects water sector efficiency.
6
TAP Network-UN. 2015

9. 9
Other researches addressed technical concerns on water quality, water contamination,
climate change and other pressures that water governance regimes face on a regular
basis. However, no clear cut policy on strategies that integrates all current efforts at water
governance can be found (de Loe, R. et al. 2009).
While there are measurement tools available to assist in capturing the data and guide the
data analysis, there are few studies available to make these tools grounded. This paper
will utilize measurement tools when appropriate, on determining local government
capacity to partner in water governance.
2.1 Governance
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) describes governance as the promotion of
“sustainable human development” by the state, society and private sector (UNDP. 1997). Then
Kooiman (2003) added “the process of policy making through active and cohesive discussion among
policy makers who are interconnected through a broad range of networks” to this definition.
Governance then came to be the process of discussion and actions of the state, in conjunction with
civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders within a given community in shaping and
making policy that will be acceptable to all those affected.
The theory of governance for this research, particularly the 4 dimension theory of water
governance (Tropp. 2007) together with Turton’s water governance trialogue, serves as
its basic theoretical framework. And in any governance arrangement, current literature on
the subject yields a common theme which can be summarized simply as “more for less”.
In order to align with this theme, the old adage “two heads are better than one” comes to
mind as a means of brainstorming doable solutions to respond to the multitude of public
needs. The resulting question now is where or what can we tap into to obtain a maximum
of “heads” that can be put together to come out with efficient solutions for governance
goals. The agreed response to this query is one word: Participation. Thus, through
participation, governance begins to take shape. Indeed participation and partnership has
an important role in governance.
In our country, no less than our Constitution7
provides the framework that calls for the
decentralization and devolution of functions, responsibilities and accountabilities to the
local government units where efficiencies in the delivery of public goods and services
can be realized since it enables the local government unit to be free from any
encumbrances associated with having to transact directly with the central government
while at the at the same time promote more partnership from the citizenry in handling
their local affairs (de Guzman. 1989 and Brilliantes, Jr. 1990 as cited by Tabion. 1993).
Additional justification for recognizing the need for creating local government lies in its
ability to be the best delivery mechanism of public goods and services needed by a
community it belongs to and knows well (Mackenzie. 1964., Humes and Martin. 1969 as
cited by Tabion. 1993). In 1991, with the enactment of Republic Act 7160, also known as
the Local Government Code of the Philippines, provided further impetus for the
decentralization and devolution of functions from the national government to the LGU.
Figure 1 (below) (Huitema 2005), shows the changing landscape of governance since
Wilson’s dichotomy in the mid 1880’s. A shifting of power and authority from the central
7
Article X (Local Government) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

10. 10
government is shown to move8
into markets, civil society, independent bodies, the courts,
and both higher and lower jurisdictional levels of government (Huitema, 2005.)
Figure 1 - Shifts in public service functions (Source: Huitema. 2005)
There are those who opine that such shifts was caused by large business interests to
weaken regulations that sets limits and controls on their corporate interests
(Swyngedouw. 2005). Still there are others with additional explanations, with causal
reasons ranging from the financial crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, to the changes in
8
In the Philippine context, as expressed by the 1991 local government code (RA 7160) where
decentralization and devolution of agency functions and authority from the national to the local
government units began its mandate.

