Handbook for preparing State of Watershed Reports in the Philippines

i

Handbook for Handbook for Handbook for Handbook for Preparing Preparing Preparing Preparing

State of Watershed State of Watershed State of Watershed State of Watershed Reports Reports Reports Reports

in the Philippinesin the Philippinesin the Philippinesin the Philippines

Tigum-Aganan Watershed

Management Board

Copyright: Tigum-Aganan Watershed Management Board and Canadian Urban Institute, 2013

Handbook for Preparing State of Watershed Reports in the Philippines | i

CONTENTS Contents ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... i

Acronyms........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Preface ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Background ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Why a Handbook? ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Adopting the “Ridge-to-Reef” Framework for Watershed Planning and Management ...................................... 7

Intended Users of the Handbook ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

I. The State of the Watershed Report (SOWR) .................................................................................................................... 10

A. What is a SOWR ............................................................................................................................................................................. 10

B. Demonstrating the demands for a SOWR ........................................................................................................................... 10

C. Watershed Management Planning Cycle ............................................................................................................................ 11

II. Planning a SOWR: An Exercise in Governance................................................................................................................ 13

A. Why do a SOWR? ........................................................................................................................................................................... 13

B. SOWR Preparation Process ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

C. Who Should Be Involved in the Preparation of a SOWR? ............................................................................................ 19

D. Public Consultation and Stakeholder Participation in the Preparation of a SOWR ......................................... 20

III. Establishing Baseline Information / Database for a SOWR ............................................................................... 23

A. Establishing Baselines/Databases for a SOWR ................................................................................................................ 23

B. Identifying SOWR Indicators of Outputs and Outcomes ............................................................................................. 25

1. SOWR indicators linked to watershed management objectives ......................................................................... 25

2. Single or multiple sets of indicators ................................................................................................................................ 27

3. Selecting the appropriate indicators ............................................................................................................................... 27

4. Measuring the progress of SOWR indicators............................................................................................................... 28

IV. Contents of a SOWR ................................................................................................................................................................... 29

A. What Should Be Contained in a SOWR? .............................................................................................................................. 29

V. Watershed Report Card: Reporting on Progress and Health ................................................................................. 34

A. What is a Watershed “Report Card”?.................................................................................................................................... 34

B. Uses of the “Report Card” .......................................................................................................................................................... 34

C. Communicating to Audiences/Stakeholders .................................................................................................................... 35

D. Use of Digital Media, Internet and Social Networks in Transmitting Watershed Report Card Results .. 35

E. Tips in Communicating the Watershed ‘Report Card’ .................................................................................................. 35

F. Best Practices .................................................................................................................................................................................. 36

Annex A: SOWR Sources of Information ........................................................................................................................................ 37

Annex B: Sample SOWR Table of Indicators ............................................................................................................................... 45

Annex C: Tigum-Aganan Watershed Indicators ....................................................................................................................... 49

Annex D: Sample Table of Contents of a SOWR ......................................................................................................................... 53

Annex E: References to Other SOWRs, Watershed Report Cards, Watershed Management Plans and

Handbooks...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Handbook for Preparing State of Watershed Reports in the Philippines | 1

ACRONYMS AENV Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development

BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

CADC Certificates of Ancestral Domain Claim

CADT Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title

CBO Community Based Organizations

CBFMA Community-based Forest Management Agreements

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CLOA Certificate of Land Ownership Agreements

CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plans

CSO Civil Society Organizations

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

CUI Canadian Urban Institute

DA-BFAR Department of Agriculture – Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

DAR Department of Agrarian Reform

DENR Department of Environmental and Natural Resources

DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government

DOST Department of Science and Technology

DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction Management

EMB Environmental Management Bureau

ENRO Environment and Natural Resources Office

EP Emancipation Patents

FGD Focus Group Discussions

FLA Foreshore or Fishpond Lease Agreements

FLUP Forest Land Use Plans

GIS Geographic Information Systems

IFMA Industrial Forest Management Agreements

LDP Local Development Plans

LGU Local Government Unit

LLDA Laguna Lake Development Authority

MGB Mines and Geo-sciences Bureau

MIGEDC Metro-Iloilo Guimaras Economic Development Council

MIGBI Metro-Iloilo Guimaras Bioregion Initiative

NAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information Authority

MLGOO Municipal Local Government Operations Officer

NEDA National Economic Development Authority

NCI National Convergence Initiative

NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

NGO Non-Government Organization

NGP National Greening Programme

NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System

NOAH Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards

NSCB National Statistics Coordinating Board

NSO National Statistics Office

NWRB National Water Resources Board

OCD Office of Civil Defence

PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration

PAMB Protected Area Management Boards

PO People’s Organizations

PPDFP Provincial Physical Development Framework Plan

NSO National Statistics Office

SOWR State of the Watershed Report


TAW Tigum-Aganan Watershed

TWG Technical Working Groups

TAWMB Tigum-Aganan Watershed Management Board

TRCA Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

TTAWWQMA-BG Tigum-Aganan Watershed Water Quality Management Area

Governing Board

WQMB Water Quality Management Boards


Preface

Over the last several years, extreme weather events have plagued the Philippines, resulting in

substantial loss of life and billions of pesos in damage to public and private property. The

devastating impact of these natural disasters – particularly flash floods, landslides, erosion, storm

surges, inundation and even drought – are increasingly affecting much of the Philippine

archipelago. With advancing climate change, it is anticipated that these extreme weather events will

become the “new normal”. The disasters accompanying these extreme weather events are being

exacerbated by the deplorable state of the country’s watersheds.

Out of the country’s 30+ million-hectare land area, almost half is classified, in theory, as forestlands.

However, barely 10 percent or 2.4 million hectares of the country’s forestlands, many located in the

critical upland areas of watersheds, have enough forest cover to ensure sufficient infiltration,

reduce run-off, purify water, stabilize slopes against erosion, recharge rivers and aquifers and

maintain biodiversity. To make matters worse, growing upland populations have intruded into

many of the country’s remaining forestlands including protected forest reserves. Large tracts of

forest have been stripped of trees and converted to village settlements and upland farms or

processed into products such as firewood or charcoal. These conditions have placed extreme

pressures on the watersheds’ form and function, meaning that the natural capacity of the watershed

to regulate the hydrologic cycle and to provide a reliable supply of water for local communities and

irrigation is weakened. The Philippines face an urgent challenge to restore the health of its

watersheds if the country hopes to increase the resilience of its human settlements.

With continuing land use threats and magnified impacts of climate change, the need for both

national and local sustainable management of the country’s watersheds has become an urgent

priority. To make this shift requires a thorough, cohesive, objective and science-based analysis of

the conditions and dynamics occurring in watersheds. National and local decision-makers,

community stakeholders and local inhabitants need to be well-informed to fully appreciate the

critical issues, challenges, decisions and actions needed to manage their watersheds in the near

future.

A State of the Watershed Report (SOWR) is an important document that describes a watershed’s

existing characteristics and provides the necessary background information for preparing an

effective integrated watershed management plan. A SOWR should not be seen as an endpoint but

rather as the starting point of a continuous working process. While at the outset it provides a

baseline and framework of the existing characteristics of a watershed, as new information becomes

available it can be infused periodically with data and analysis to enhance the understanding of the

state of the watershed and keep the basis of its planning and management up to date.

This can be achieved through a watershed a report card, a monitoring and evaluation tool for

periodic reporting on progress towards achieving the objectives set out in a watershed

management plan, and a vehicle for communicating to decision-makers and the public on the

trajectory of the ‘vital signs’ of watershed health based on predetermined indicators and targets.

The overall intent of a State of Watershed Report is to present consistent, relevant, reliable,

progressive, actionable and comprehensive background information that characterizes the current

conditions of a watershed. The information it contains can be used as the basis for sound technical

analysis and evidence-based decision making in the preparation and updating of a watershed

management plan. SOWRs are the foundation for broad, integrated management plans and

monitoring programs for the country’s watersheds.


This handbook was prepared under the Metro Iloilo-Guimaras Bioregion Initiative (MIGBI), a

project of the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) in partnership with the Tigum-Aganan Watershed

Management Board (TAWMB) and its various member organizations. The Initiative was launched in

2010 to improve watershed management practices and strengthen resilience in the urban region.

The initiative supports better environmental management, and addresses water security and food

security issues, while advancing sustainable economic growth as well as disaster risk reduction and

climate change adaptation. The initial focus of the MIGBI has been on the Tigum-Aganan

Watershed, which is the largest river basin in the urban region, the source of water for most

domestic consumption and agriculture, and the source of much of the flooding in recent years.