11. 11
thinking towards market orientation as well as concepts arising from the New Public
Management trend (Pierre and Peters 2000).
What is clear at this point is that these observable shifts in governance are also present
and likewise can be seen as equally applicable to other water sectors. The state has taken
on larger levels of market involvement as evidenced by the privatization of water
services such that a need for equally great levels of civil society involvement (such as
water user associations, NGOs, Water sector stakeholders, independent bodies, etc) being
called for. There is also the noticeable shift towards an increased level of international
participation as can be deduced from the growing number of trans and inter-boundary
water agreements together with the increased influence of large and well funded
international organizations such as the European Union, World Bank, OECD and Asian
Development Bank (Huitema and Meijerink. 2009).
2.2 Environmental Governance
Just depending on geography, there may be several definitions, as well as interpretations, of
governance that can be found in existing literature. The United Nations Development Program
(UNDP) describes it as the promotion of “sustainable human development” by the state, society and
private sector (UNDP. 1997). Then Kooiman (2003) added “the process of policy making through
active and cohesive discussion among policy makers who are interconnected through a broad range of
networks” to this definition. For this study, Governance is the process of discussion and actions of the
state, in conjunction with civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders within the community
in shaping and making policy that will be acceptable to all those affected.
Applied to the environment, governance would be similar to those interventions that are directed to
changes in environment-related “incentives, knowledge, institutions, decision making, and
behaviors”. It also refers to the “set of regulatory processes, mechanisms and organizations through
which political actors’ influence environmental actions and outcomes” (Lemos and Agrawal. 2006).
2.3 Water Governance
Literature on water governance is just as complex, if not more, as those on environmental
governance. Because of the fragile and sensitive nature of the water cycle, water
governance challenges remain supply and demand driven are mostly tackled through the
use of science and technology and as a result, conventional dictates require current
management styles to see elements of the larger bio-ecosystem as mere things to be
properly handled (Chambers, 1997). While this approach has its advantages, new forms
of water governance have cropped up and there is a serious need for familiarity with the
accompanying new issues and challenges (such as conflict resolution, partnerships and
process management of stakeholder participation in decision making to name a few) that
science and technology alone cannot address. New ways of thinking and innovative
methods are now required to tackle problems in water governance.
In this study, water governance refers to the mechanism that covers the whole spectrum
of socio-political, socio-economic and administration systems in order to foster the
sustainable development of existing water resources with regard to the water needs of the
community , as well as the equitable delivery of clean water and sanitation services to the
whole community (Rogers & Hall, 2003). Foremost for the proper management of the
water sector is to see it as part of a larger overall governance system and subject to
relational reactions by other stakeholders of the country’s water resources sector (Rogers

12. 12
& Hall, 2003).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manage “things” Manage people and processes
Top to down Bottom-up
Proprietary Blueprint Information and data sharing
Measures Mediation and interpretation
Infrastructure oriented Focus on Processes and methods
Standardized Diverse
Science based technology Multidisciplinary approach and
technological know-how can help in the design of
integrative approaches
Scientific information is produced Socio-economic data is
from fields such as hydrology, produced such as income
biology, and geology and consumption patterns
Taken from: Tropp, H. 2007. Water governance: trends and needs for new capacity development. Water Policy 9 Supplement 2 (2007) 19–30. Stockholm International Water Institute.
Drottninggatan 33. SE-111 51. Stockholm. Sweden.
But what does these new emerging forms actually do to society as a whole as well as to
the specific segment it was meant to provides for? Despite all the advances in science
and technology, the solutions to the challenges inherent in water governance do not come
easy and is often painful to those less fortunate. The poor and infirm still remain
disadvantaged as approaches toward the valuation of water and water and sanitation
services. Putting a value on water will eventually entail some form of payment for water
and sanitation delivery services. With water usage mainly driven by supply-demand,
approaches under this paradigm will often result in a zero-sum situation with regard to
the allocation of water rights and usage, as well as providing for adequate sanitation.
Water governance must face these new challenges from all points of view and examined
through a more multi-disciplinary microscope.
2.4 Disaster Risk Reduction - Identifying disaster risks
In line with RA 10121, focus has now been shifted from disaster response (whose focus
is on immediate and short term needs) to disaster risk reduction (where the focus is on
proactive approaches that reduces the risks that bis attendant with vulnerability and
maximizes capacities). Proactive approaches have been mainstreamed in current
literature in DRR field. To ensure consistency in interpretation, this paper made use of
Response to water governance challenges:
The need for new knowledge and capacity development.THEN
(capacities that need to be further developed)
Sociocrats
(new knowledge and capacity)
Technocratic
(Traditional Knowledge)
NOW

13. 13
the DRR lexicon as can be found in RA 10121 (the DRRM Act of 2010) to define the
following:
Hazard A natural or man-made condition or situation that if an individual
or organization is exposed to it, has a high probability of sustaining
injuries, damage to property and/or loss of life.
Vulnerability A weakness in an individual or organization that prevents it from
being exposed to a hazard.
Disaster What results from full exposure to an identified and very
dangerous hazard.
Exposure The degree to which an individual or organization directly
experiences a hazard.
2.5 Resilience
Current literature on Resilience show several categories9
and classes from which resilience can be
viewed from. These views are Ecological (Holling. 1973:14), Systemic-heuristic (Holling. 2001),
Operational (Carpenter et al. 2001), Sociological (Adger. 2000:347), Normative (Pickett et al.
2004:381), Ecological-economic (Brock et al.2002:273) and hybrid concepts that come from a mix
between Ecosystems (Folke et al. 2002:14) and Social-Ecological systems10
(Adger et al. 2005:1036).
It is a construct of how individuals and social organizational systems react to shocks and
stresses arising from both failures and successes. It is used to signify the degree of
adaptability to unexpected changes and events, and rise out of the whole experience that
is better than the one before (Hollanagel, Woods, & Leveson, 2006).
This study will take the hybrid view of resilience and approach it with the mix of Ecosystem-related
services and social-ecological systems. For this paper, Resilience is defined as the individual or
organizational capacity to succeed and thrive despite overwhelming odds. It is an innate adaptive
capacity within each of us, as well as collectively in organized groups, that grows and develops over
time. Among other things, it is nurtured and developed through community morals and family-
friendships relationships11
and support.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
To collect field data, a survey of eight (8) municipalities in the province of Mindoro (4
from the Oriental portion and another 4 from the Occidental side) will be conducted in
order to obtain primary data for analysis. Face to face interviews, survey questionnaires
and focus groups will be conducted using no less than 30 participants from the municipal
officers and staff. Other shareholder feedback, again with the participation of no less
than 30 stakeholders, using survey questionnaires, focus-group and individual
9
Source: UNDP. Oslo Governance Center
10
Social-ecological and resilience based approaches
11
From http://resilience.osu.edu/CFR-site/concepts.htm on July 28, 2015. Center for Resilience at the Ohio State
University.

14. 14
shareholder encounters, will likewise be conducted to help shed light and validate the
results obtained from the municipality.
A stratified purposeful and opportunistic sampling approach methodology was applied in
order to determine the population sample which consists of all the municipalities in the
Philippines12
. The selected target province is the island province of Mindoro with the
following selected municipalities of San Teodoro, Calapan, Pola and Pinamalayan on
the Oriental side and the municipalities of Lubang, Looc, San Jose and Magsaysay on the
Occidental side (see image below).
Mindoro Island Province (Source : Google Maps)
Instrument and Criteria
Customized interview, survey and questionnaire are the main instruments to gather field
data. In addition, face to face interviews, focus-groups and water sector stakeholder
encounters will serve as the complementing instruments to validate and shed light on
other data obtained.
12
There were 1,490 municipalities as of March 31, 2015. Source: Philippine Statistics Office. National
Statistical Coordination Board. From. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listmun.asp on April 15th,
2015.
Oriental
Occidental

15. 15
The main survey instruments consist of two (2) parts – the first focuses on the political
and administrative environment under which the municipality operates. The second part
deals with the aspects to determine the degree, if any, of the Municipality’s capability for
water governance to ensure access to clean water and adequate sanitation throughout the
constituency.
Secondary data will also be obtained from the most recent municipal planning documents
and reports as well as output instruments that may be provided by field or provincial
offices of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Target Participants (Units of Measure)
- Municipal Mayor and Vice-Mayor, councilors, planning officers and staff.
- Barangay Captain, Barangay Kagawad, Sanggunian Kabataan Chair.
Sampling size was determined at 385 samples using the mean average method
with a 95% confidence level, .5 standard deviation and +/- 5% margin of error.
3.2 Data Gathering
Using the stratified purposeful and opportunistic sampling as my selection approach, data
will be collected from the total population consisting of all the municipalities in the
country. To determine the capacity of a given rural LGU in terms of the following:
a. Its capacity for conflict resolution among stakeholders in its water sector;
b. How it decides on the allocation of access rights and usage;
c. Degree of participation involved in policy and decision making process;
d. Ability to collaborate and partner with the different stakeholders of the water sector;
e. Its adherence to the rule of law and its equitable enforcement;
f. Ability to foresee and anticipate hazards and prepare for it and;
g. Its degree of resiliency in anticipation of unexpected shocks and stresses.
These capacities can be further grouped into manageable units:
a & d = Conflict Resolution/Collaboration/Partnership
b & c = Participation/Consultation
e = Rule of Law / Compliance
f = Foresight/Proactiveness
g = Resiliency
Finally into the 3 categories of Partnership (a, d, b, c), Resilience (f, g) and Vulnerability
(e). This paper will use these 3 categories to be the focal point in determining a rural
municipality’s water governance capability for a resilience based sustainable water
service delivery.
3.3 Method of Analysis
Partnership/Participation
Vulnerability
Resilience