The MIGBI involves a collaborative partnership between the Tigum-Aganan Watershed

Management Board (TAWMB), the Metro-Iloilo Guimaras Economic Development Council

(MIGEDC), and the Province of Iloilo, with national-level involvement through the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of the Interior and Local Government

(DILG) and the National Convergence Initiative for Sustainable Rural Development (NCI).

The TAWMB and CUI would like to thank Elmer Mercado, EnP, who served as lead Philippine expert

on the project and who was the primary author of this handbook. Words of appreciation also go out

to our Canadian experts Gary Wilkins of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

and Mike Price, former head of Toronto Water for the advice provided throughout the MIGBI.

Acknowledgement is given to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development and

Conservation Ontario for best practices in preparing SOWRs and Watershed Report Cards.

Generous financial support from the Government of Canada made possible this unique

collaboration between the Canadian Urban Institute (canurb.org) and the Toronto and Region

Conservation Authority (trca.on.ca), bringing to the Philippines expert technical assistance and

innovative urban management practices from Canada.

BACKGROUND


The first State of the Watershed Report (SOWR) in the Philippines was completed in 2013 for the

Tigum-Aganan Watershed, the largest river basin within the Iloilo urban region and one of the

country’s declared priority watersheds. Several national agencies including DILG, DENR and the

NCI supported the initiative, seeing the value of piloting an evidence-based, ecosystem approach to

regional planning. The SOWR is a structured and objective analysis of the conditions in a river basin

serving as a resource for local government units (LGUs), watershed management boards and other

regional planning bodies, as well as for the myriad national agencies having a mandate to oversee

water and natural resource management within the nation’s watersheds. This handbook is based

on the experiences in preparing the Tigum-Aganan SOWR over the period of 2010 to 2013. It is

intended to provide guidance to other watershed management entities across the country hoping to

replicate the process.

A SOWR serves both as a starting and common reference point for effective and continuous

watershed management. In the stages of watershed planning (see diagram below), a SOWR is used

for identifying issues, objectives and actions (scoping and characterization) that will later be used

to prepare a watershed management plan and its associated monitoring and reporting program.

•

•

•

•

•

•


INTRODUCTION

WHY A HANDBOOK?

This handbook acts as a straightforward guide for other local watershed management bodies, local

government units and community stakeholders to plan, organize and prepare a State of the

Watershed Report for their respective jurisdictions. It is a guide for non-technical persons and

bodies to help them appreciate and understand the necessary information and inputs needed to

gauge the state of their local watersheds.

This handbook explains the value of choosing appropriate indicators to analyze the issues and

challenges arising from the condition of a particular watershed and describes methods for

communicating its “state of health” through a set of recommendations and appropriate examples.

As a user’s manual, this knowledge product does not profess to contain all the information or

elements necessary to provide a thorough and comprehensive report on the conditions of any given

watershed. The contents of a SOWR are determined by the vision and objectives of the project

undertaking the study and by the availability of relevant and accurate information.

This guide is meant for the development of a working and dynamic document, the contents of which

may be expanded or reduced depending on the purpose of those using it. The preparation of a

SOWR as presented here is similar to being guided through a template. A SOWR should nonetheless

undergo a process of consultation and public engagement in order to include the critical

characteristics, issues and concerns of local watershed stakeholders.

This handbook offers users the following:

� What users may expect in preparing their own SOWR;

� How to organize themselves for undertaking a SOWR;

� What information to look for and where this information may potentially be found;

� How to understand and appreciate technical, laboratory, scientific reports, data, studies,

and results and their relationship to sustainable watershed management;

� An understanding of the inter-relationship of land and water uses within upland, lowland

and coastal ecosystems and how this describes the health and condition of watersheds; and

� How to maximize the use of a SOWR.

Users may also wish to reference the Watershed-Based Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change

Adaptation: A Training Manual, prepared under the MIGBI to guide communities in becoming

stewards of their local watershed.


ADOPTING THE “RIDGE-TO-REEF” FRAMEWORK FOR

WATERSHED PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

This handbook adopts the “ridge-to-reef” or integrated ecosystems management planning

framework as the over-arching view of the watershed. The “ridge-to-reef” transect seeks to present

the inter-relationship and effect of upland forest ecosystems with ecosystems in the lowland and

coastal regions, and vice versa. It likewise acknowledges that land and water uses anywhere within

the watershed drive the state of health of the watershed as a whole.

The threat of disasters arising from climate-change induced extreme weather events heightens the

need to strengthen the understanding of watershed dynamics and how ecosystems can effectively

contribute to both climate change mitigation and adaptation through environmental resilience.

The watershed is a complex system whose health depends on the proper functioning of all its parts

(Figure 1). Climate and geology are its foundations, regulating the amount and distribution of both

surface water and groundwater and the types of vegetation in the watershed. The amount of water

and the rate at which it flows through the watershed affect the shape and size of creek and river

channels and their associated floodplains. Different communities of plants and animals live where

there are suitable aquatic and terrestrial habitats.

While people depend on the resources of the watershed, their activities and the shape and form of

human settlements result in changes to all aspects of the ecosystem. In the course of rapid

urbanization and lowland settlements, natural habitats have been greatly reduced and fragmented,

hydrological patterns have been changed, water quality has become degraded, and many species of

plants, and animals have disappeared from the watershed and been replaced by others that are

more tolerant of disturbed and highly urbanized areas.

This handbook recognizes that, aside from the “ridge-to-reef” ecosystems transect (as a vertical

link), the horizontal linkages of physical and administrative systems (i.e., governance and political

jurisdiction) within the Philippine context and their effect on a local watershed. Everyone lives in a

watershed; therefore, the individual and institutional actions of people and communities affect a

watershed’s long-term sustainability (i.e., on-site management). The linkage between water

management, land use planning, zoning and enforcement are the major elements of watershed

management. This handbook puts a premium on the interrelatedness of all these aspects through

the integration of watershed management plans into the local comprehensive land use plans and

zoning arrangements of affected LGUs within a watershed. The function and responsibility of on-

site management fall upon both the local government units and their constituent communities.

Finally, this handbook recognizes the different jurisdictional and management mandates existing

within the country’s watersheds (i.e., public land and private land management) and the need for its

integration and complementation (Figure 2). It also recognizes the absence of an over-arching

institutional mechanism or body that is tasked and mandated to oversee and manage local

watersheds and guide the actions of other mandated national and local agencies. This is the reason

why institutional and governance arrangements is an important consideration in this handbook.

The adoption of the “ridge-to-reef” planning platform will hinge on the degree of inter-local

governmental cooperation across the watershed.


Figure 1: “Ridge-to-Reef” integrated watershed ecosystems framework (Vertical

Links)


Figure 2: Institutional and administrative jurisdiction of the “ridge-to-reef”

integrated watershed ecosystems management framework (Horizontal Transect)

Source: Professor Ernesto Serote, UP SURP, “Towards a Rationalised Planning System”

INTENDED USERS OF THE HANDBOOK

The intended users of the handbook are the technical persons, professional researchers and

members of the technical working groups of the watershed management bodies or councils and

LGU, NGO and NGA planning units. These may include:

� Local watershed management boards and other resource management bodies – Local

Government Code;

� Local protected area management boards (PAMBs) – NIPAS Act;

� Local water quality management area governing boards (WQMAs) – Clean Water Act;

� LGUs and their land use planning committees, technical working groups and community-

based organizations – Local Government Code;

� Local disaster risk reduction management councils – DRRM Act; and

� Local climate change councils – Climate Change Act; among others.


I. THE STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT (SOWR)

A. WHAT IS A SOWR

A SOWR is a document that describes the existing conditions of a particular watershed in a way that

can be used as basis for developing a watershed management plan. It includes an inventory of

measurements and statements on the existing natural, physical, cultural, social, economic,

institutional and environmental conditions of a watershed, encompassing elements from the ‘ridge

to the reef’ – or the area that makes up an entire watershed.

A SOWR is also an analytical document. It should provide an analysis and evaluation of the existing

conditions of a watershed. This will form the basis for the formulation of key findings and strategic

directions, as an input to the development of a watershed management plan. The SOWR helps

identify key indicators on the major aspects of the watershed that will be monitored and examined

over an agreed period of time.