16. 16
The study will analyze the data collected using a mixed approach. The constant
comparison and grounded analysis approach mixed with sociological analysis will
primarily be applied for this paper.
To determine vulnerability, the processes (e.g. policy and decision making) through
which decisions are arrived at, with regard to the allocation of water resource access,
rights and usage, are in accordance with existing laws. The data collected will be
contextually analyzed for vulnerability. Additionally adherence to the rule of Law will be
measured through how the water governance performed on water projects and how
equitable the outcomes were.
Degree of participation and ability to collaborate / partner with other stakeholders will be
measured through the collaborative working relationship approach (NAO. 2006)13
.
Context analysis method will be applied.
To capture Resilience indicators, the study will make use of a municipal self-assessment
tool14
. This self-assessment tool will be addressed and mailed directly to the rural
municipality for completion by the appropriate officials and picked up during the
conduct of the field study.
4. Conclusion
4.1 Theories
In Theory, Governance, an off-shoot of New Public Administration, is the framework by
which all efforts and initiatives in water governance operate in. From the unilateral
decision making process by government approach to the participatory process invoked by
the current Governance approach, the concept of sustainability remains and is observed
at the micro level using the indicators of capacity, partnership and resilience. This paper
takes a close look into a rural municipality’s capacity to partner in a water governance
arrangement for the sustainable delivery of clean water and sanitation to the community
it serves.
Since sustainability is not a goal or an objective by itself15
, it is descriptive of the rural
municipality’s efforts to ensure non-interruption of the delivery of water. In a rural
setting, this paper argues for the existence of another dimension in water governance
which is that of resilience. It is this dimension that plays a major role in the
municipality’s recovery and adaptability to changes in its environment.
With this in mind, Resiliency can be further developed and sustainability continued. The
key therefore is human development in environmental water governance. With
interactions that are not only coordinated but integrated and productive as inter
community exchanges build social networks that increases their access to a larger support
13
National Audit Office. UK. 2006
14
Nilsson, J. 2015.
15
Center for Resiliency. Ohio State University. ND

17. 17
system and social capital (Diola, F. 2009).
4.2 Limitations
There is a possibility that with the stratified purposeful and opportunistic sampling
methodology used in this paper, the samples may not be representative of the population.
The study took all steps to mitigate this possibility through ensuring the data collection
process did not deviate from the conduct of another held in a different municipality.
4.3 Recommendation
Rural municipalities need human development programs to empower them to seek
innovative ways for their community to succeed and thrive. Such development efforts
will necessarily enhance the Resiliency dimension that affects governance sustainability.
The dynamics involved in water governance may be too intricate for the resources of a
rural municipality to comprehend, but when it comes to their community, the locals are
the experts and should be sought for active participation, guidance and direction with
regard to DRR programs and water governance processes. After all, resiliency is more
endogenous than exogenous (Curtis, O. 2014).
4.4 Future Research
The concept of Resilience may well cover more than what has been suggested in this
study. It holds promise as a source of great wisdom handed down from a collective
experience. Further investigation into resilience may well serve as a measure of capacity
of both individuals and organizations.
A case in point is the emerging theory of Human Security which, if combined with
human development and governance theories, yields hybrids of systems that are geared
for the future. I believe such endeavors deserve more attention in order to fully
understand the dimension of resilience and its implications in the practice of public
administration.
Lastly, while there is a huge treasure cove of completed research on water governance,
each were done through the perspective of the discipline being pursued. Water
Governance dictates multi-level and multi-disciplinary approaches are called for to
ensure systems are more integrative.
What is still noticeably lacking is the fusion of research with applied Information and
Communication Technology science. Computer applications currently abound the highly
technical fields of water governance such as water quality, filtration, meniscus, acidity
and alkalinity of water. Simulations that can be applied for public administration using
scientific and historical data. Simulations involving artificial intelligence technology may
well hold the key that levels the economic development playing field for rural living.
Other tools that utilizes computer technology should be developed and made available
for researchers which will cut research and other development costs. Such simulations
and its application to Public Administration also merits a good second and third look for
future research.

18. 18
5. References
Ahmed, S. (2008). Social Justice in Water Distribution and Marginalized Women s Capabilities: A
Study of Governance Systems in Dhaka and Manila.Conference Papers -- Midwestern Political
Science Association, 1.
Asprone, D., & Manfredi, G. (2015). Linking disaster resilience and urban sustainability: a glocal
approach for future cities. Disasters, 39s96-s111. doi:10.1111/disa.12106
Austin, R. L., & Eder, J. F. (2007). Environmentalism, Development, and Participation on Palawan
Island, Philippines. Society & Natural Resources, 20(4), 363-371.
doi:10.1080/08941920601161379
Barrett Ristroph, E. (2012). The Role of Philippine Courts in Establishing the Environmental Rule of
Law. Environmental Law Reporter: News & Analysis,42(9), 10866-10887.
Borchgrevink, A. (2002). Clean and Green: Indigenous Knowledge and Cultural Models in a
Philippine Community. Ethnos: Journal Of Anthropology, 67(2), 223-244.
doi:10.1080/00141840220136837
Bradsher, K., Ramzy, A., Mullany, G., Shanker, T., & Gladstone, R. (2013, November 13). Distress
Grows as Philippine Typhoon Victims Can't Get Aid, or Get Out. New York Times. pp. A6-A14.
Cahill, A. (2008). Power over, power to, power with: Shifting perceptions of power for local economic
development in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 49(3), 294-304. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8373.2008.00378.
Chelleri, L., Schuetze, T., & Salvati, L. (2015). Integrating resilience with urban sustainability in
neglected neighborhoods: Challenges and opportunities of transitioning to decentralized water
management in Mexico City. Habitat International, 48122-130.
doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.016
Combest-Friedman, C., Christie, P., & Miles, E. (2012). Household perceptions of coastal hazards and
climate change in the Central Philippines. Journal Of Environmental Management, 112137-148.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.018
David, C. C., Cayton, P. A., Lorenzo, T. E., & Santos, E. C. (2014). Statistical analysis of Philippine
water district characteristics and how these affect water tariffs. Water International, 39(1), 1-9.