A SOWR is a critical input to the preparation of an integrated watershed/eco-systems-based

management plan. It provides the necessary guidance for the identification of future directions that

a watershed shall play in the lives of those who are dependent on and affected by it. It is also a

communication and advocacy tool for stakeholders and local communities to leverage policies,

action, resources and support the collaboration necessary for the improvement of watershed

management.

A SOWR should not be viewed as a ‘stand-alone’ document. Neither does it take the place of a

management plan. Rather, it is a point-in-time assessment of watershed characteristics that should

accompany any watershed management plan. It is a dynamic tool in that it gets updated to form yet

again the basis of future management plans. While a SOWR is seldom designed to address or reflect

all the concerns and issues, as well as problems seen, felt or perceived either by specific

stakeholders or the general public at any given time, it should nonetheless take account of the

agreed content identified by a local community or management body for managing its local

watershed.

B. DEMONSTRATING THE DEMANDS FOR A SOWR

The demand for a SOWR is a direct response to the issues and concerns of a local community and its

key stakeholders who are either directly or indirectly being affected by the watershed. In effect, the

need for a SOWR stems from the demands, purpose or value that a group of people in the

community has placed on a given watershed. These might focus on the following aspects:

� Domestic water;

� Food production or irrigation;

� Energy production/source;

� Flood and pollution (water quality) management and control;

� Biodiversity and eco-tourism; and

� Cultural, indigenous, spiritual and aesthetic values.


The destructive economic impacts of extreme weather effects from climate change expand further

the role and function being placed on watershed management. The National Climate Change

Commission has identified sustainable watershed management as a key mitigation strategy in the

country’s National Climate Change Action Plan.

Demonstrating the demand for SOWRs under the continuing threats of climate-triggered natural

disasters has become imperative because it is acknowledged as a tool for helping people and

communities understand their watershed and their relationship to it, as well as providing an

impetus for improved watershed stewardship. Doing nothing in the face of inevitable and

overwhelming outcomes is never a responsible management strategy. Considering the magnitude

of what is at stake in the future under a do-nothing scenario, preparing SOWRs for at-risk

watersheds across the country provides a solid base for actions that could ably equip LGUs and

their communities in mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change, reducing the risks of

disasters, ensuring water and food security, and improving economic competitiveness.

C. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING CYCLE

The preparation of a SOWR is part and parcel of the integrated watershed management planning

process. It is the documentary output of the watershed assessment – the characterization activity in

the whole watershed management planning cycle.1

As may be seen in Figure 3, the findings of a watershed characterization form the basis for

preparing the strategic vision, goals, priorities and directions for the management of a watershed. A

set of results, or outcome indicators, on the desired “state of health” or “stage of development” of a

watershed’s condition is one of the key products of the characterization stage in the watershed

management process. These key outcome indicators may then be assigned specific targets during

the preparation of the watershed management plan, which would serve as the reference point for

gauging the accomplishments and failures in the delivery of a local watershed management plan.

The planned outcomes in the implementation of the local watershed management plan, either by a

single management body or several groups – including local government units, community

organizations, and private sector groups – is normally reported on a periodic basis through a

“report card” that would reflect progress and updated conditions as a result of the watershed plans,

implementation and accomplishments.

In summary, the SOWR is the foundational planning study at the outset of a watershed management

planning cycle. The collection and acquisition of all relevant data constitutes Phase 1 of the

Watershed Planning Process of scoping and characterization of the watershed. The State of the

Watershed Report presents the inherent characteristics of the watershed that shall be necessary for

us in assessing the current condition of the watershed and as such prepare effective and alternate

management strategies to maintain and improve the current condition of the watershed.

1The terms “watershed assessment” and “watershed characterization” are interchangeably used here to mean the

technical and scientific assessment of a specific watershed’s biophysical, natural, social, economic, institutional, and

governance conditions. The DENR has issued a standard set of indicators and information in the conduct of watershed

characterization in the country through DAO 2008-05: Guidelines in the Preparation of Integrated Watershed

Management Plans (http://server2.denr.gov.ph/files/dmc-2008-05_627.pdf)


Figure 3: Integrated Watershed Management Planning Process

Watershed Planning Process

PHASE 1: SCOPING AND CHARACTERISATION

• Scoping

• Characterize the system

• Set goals, objectives and working targets

PHASE 2: ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

• Develop management alternatives

• Evaluate management alternatives

PHASE 3: WATERSHED PLAN DEVELOPMENT

• Select preferred management alternative

• Finalize targets

• Develop implementation and monitoring plans

PHASE 4: MONITORING AND EVALUATION

• Reporting and monitoring progress and changes

• Assessing outputs, accomplishments and outcomes

• Identifying success factors and issues

Watershed Planning Documents

STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT

• Geology and Groundwater

• Surface Water Quantity and Quality

• Fluvial Geomorphology

• Aquatic System

• Terrestrial System

• Cultural Heritage

• Nature-based Recreation

• Air Quality

• Land and Resource Use

SCENARIO MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

SUMMARY REPORT

WATERSHED PLAN

WATERSHED PLAN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE

REPORT CARD

Source: PowerPoint Presentation of Canadian Watershed Expert, Gary Wilkins, TRCA, 2012.


II. PLANNING A SOWR: AN EXERCISE IN GOVERNANCE

A. WHY DO A SOWR?

Just as in any important human activity, anyone intending to carry out a SOWR should first consider

the reasons for taking on such a mission. There must be a common understanding and leveling

among those involved as to the purpose and objectives of doing a SOWR before proceeding with the

project. In the end, the SOWR will characterize current conditions, identify gaps and form the basis

of the objectives and actions of a watershed management plan.

In the Philippines, the process of watershed planning, wherein the preparation of a SOWR is vital, is

an exercise in local governance and participatory engagement by the key stakeholders of a

watershed. This is a crucial and unique element of sustainable watershed management in the

country’s context – a “Philippine model” of sustainable watershed planning and management.

As a guide to achieving a common understanding and purpose in doing a SOWR both as a technical

and a governance process, the interested body tasked in local watershed management should

consider the following questions:

a. Purpose: What is the general purpose or intended use of the SOWR?

� Background or input for future watershed planning?

� Advocacy or leveraging for policy reforms or enforcement of regulatory policies?

� Identification of sensitive or at-risk areas (i.e., flooding, landslides); and/or threats

arising from particular practices (i.e., illegal logging or mining); natural or

climatologic conditions (i.e., extreme weather conditions); protection and

conservation (i.e., threatened habitat or species); developmental potential (i.e., eco-

tourism, renewable energy, protected areas/sanctuaries, etc.)?

� Identifying knowledge gaps or information on the health of the watershed or

specific resources (i.e., land fertility, water quality/flows, etc.)?

� Measuring or monitoring improvements or effectiveness of past efforts?

� All of the above?

b. Scale: What spatial scale or level is appropriate? Basin? Watershed? Sub-watershed?

Determining the scale is critical, particularly in generating the necessary information and

data needed and its availability, identifying planned actions and interventions, and

subsequently, monitoring the implementation of activities.

c. Thematic Coverage: What elements of the resource environment should be included? (i.e.,

terrestrial and marine ecosystem; upland, lowland, coastal; barangay, municipal, provincial,

etc.; see Section 6: What to include in a SOWR)

d. Results Indicators: What indicators will be used for gauging progress and watershed health?

What information is required? What parameters should be considered or measured? (See

Section on Indicators)

e. Frequency: What determines the frequency of SOWR updating? A SOWR may be updated as

often as annually, or as occasionally as every three, five, or ten years, depending on the


reporting parameters agreed to by the group and the resources at hand to do the work.

However, the frequency of updating a SOWR needs to take that into account the fact that

change occurs slowly. The SOWR may be updated either with new data / statistics on an

existing aspect, or with fresh information as it becomes available or gets identified as a

research subject. Realistically, the timing or frequency of a SOWR shall serve the objectives

and purpose set earlier by the group preparing a SOWR. Ideally it should correspond to the

timetable for updating the watershed management plan.

f. Audience: Who is the intended audience? It is very critical to identify the primary audience

who would be using the SOWR. The level of detail and format of presentation to be used in

order to effectively communicate the results depend on the level of information,

understanding and education of the identified target audience.

g. Format: What will the final report look like? Would it be a technical or a summary report? A

published document or web-based one? The format of the SOWR should always be

appropriate, accessible and useful to the level of understanding and consciousness of the

target audience.

h. Capacity: What is the technical capacity of the organization undertaking the SOWR? Does it

have enough technical persons or ably equipped staff who can coordinate and oversee the

SOWR? Will professional consultant(s) or volunteer expert(s) be hired or mobilized? The

capability of the undertaking organization will determine the extent (i.e., expansive or

limited) of the coverage of a SOWR.

i. Resources: What is the quality and availability of the resources needed to complete a

SOWR? What are the financial resources to do the project? This will determine how

ambitious the endeavour will be.

The basic data and information necessary for a SOWR would most often be available

publicly and accessible for no cost from the related national, regional and/ or local

technical, research or scientific agencies or offices such as the National Statistics Office

(NSO), National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB), National Economic Development

Authority (NEDA), DENR, DA, DAR, etc. Obtaining the data may require formally requesting

such information from these agencies.

In some cases, primary data or studies have to be conducted in order to establish important

baselines that are not covered or available from national agencies or institutions. In this

case, funding for primary studies, research, surveys and/or laboratory tests (i.e.,

particularly of air, and surface water and ground water quality assessments) may be

generated independently, perhaps with support from donor grants, private sector

sponsorships or in partnership with local academic and research institutions. In this case,

the identification of key information and knowledge gaps is critical in order to maximize the

use of limited resources.

B. SOWR PREPARATION PROCESS

Before forging ahead with a SOWR, a participatory approach should be employed among all

stakeholders in the target watershed. First and foremost, the governing body (i.e. TAWMB in the

case of the reference project) must be unified and committed to pursue the purpose of SOWR. They

must identify who among them will primarily become key players and will focus on the SOWR


process – the members of the team and the necessary resources available to complete this

undertaking. Each key agency involved must have clear roles and responsibilities stipulated clearly

in the work plan so as to ascertain who is responsible for what. Resource complementation should

also be encouraged to maximize efforts and resources in doing a SOWR. A regular meeting of the

team should be scheduled to address emerging issues, updates and decision-making needs. While

the completion of a SOWR is not a rigid process, the following basic steps are recommended2:

a. Planning the Watershed Assessment: This involves the formulation of the objectives and

purpose of doing a SOWR, establishing the team who will oversee and undertake the

watershed characterization, and preparation of the SOWR document.

b. Watershed Characterization: This is the central and most meticulous task of the SOWR

process. It is the determination, identification, collection and consolidation of all the

datasets and information that would satisfy the objectives and purpose of the SOWR and

provide a clear understanding of the condition of a watershed. It involves collection of data

from broad and multiple sources of information. These may be national, regional and local

agencies; private sector or industry groups; academic and research institutions; public and

private libraries; local community groups, NGOs, civil society organizations and private

sector groups; national and local media entities; and donor agencies and their projects and

programs that may have relevant information on specific thematic, sectoral or resource

conditions. Information may be obtained from published and unpublished bodies of work,

either printed or electronic in nature.

This would also include different types and overlays of maps depicting and showing the

different information and datasets of the various thematic and resource information on an

area. Such information could also be represented through satellite pictures, photographs,

orthographic projection, GIS-generated topographic, land use, cadastral surveys,

political/property boundaries or resource use maps. Visualization of data through GIS

mapping is an important element for understanding the spectrum of information collected

and trends and inter-connections. For a good end product, there needs to be consistency in

the scale, style and resolution of the material for end-users to better appreciate the

information. Ideally, those with technical knowledge should be available to prepare maps

and charts into a standardized look.

The Internet is another major source of information for various kinds of information, data

and statistics, and studies relevant to a watershed characterization. Different Internet

search engines such as Google, Bing, Yahoo and Wikipedia are among the most utilized ones.

Other information would come from primary sources or actual studies, laboratory tests and

assays ordered, research and surveys conducted or specially commissioned for an area by

the group undertaking the SOWR, or those that may have been undertaken by other groups.

These may include public perception and community engagement surveys, water quality

laboratory testing or examinations, resource assessments and inventories, among others.

The DENR (www.denr.gov.ph), through its regional field offices, conducts resource

assessments (including watershed characterization and protected area biodiversity

2 Province of Alberta, Canada (November 2008): Handbook for State of the Watershed Reporting, pp 9-11.


assessments and profiling)3, field surveys and mapping (i.e., cadastral and boundary

surveys, geo-hazard mapping, etc.), laboratory testing (i.e., water and air quality

monitoring) and environmental management monitoring (i.e., water/air emission and

pollution standards) of specific resource areas and bodies. The country’s weather bureau,

PAGASA (www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/), has decades of data on rainfall, weather

patterns/analyses, flooding, and other climatologic information.

Most recently, the government has launched Project NOAH4 or the Nationwide Operational

Assessment of Hazards (www.noah.dost.gov.ph/). An undertaking of the Department of

Science and Technology (DOST), it aims to provide a more accurate, integrated and

responsive disaster prevention and mitigation system – especially in high-risk areas

throughout the Philippines – through an integrated and real-time information collection,

analysis, dissemination and warning system.

Annex A contains a list of sources of information in the preparation of SOWRs.

c. Integration, Analysis and Presentation of Data: The analysis of data generated from the

watershed characterization is the main output of a SOWR. The analysis involves the

presentation of the existing conditions. Where possible, changes observed in the key

datasets, over a period of time, or after the implementation of commissioned activities in an

area can be illustrated.

Such analyses can be related to established standards or benchmarks stipulated by

regulatory agencies. For example, the Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water is

0/100mL for E. coli (fecal bacteria) and 10/100mL for biological organisms.

(http://emb.gov.ph/laws/water%20quality%20management/dao94-26A.pdf).

Other forms of analysis can be based on established scientific protocols and historical

observations such as the presence or absence of certain types of plants and animals.

Comparative analysis between similar types of watersheds or using a reference watershed

having preferred qualities can be used as the basis for measuring improvements or

deterioration of the conditions of a subject watershed.

Part of the analysis of data and information generated during the watershed assessment

phase is the presentation of issues and challenges facing the sustainable management of the

watershed, especially the critical areas or indicators that will impact its “health”. This could

be related to water quality and availability, forest cover loss or recovery, loss of

biodiversity/endemic species, land use conversion trends and its impact on food security,

excessive or uneven population growth and densification, etc. The analysis should also

present information, data or knowledge gaps crucial to understanding the existing

3DAO 2008-05: Guidelines for Watershed Characterisation for Integrated Watershed Management Planning

(http://server2.denr.gov.ph/files/dmc-2008-05_627.pdf)DAO 1992-25: Implementing Rules and Regulations of

NIPAS Act (RA 7658) (http://www.denr.gov.ph/policy/1992/PAWB_DAO_1992_25.pdf)

4 Project NOAH intends to consolidate and integrate information and data generated on climatologic and

flooding, disaster and hazards risks, coastal and storm surge threats, and landslides prone areas from

satellite, Doppler radars, and other weather monitoring instruments and provide up-to-date warnings on

potential threats arising from these aspects in real-time.


conditions of the watershed. This would include the analysis of results of primary studies,

surveys and researches.

d. Drafting the SOWR: The drafting of a SOWR should be based on the format and content

agreed to by those who are undertaking SOWR. It should be oriented to the level of

understanding of its intended end users or target audience.

The SOWR may require the work of a lead technical writer or a team of writers who would

write and consolidate the various findings in the different sections of the SOWR. This may

be done either by hiring a professional writer or assigning a capable member of the

technical working group to the team. It is important to designate either the technical editor

or the lead writer as the final arbiter in the drafting of the final report.

A panel of reviewers from the project sponsor and stakeholders should be created to review

and comment on the draft final report. A stakeholders’ workshop is a good way to present

and generate feedback from the findings of the assessment prior to its finalization. If the

report is intended for general public circulation the content needs to be reduced to a more

simplified version of the findings and recommended actions to suit the audience.

Conducting a pre-test of the material, using a representative sample of the target audience

is advisable.

e. Using the SOWR for Decision-making: The SOWR is the documentation of the findings and

strategic directions of the watershed characterization. Its value is to provide input into the

development of a watershed management plan. The SOWR provides the basis for

developing goals, objectives, actions and recommendations. It aids in decision-making, by

the persons or agencies in the community or LGU. At the very least, the SOWR would

provide the local inhabitants living and depending on the watershed with a basis for

appreciating what they have, as well as a platform for any stewardship action they may

want to undertake to protect the watershed and restore and celebrate the benefits that their

watershed provides.

The diagram below shows how the process, estimated time frame, estimated budget and persons

involved in each stage that TAWMB employed when they undertook their own State of Tigum-

Aganan Watershed Report.