19. 19
doi:10.1080/02508060.2013.847687
Delgado, M. M., & Canters, F. (2011). Measuring the accessibility of different household income
groups to basic community services in upland Misamis Oriental, Northern Mindanao,
Philippines. Singapore Journal Of Tropical Geography, 32(2), 168-184. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9493.2011.00427.
Gibson, K., Cahill, A., & McKay, D. (2010). Rethinking the dynamics of rural transformation:
performing different development pathways in a Philippine municipality. Transactions Of The
Institute Of British Geographers, 35(2), 237-255. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00378.
Hordijk, M., Sara, L. M., & Sutherland, C. (2014). Resilience, transition or transformation? A
comparative analysis of changing water governance systems in four southern cities. Environment
& Urbanization, 26(1), 130-146. doi:10.1177/0956247813519044
Jean-Christophe, G., Michael R.M., P., Jake Rom, C., & Virginie Le, M. (2008). Living with
increasing floods: insights from a rural Philippine community.Disaster Prevention &
Management, 17(3), 383-395.
Lagarde, M. M. (2006). Mainstreaming sustainable development: Evolving perspectives and
challenges from the Philippine experience. Natural Resources Forum, 30(2), 111-123.
doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2006.00164.
López-Marrero, T., & Tschakert, P. (2011). From theory to practice: building more resilient
communities in flood-prone areas. Environment & Urbanization,23(1), 229-249.
doi:10.1177/0956247810396055
López-Marrero, T., & Tschakert, P. (2011). From theory to practice: building more resilient
communities in flood-prone areas. Environment & Urbanization,23(1), 229-249.
doi:10.1177/0956247810396055
Louis, G. E., Magpili, L. M., & Pinto, C. A. (2007). Multi-Criteria Decision Making and composting
of waste in the municipality of Bacoor in the Philippines.International Journal Of Environmental
Technology & Management, 7(3/4), 351-368.
Normann, R. H., & Vasström, M. (2012). Municipalities as Governance Network Actors in Rural
Communities. European Planning Studies, 20(6), 941-960. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.673565
Paula, L. (2015). Capability of communities as Precondition for Sustainability of Rural Areas.
Economic Science For Rural Development Conference Proceedings, (38), 103-112.
Rist, L., & Moen, J. (2013). Sustainability in forest management and a new role for resilience
thinking. Forest Ecology & Management, 310416-427. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.08.033
Sellberg M, Wilkinson C, Peterson G. Resilience assessment: a useful approach to navigate urban
sustainability challenges. Ecology & Society [serial online]. March 2015;20(1):563-586.

20. 20
Available from: GreenFILE, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 19, 2015.
Solis, M. P. (2005). Revisiting the Philippine Clean Air Act 1999: Is there Compliance in Deterrence
and Vice Versa?. Asia Pacific Journal Of Environmental Law, 9(2/3), 239-266.
Teigão dos Santos, F., & Partidário, M. R. (2011). SPARK: Strategic Planning Approach for
Resilience Keeping. European Planning Studies, 19(8), 1517-1536.
doi:10.1080/09654313.2011.533515
Turner, B. (2010). Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability
science?. Global Environmental Change Part A: Human & Policy Dimensions, 20(4), 570-576.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.003
Urich, P. B. (1996). Deforestation and Declining Irrigation in Southeast Asia: A Philippine Case.
International Journal Of Water Resources Development,12(1), 49-64.
doi:10.1080/07900629650042028
Walker, B. H., Abel, N., Anderies, J. M., & Ryan, P. (2009). Resilience, Adaptability, and
Transformability in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia.Ecology & Society, 14(1), 1-24.