Time FrameTime FrameTime FrameTime Frame: 1 month Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Php 15,000 Output:Output:Output:Output: >SOWR report content >Data consolidation, integration and interpretation >Draft write-up of SOWR Persons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons Involved; TWG; writer; technical experts

Time FrameTime FrameTime FrameTime Frame: 2 months Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Php 20,000 Output:Output:Output:Output: Community feedback incorporated in the report Persons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons Involved; TWG; writer; technical experts

Time FrameTime FrameTime FrameTime Frame: 1 month Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Php 10,000 Output:Output:Output:Output: Final SOWR draft with analysis and policy recommendations Persons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons Involved; TWG, LCEs, writer; technical experts

Time FrameTime FrameTime FrameTime Frame: 6 months Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Php 20,000 Output:Output:Output:Output: Presentation of SOWR to all stakeholders & decision makers Persons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons Involved; TWG, LGUs NGOs/ CBO, NGAs, Academe

STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT FORMULATION PROCESS

Time Frame: Time Frame: Time Frame: Time Frame: 3 months Approx. BudgetApprox. BudgetApprox. BudgetApprox. Budget: Php 15,000 Output:Output:Output:Output: >TWG and secretariat organized >Signing of MOA among member LGUs >Role clarification and resourcing >Formulation of purpose, goals and planning for characterization Persons Persons Persons Persons involved: involved: involved: involved: TAWMB, TAWWQMA-GB, LCEs, brgys, academe, NGOs & CBOs, water district, NGAs (DENR, NIA, DILG)

TimTimTimTime Framee Framee Framee Frame: 4 months Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Php 30,000 Output:Output:Output:Output: >Final Indicators, Format, Methodology, steps. Persons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons Involved; TWG, enumerators, academe, LCEs, community reps

Time FrameTime FrameTime FrameTime Frame: 3 months (depends on watershed size) Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Approx Budget: Php 20,000 Output:Output:Output:Output: Validated, accepted and triangulated report through public consultations Persons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons Involved; TWG, MENROs, NGOs/ CBOs

Time FrameTime FrameTime FrameTime Frame: 6 months Approx Budget:Approx Budget:Approx Budget:Approx Budget: Php 60,000 Output: Output: Output: Output: >Data gathered: secondary data, maps, physical, flora & fauna, community perception & engagement surveys, demographics Methodologies: Surveys, FGDs, workshops, KII, meetings Persons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons InvolvedPersons Involved; TWG, enumerators, LCEs, community reps, government agencies


C. WHO SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OF A SOWR?

It is quite easy to say that all stakeholders or groups of people with interest in their local watershed

should be involved in the preparation of a SOWR. While such a situation may be ideal, the reality is

that preparing a SOWR entails a lot of hard work requiring the sustained attention and commitment

from every individual in the team undertaking the effort. It is time consuming and involves

particularly meticulous processes such as data gathering, information collation, and preparation,

integration, analysis, drafting and finalizing, and presentation of the SOWR. A SOWR cannot be

done on a temporary or part-time basis by individuals who are without any technical proficiency or

background in research.

A variety of stakeholders, especially unaffiliated community members or residents, do have a role

in the preparation of a SOWR. They may contribute through the monitoring and recording of their

personal views, observations and experiences on the modifications being made in the watershed, or

the changes they see, in general. They may provide the important role of sharing their vision and

engaging other stakeholders to achieve a common direction, and more importantly, the

commitment to act.

The most exacting role in the preparation of a SOWR is enacted by the decision-makers, policy-

makers and managers of the watershed. These are the local chief executives, implementing officials

and their staff, officers and members of inter-agency, inter-sectorial management councils or

groups, and regulatory and enforcement agencies. Members of these groups, both institutionally

and as individuals, have the major responsibility of ensuring that the SOWR process is objective,

productive, transparent, and participatory. They also have the duty of creating venues for

discussion, engagement and open discourse, regardless of their interests and biases, and achieve a

common and acceptable position among the stakeholders in the management of the watershed.

The SOWR process provides that framework.

While all local, provincial and national levels of organizations (i.e., LGU, DILG, DENR) that decided to

undertake a SOWR should be involved in its preparation, formulation and finalization, different

groups of people or individuals will be tasked with various roles and responsibilities. Organizations

such as DENR, local government units, watershed management boards and their technical working

groups (TWG) play critical, active and direct roles, leaving others to be peripheral, indirect and

passive players. In the preparation of a SOWR, all concerned sectors and communities using the

watershed should be engaged in the process somehow – at various stages, in different levels and

roles. It is particularly important that local knowledge should not be exempted in the SOWR process

as it provides key insights that cannot be culled from the monitoring and evaluations conducted by

national agencies. This local experience can strengthen the data collection from other sources and

can offer insights on the conditions of the watershed.

It is important that there should be a core group either within the individual watershed

management boards or through their technical working group to head the preparation of the

report. This group will be provided and assisted by the local government units, national agencies

and other organization and as such, they should be created through an agreement of those

organizations so that they will not be hindered throughout the information gathering process. It

will be their role to consolidate and organize all pertinent data for the preparation of the SOWR.


D. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE PREPARATION OF

A SOWR

Embedded in the whole process of preparing a SOWR is public consultation, stakeholder

participation and engagement at the various stages of the undertaking. The extent and depth of

consultation and engagement will differ in each stage of the process, as well as their roles and

responsibilities. Public consultation and stakeholder participation may be generated through

various types of activities; including but not exclusive to workshops, surveys, briefings and

consultations, peer reviews, focus group discussions, roundtable discussions, technical working

group meetings, one-on-one interviews, general public discussion and town hall meetings.

The strength of a SOWR lies particularly on the level of stakeholder engagement that it generates

from the outset until its final presentation to the target audience.

In the case of the TAWMB, its organizational structure (as outlined below) has determined where

public consultation and stakeholder participation have taken place and at what different levels,

thereby promoting cohesive participation for the SOWR preparation.

The TAWMB’s Board of Officers, elected by its members, is constituted by the Chair, Vice Chair,

Secretary, Treasurer, and Auditor. The Board is the decision-making body of TAWMB. The second

level, the Technical Working Group (TWG) is composed of watershed point persons from each of


the member agencies. These watershed point persons are primarily the environmental and natural

resource officers of each municipality whom are officially designated and appointed

representatives of the TAWMB.

The following is a summary of some of the public and stakeholder consultations related to the

Tigum-Aganan Watershed and the various levels of engagements:

1. Technical Working Group Meetings

Meetings of the Technical Working Group of the TAWMB were important engagements to put

various inputs in planning of activities needed for the accomplishment of the SOWR. Essentially, a

TWG meeting involved watershed point persons, who are officially designated representatives of

the TAWMB members. TWG membership was drawn from the organizations also consisting of

members of the Management Board.

In general, these TWG members provided their expertise in the following disciplines: hydrology;

geology and earth sciences; forestry; environmental management; community development;

disaster risk reduction and management; restoration project implementation; protection project

implementation; and engineering which were important inputs for the SOWR.

It is through the TWG meetings where the following inputs were put together:

a. Consensus-building, agreement or policies on how the SOWR activities should be

conducted;

b. Stakeholders involvement;

c. Timelines and extent of SOWR activities;

d. Technical, financial, logistical concerns;

e. Others.

2. Public Perception Survey and Community Engagement Assessment

Public and stakeholder engagement was solicited in two research studies conducted to acquire

primary data sources. The purpose of the Public Perception Study was to derive an understanding

of the awareness of communities as to the conditions of the TAW, while the Community

Engagement Process in turn was to document projects, programs and activities of the People’s

Organizations (POs), Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and communities within in the TAW

to determine and assess their contributions to watershed resource management, stewardship as

well as disaster risk reduction.

The initial planning stages of both studies consisted of regular meetings by the primary research

teams that were mostly made up of TAW LGUs and their respective Municipal Local Government

Operations Officers (MLGOOs) as well as the watershed point persons. In the planning stages,

preparation work included the framework and research methodology settings as well as the initial

steps for the conduct of secondary data research. Member LGUs of the TAWMB facilitated the

provision, selection and management of enumerators who were tasked with conducting the

questionnaires for the survey.

During the conduct of the studies, participation of selected community organization as well as

barangay (community) leaders in the focus group discussions put forth knowledge and information

needed for the local community engagement study.


3. Conduct of secondary data research

In the gathering and compiling the data and information from various stakeholders, institutions are

vital in the preparation of the SOWR, primarily biophysical data of the watershed. For the period of

June to August of 2011, CUI interns assisted the TAWMB TWG in mining and consolidating

information from national agencies and bureaus, studies conducted in the TAW, as well as existing

LGU databases.

4. Watershed Characterization

The Tigum-Aganan Watershed characterization has been a key activity to complement the SOWR,

involving the gathering of physical and natural features of the watershed. The activity initially

gathered data on land use and population characteristics, flow rate, vulnerability on erosion and

flooding, amongst others.

Prior to the deployment of teams to undertake the characterization of the TAW, numerous activities

were conducted to facilitate the actual characterization, including meetings with the TWG members

and partner agencies, planning sessions for schedules and logistics, as well as safety concerns and

team assignment.

Let it be noted that in the succeeding consultation meetings, the TWG – essentially the

implementing arm of the TAWMB – met periodically to provide expertise and address the gaps on

the relevant data to be gathered. In the characterization process, data was attained by gathering

information on the community’s perceptions on the watershed and community engagement

through a series of groundwork, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and surveys.

The TWG then played a role in consolidating, interpreting and analyzing the data.

A series of consultation meetings were also conducted with the presence of the TAWMB to present

the outline of the SOWR content before starting to draft the report. The report was presented to

different levels: TAWMB and TWG with other relevant stakeholders (business sectors and

academe), followed by another round of presentations with the community and municipal ENROs

to triangulate, validate and affirm the data.


III. ESTABLISHING BASELINE INFORMATION / DATABASE FOR A

SOWR

A. ESTABLISHING BASELINES/DATABASES FOR A SOWR

The success in the preparation and production of a SOWR depends largely on the availability of

baseline information and data needed for watershed characterization. Baseline information refers

to the collection of background information on the biophysical, natural, socio-economic, territorial

and resource usage, and governance arrangements pertaining to watershed. This basic information

creates the initial impression of the condition of the watershed, and the trends and factors affecting

it. Baseline information can be the basis in setting future targets and can be used as a tool to

compare and evaluate progress, outcomes and impact over time. Furthermore, it is used to assess

the effectiveness of policies, program and initiatives for the improvement of the watershed

management.

Based on the Tigum-Aganan experience, baseline data and information on critical biophysical,

natural, socio-economic, territorial and resource usage, which are crucial in the preparation of a

SOWR, were found to be incomplete and, in some cases, antiquated or obsolete. In some instances,

even information that was in the form of technical reports and studies conducted by government

and donor-assisted projects and programs relied on sources of information that were generated

from previous studies whose data and sources of information were outdated, if not unverified.

Whenever possible an up-to-date biodiversity, natural and physical resource inventory should be

ensured. Time-series based data and progress monitoring of critical water or land resources are

equally important. Many databases on key SOWRs are contained in old donor-funded project

documents or technical reports that are unavailable to the general public. Yet even for those that

have been located, there was no follow-up data to the information initially obtained. Databases and

information from national agencies such as the DENR and LGUs, which have regular information

and monitoring systems, focus their data gathering only to areas or sectors that pertain to their

specific mandates and areas of interest.

The same is true for research and academic institutions. Specific studies or information from these

groups would cover only a very limited area or field of study on natural resources, which may or

may not even be relevant to the objectives and purposes of a watershed management body.

Official sources of data such as the National Statistics Office (NSO), National Census and Statistics

Board (NSCB), National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), and other national agencies

have useful and relatively organized data, but only at the national, regional and provincial levels.

They have minimal generic LGU-level information.

At the LGU levels, most socio-economic data are generated either from national or regional sources

and are not up-to-date on critical information, such as current population and projections. Most of

the information does not derive from secondary sources and primary surveys conducted by local

offices (i.e., social welfare or barangays) but rather from unstructured and unscientific methods of

data/information collection. Community-based data generally were found to be incomplete, and

often times unreliable and lacking in accuracy. Much of the local- and community-based

information is not regularly collected. Land use and development patterns are often desk


computations based on an annual average projection (i.e., in most cases computed at 5 to 10

percent growth rate) without benefit of actual ground validation or surveys.

In the end, while it is best to rely on existing data collection and information generated by

established national and local technical, research, academic and scientific bodies, much of the

baseline information and data for a SOWR would have to be obtained on a piecemeal basis, through

specific and individual agencies or sources, and must be validated and evaluated for collection

reliability (i.e., testing methodology and parameters, location, etc.), consistency of data/units used,

and progression (i.e., in terms of time series data), among others. In many instances, primary

surveys and studies will have to be done to satisfy the indicator requirements set forth in a SOWR.

In addition, it is crucial to create databases to track the changes of the acquired data from the time

to time. All collected information must be stored and updated through these created databases for

ease of obtaining any data that may be required for planning and evaluation purposes.

There are, however, a few basic useful SOWR data and information regularly monitored and made

available by local management bodies and stakeholders. These include the following (see Annex A

for more information):

INDICATORS SOURCE AGENCY MONITORING PERIOD LIMITATIONS

Water quality DENR-

Environmental

Management Bureau

(EMB)

Monthly/Quarterly/

Annually

� Prioritized water

bodies

� Limited collection

points

� Limited water quality

parameters

Geo-hazards

(barangay level) –

landslide, erosion,

flooding, storm

surges

DENR-Mines and

Geosciences Bureau

(MGB)

One-time assessment � Needs constant

validation and

updating

Topographic, land

use, vegetation,

political boundary

maps

DENR-NAMRIA One-time assessment � Map scale

(1:250,000) attuned

for local use,

(1:50,000 or

1:20,000)

� Latest maps circa

2000

Cadastral survey

maps

DENR-Land

Management

Bureaus

One-time assessment � Cadastral survey of

some LGUs still

incomplete

� Further subdivision

of titles are not fully

reflected

� Maps have to be

obtained at the

CENRO and regional

offices; no centralized

database.


INDICATORS SOURCE AGENCY MONITORING PERIOD LIMITATIONS

Population census,

family income,

expenditures, etc.

National Statistics

Office (NSO)

Every five (5) years � Data aggregated at

the provincial level;

municipal data need

to be requested one

by one from the NSO

Climate and weather

related data

PAGASA Daily, monthly, quarterly

and annual

� No provincial or local

level projections

� Data is

regional/inter-

provincial; or

representative area

only.

B. IDENTIFYING SOWR INDICATORS OF OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES

1. SOWR INDICATORS LINKED TO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

The effectiveness of a SOWR rests mainly on the reliability and accuracy of the corresponding

information and data being reviewed and analyzed. The identification and determination of the

contents of a SOWR – which will be discussed in detail in the next section – is directly linked to the

objectives of a SOWR as determined by the responsible management body.

Such sets of information and data should translate or represent the objectives (normally attached to

an outcome or results indicator) and describe the ‘overall picture of health’ of a watershed. These

sets of indicators of the outcomes are determined by either the responsible management body in

consultation with their key stakeholders, or are pre-determined according to particular standards,

benchmarks or levels set by local statutes (i.e., local environmental code or zoning ordinances),

national laws (i.e., Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act) or

international agreements (i.e., Convention for Biodiversity Conservation, etc.). A sample of SOWR

indicators used in a Canadian context can be found in Annex B.

Other SOWR outcome indicators can be determined by local or national physical development plans

and priorities such as the Medium-term Philippine Development Plan, Provincial Physical

Development Framework Plan (PPDFP), local Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) or local

development plans (LDPs) and Forest Land Use Plans (FLUPs). What is important is that these sets

of indicators are reflective and consistent with the objectives set by the local watershed’s

management body and local stakeholders/communities.

During the workshops of the TAWMB and TAWWQMA-GB, an exercise to identify indicators based

on a set of strategic goals was successfully carried out. Reflected from the watershed management

bodies’ vision of “a habitable and productive Tigum-Aganan Watershed sustained and

protected by well informed LGUs and empowered communities working in harmony towards

an improved quality of life” are the following goals:


� Goal 1: Abundant and Clean Water

� Goal 2: Sustainable Agriculture and Livelihood

� Goal 3: Disaster Resilient Communities

� Goal 4: Stewardship of the Watershed

Figure 4 shows the diagrammatic representation of the goals vis-à-vis the vision, with the

corresponding thematic areas assigned to each goal.

Figure 4: TAWMB Proposed Goals and Thematic Areas

The four goals for the Tigum-Aganan Watershed – abundant and clean water, sustainable

agriculture and livelihood, disaster resilient communities and stewardship of the watershed – were

translated into 31 indicators along with a set of associated metrics; indicators are categorized into a

number of thematic areas developed within each goal. The key thematic areas being measured

include forest cover, surface water, ground water, biodiversity, agricultural land, sustainable


farming, upland forest conservation, secure communities and community and stakeholder

involvement. Indicators are the long-term measures of change in conditions, which once met, bring

the stakeholders closer to achieving their management objectives. Measured over time, they can

form the basis of a Watershed Report Card showing the trajectory of change, either improving,

worsening or staying the same. The TAW indicators were drawn up after a series of stakeholder

consultations and discussions following a review of the SOWR.5 The complete set of indicators may

be found in Annex C.

2. SINGLE OR MULTIPLE SETS OF INDICATORS

Indicators are normally the products of activities and projects implemented in the watershed. It

must be ensured that these actions correspond to the achievement of the indicator under which it is

classified.

Reflecting the watershed’s “state of health” can either be a single indicator or a set of indicators

called an “index”.

A single indicator can be a representation of the primary concern placed by local stakeholders on

the watershed. For example, an indigenous community might place a higher level of value to a local

watershed’s spiritual value to the tribe, or in most cases, its value as a source of water. In this case,

a single indicator such as water volume or water quality could be a possible indicator.

On the other hand, a set of indicators representing different values and uses may be developed to

reflect the “state of health” of a watershed. This is done when several indicators need to be

combined in order to draw up a more realistic manner of achieving a desired outcome. Such is the

case with most of the indicators adopted by the TAWMB for its SOWR. The selection of appropriate

indicators – and subsequently the activities needed to achieve these outputs – should be part of the

technical and operational discussion among local stakeholders and responsible local agencies or

bodies. An example of a SOWR Table of Indicators used in a Canadian context may be found in

Annex B.

3. SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE INDICATORS

Some questions to help draw a set of indicators to measure the progress of a thematic area are:

� Is the indicator a critical technical process or input to the outcome? For example, the

laboratory testing of water samples collected from different source areas are critical inputs

to determine or assess water quality.

� Is the indicator (or activities leading to the achievement of an outcome) directly attributable

or within the control of the agency/implementing body? For instance, the DENR’s

reforestation activities under the National Greening Programme (NGP) is directly the

responsibility of the DENR under its mandate to recover or rehabilitate lost forest cover or

denuded watersheds.

5 This process took the TAWMB several months of technical and stakeholder reviews and discussions, and

was facilitated by the CUI.


� Is the indicator objective, measurable and comparable? This is critical in terms of ensuring

the consistency and sustainability of data collection and information and analysis of

historical or time-series records of data/information, current conditions and trends. An

example would be the regular annual rainfall data and other climatologic data being

collected by the PAGASA, which are important inputs in assessing vulnerabilities and

projections on climate change impacts in a locality.

� Is the indicator (or data/information on the indicator) available and accessible to other

groups or the general public? For practical purposes, it is important to ascertain the

accessibility and availability of data for the effective monitoring of indicators, especially if

the agency or group collecting the data is not part of the local watershed management body.

This will also be tied to the cost-effectiveness of obtaining data/information and making it

available for inclusion in a SOWR.

� Is the indicator relevant to societal or stakeholder concerns? This aspect of identifying an

indicator for a SOWR is related to its relevance and significance to the general public and

watershed stakeholder. One must not forget that a SOWR is also a communications and

advocacy tool. The SOWR should serve to address community issues and concerns related

to watershed management and its conditions. Therefore, an indicator should be

understandable to the larger community. It should also be defensible and integrative,

meaning that in achieving a positive outcome, it would benefit many and not just a few; it

would meet the objectives of several stakeholders rather than only one or very few.

4. MEASURING THE PROGRESS OF SOWR INDICATORS

To measure progress or changes of SOWR indicators, a scalar system representing levels of

progress is applied to the indicators. A scalar system is used to represent a range of values (i.e.,

highest to lowest, or most desirable conditions to least desirable) that are usually determined and

agreed by the local management body and the rest of the stakeholders. The values are expressed

through visual (i.e., facial expressions or ‘emoticons’), colour (i.e., black to grey to brown to green to

blue), numerical (i.e., 1 to 5 or 1 to 100 percent) or alphabetical (i.e., A to E) symbols. The purpose

of these scales is to present the watershed’s “state of health” in the simplest quantifiable forms. The

status of progress or absence thereof in management activities for the watershed is normally

presented through a “report card” (See Section V for a more detailed discussion on the SOWR

‘Report Card’).


IV. CONTENTS OF A SOWR

A. WHAT SHOULD BE CONTAINED IN A SOWR?

There is much information and many conditions that may be considered when undertaking a

SOWR. As stated earlier, the contents of a SOWR will depend mainly on its objectives. The contents

of the SOWR should reflect the reason for managing a local watershed. A SOWR is intended to

provide decision-making inputs for the preparation of a watershed management plan. Undertaking

a SOWR is to support sustainable watershed management in partnership with the community at the

local level. A sample Table of Contents of a SOWR may be found in Annex D.

The following are some basic elements that are considered essential for any SOWR in the

Philippines:

1. Preface. An overview of the multi-stakeholder process conducted and key agencies and

persons involved in preparing the SOWR.

2. Executive Summary. A summary of key findings and strategic directions recommended for

the future preparation or updating of the watershed management plan.

3. Introduction. The introduction should contain an overview of the purpose, scope of the

report, authorization to undertake the project, and guidance to the reader of the structure

and function of the report.

4. Brief history/ physical description of the area. A short description of the history and

physical attributes of the watershed, including political and territorial coverage and its

catchment and impact areas, provides not only a background of the area but also a proper

contextualization of the local watershed. Such description should adequately describe

which areas have direct and indirect impacts on the watershed: communities or

municipalities within the watershed catchment (direct) and those nearby but not within the

catchment (indirect) that have an effect or are affected by the watershed. The description

should also include those areas outside of the watershed, but deemed as ‘influenced’ by it.

For example, a municipality which is not within the watershed catchment area may serve

either as a staging or exit point for illegal logging operators utilizing the watershed area.

5. Population and socio-economic data and projections. Population data, key socio-economic

and production activities, key infrastructure, and utility and transport systems/conditions

within the watershed should be provided, especially the impact in terms of their pressure to

local resources: land, water, biological, food, etc. A 20- to 25-year growth projection of

development and population would help determine the future impacts on the carrying-

capacity of existing natural resources as well as possible conflicts and issues that will occur

over the course of such growth projections. The ‘new normal’ in extreme weather events

set off by climate change makes such extrapolations crucial in determining the more

realistic risks and vulnerabilities and the identification of appropriate mitigation and

adaptation measures.

6. Land uses and development patterns and directions. The existing and anticipated future

land uses of the watershed are important indicators of current and future pressures, land


use conflicts and stressors upon the currently available resources of the watershed. It also

provides baseline information and strategic development directions that are being pursued

by LGUs to which local watersheds would be subjected, either positively or negatively.

Local land use plans also provide a geophysical reference for potential intervention and

initiatives that may become imperative to implement, in effect allowing for the modification

of a local land use plan in order to make the watershed or aspects of it more sustainable.

In the Philippines such data are contained in the 10-year Comprehensive Land Use Plans

(CLUPs) of respective LGUs covering a watershed. The provincial physical and development

framework plans (PPDFP), or in some cases the integrated plans and strategies of inter-LGU

metropolitan governance arrangements (such as MIGEDC), would also contain the

consolidated land uses of all LGUs within its territory. Land use plans are normally

produced in printed form by each LGU and may be sourced from the local city/municipal

planning and development offices.

Some of the vital data contained in local land use plans that have considerable effect upon

watersheds are:

� Land classification (i.e., status of public and private land ownership);

� Land and resource uses (i.e.., extent of coverage of competing land uses and

projected areas);

� Settlement, infrastructure and development patterns and directions;

� Zoning and management regimes in both public and private lands (i.e., protection

land uses);

� Population density, concentration and expansion;

� Production area coverage and productivity levels; and

� Infrastructure such as major roads and other existing or planned utilities.

Unfortunately, the content of currently available land use plans do not yet apply the

ecosystem or watershed-based framework, i.e., upland-lowland-coastal transect. Similarly,

some data in CLUPs can be inconsistent and not updated, particularly those describing

actual land use conditions.

7. Biophysical and biodiversity conditions. The biophysical and biodiversity conditions of

each ecosystem within the watershed (i.e., upland, protected areas, lowlands, coastal areas)

are some of the critical pieces of information that should be contained in a SOWR. The set of

information in the biophysical and biodiversity area should present the existing

characteristics of the area’s flora and fauna for each ecosystem, including the identification

of endemic and ‘flagship’ species. It should also provide the conditions of growth or

depletion of key resource values for biological, economic, social, cultural, and other uses.

Other key pieces of information under this section are the levels of benthic (for

marine/coastal areas) and organic (for terrestrial areas) biota or biomass. This data

provides information on levels of soil fertility, bacterial/algal growth, and fish food chains

that would be important for determining its productivity.

Some of the key data sources for biodiversity and biophysical conditions would be the

watershed characterization and biodiversity assessment reports done by the DENR, DA-

BFAR, donor-assisted projects/programs and research/academic institutions in the area.


8. Water resources and water quality management. Among the many benefits placed on a

watershed, water for domestic and household use is considered the highest priority. It is

therefore logical that the conditions of existing water resources (i.e., quantity, type and

conditions – surface, ground, and storm water, extraction/recharge rates, concentration and

demands) and its water quality (i.e., pollution, point sources/causes, facilities, etc.) are

among the most critical information contained in a SOWR. In fact, in many SOWRs, water

resources and water quality management are considered as the highest purposes in the

sustainable management of local watersheds.

In the Philippines, the value of water and its sustainable management has been enshrined

and mandated by several laws (i.e., PD 1067: the Water Code of the Philippines; PD 198:

Provincial Water Utilities Act, RA 8041: National Water Crisis Act, and RA 9275: Clean

Water Act). However, data on the status of water resources management and water quality

monitoring are handled by different agencies, namely by the following:

� National Water Resources Board: ground and surface water rights and source

capacities;

� Environmental Management Bureau: surface water quality monitoring, waste

water effluence/discharge in bodies of water;

� Local water districts: water extraction and demand, connections and distribution;

� Department of Health: drinking water quality analysis or potability;

� LGUs: existing water systems/access;

� National Irrigation Administration: water flow rate of rivers/dams and irrigation

facilities; and

� PAGASA: storm water/rainfall volume.

Very limited and inconsistent data on water quality testing for heavy metals and organic

compounds is generated by local water districts or health units. Specific administrative

bodies such as the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) monitor water quality and

wastewater discharge in specific geographical areas.

9. Climate change and disaster risk vulnerabilities/conditions. It has become imperative to

include climate change in any SOWR due to the continuing effects and real threats of

extreme weather. This is particularly true in a high-risk country such as the Philippines.

Likewise, geo-hazard conditions are important elements in a SOWR for the purpose of

identifying vulnerability and threats to settlements and production areas, among others.

Some of the key climate change data inputs are rainfall/precipitation, temperature rise,

flooding, storm surges, tsunami, and sea level rise. These are normally obtained from the

PAGASA (www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph) and research or academic institutions such as the

Ateneo University’s Manila Observatory. As earlier mentioned, the recently launched

Project NOAH (www.noah.dost.gov.ph) is a rich source of ‘real time’ climate and weather-

related data and information.

Geo-hazard assessment data and maps on landslides/erosion area, earthquake, and land

subsidence/liquefaction, among others, have been prepared by the DENR’s Mines and Geo-

sciences Bureau (MGB). Geo-hazard maps can be accessed through the MGB

(www.mgb.gov.ph) and Manila Observatory (www.observatory.ph) websites.


While there are several good sources of climate and disaster-related data, vulnerability

assessments and projections need to be prepared on a location-by-location basis. Findings

in these assessments help establish baselines and future monitoring reports in a SOWR.

Such assessments and projections are normally made through special studies, or contracted

to research/academic institutions.

10. Institutional and governance arrangements/situations. The scope of discussion in any

SOWR would be incomplete without including the different governance and management

regimes existing in a local watershed. Because of the many resource management laws and

policies, the resource management of local watersheds in the country is covered under

multiple and overlapping management arrangements. The absence of a single officially

mandated watershed management authority makes the discussion of existing governance

arrangements in every local watershed and its dynamics with other watersheds critical

factors in the sustainable management of any given area.

Several mandated national and local institutional bodies exercise specific jurisdictions

within the watersheds, including Protected Area Management Boards (PAMBs), Water

Quality Management Boards (WQMBs), ecological solid waste management councils, local

mining councils, multi-partite monitoring committees, etc. Discussions on the convergence

of their activities in the watershed are critical inputs to a SOWR, alongside issues on how

these groups exist and cooperate.

Other items for discussion on institutional and governance arrangements would be on the

existing status and conditions of tenurial arrangements and rights in the areas. These

include groups and individuals holding tenurial rights, permits and claims over specific land

and coastal resources. These refer to the Certificates of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADCs)

and Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADTs) for ancestral lands, Community-based

Forest Management Agreements (CBFMAs) for public forests, Industrial Forest

Management Agreements (IFMAs) for industrial tree plantations, Financial Technical

Assistance Agreements (FTAAs) for large scale-mining, sand and gravel quarrying permits,

water rights/permittees, foreshore lease agreements (FLAs), fishpond lease agreements,

Certificate of Land Ownership Agreements (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) for

agrarian reform beneficiaries, reclamation permits, free patents, and private titles. All

tenurial holders, permittees and claimants exert pressure in the utilization of watershed

resources. Each type of pressure affects a watershed’s ability to sustain benefits and uses

derived by people dependent on the watershed. Much of the information on tenure holders

would be available to the local and regional offices of the issuing agencies such as the DENR

(foreshore lease, forestry permit/agreements, mining permits, and land patents/titles), DAR

(CLOAs/EPs), NCIP (CADCs/CADTs), NWRB (water rights and permits), and LGUs.

11. Public and stakeholder perception and awareness. A SOWR may also be accompanied by

the findings of a local public and stakeholder perception and awareness survey. Public and

stakeholder perceptions are important inputs to a SOWR as these provide a ‘feedback’

mechanism on the effectiveness of existing watershed management efforts and the level of

understanding of local watershed stakeholders on issues and concerns affecting their

watershed. The use of subsequent surveys to determine if the citizen’s level of awareness,

attitudes and behaviours are changing as a result of communications and other watershed

management work can be a follow-on activity.


Public and stakeholder perception and awareness information also provide information on

the degree of the support, acceptance and commitment of the local inhabitants to watershed

management activities, problems and resolutions. More importantly, the public

stakeholder’s level of consciousness and their issues and concerns in relation to their local

watershed provide guidance to local management bodies for the identification of future

plans and programs in the watershed which should be included in watershed management

plans. This is part of improving the governance process in local watershed management.

Information on public and stakeholder perception and awareness may come from opinion

polls or surveys, focus group discussions (FGDs), workshops, key informant’s interviews, or

even through ordinary letters with the checklist type of feedback mechanism. Other forms

of generating information on the general public’s perception and awareness could come

from media outlets, blogs and commentaries, public forums and socio-cultural gatherings or

symposia.

12. Existing Plans and Programs. It is a great advantage to identify any national programs that

are being undertaken within the watershed, or those having potential to be accessed. These

programs can significantly alter the SOWR and at the same time provide additional

information and assessment that can be included in finalization of the report.


V. WATERSHED REPORT CARD: REPORTING ON PROGRESS AND

HEALTH

A. WHAT IS A WATERSHED “REPORT CARD”?

Watershed Management Process

Courtesy of Gary Wilkins, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2012

A watershed report card is a summary and simplified evaluation of the overall condition of the

watershed described in a SOWR. The report card, which is developed after a watershed

management plan has been implemented, reflects the developments or changes that have

transpired over a given period of time, based on a set of measured outcome indicators adopted for

this purpose. A grading or rating system is used as the visual or numerical presentation to

communicate the condition and provide the readers a quick picture of the health of the watershed

and its trajectory of change.

In some cases, there is a standardized report card that can simply show the health of the watershed.

These are report cards on key indicators such as surface water quality, ground water quality and

forest cover that when calculated, can show the current health of the watershed and its change

since the last time of measurement. Moreover, change is often slow and, therefore, a report card is

not needed every year. Preparing a report card every 3 to 5 years is adequate; regular evaluation

can still take place yearly, if resources are available, and the information collected can feed into

future report cards.

B. USES OF THE “REPORT CARD”

The watershed ‘report card’ is primarily used as a communication and advocacy tool about the

condition of a watershed based on implementing recommended actions prescribed in a

management plan. It may be used to generate support and commitment as a common reference for


watershed management activities or advocacy for particular issues and concerns raised by

communities or stakeholders. It also serves as a tool for engagement and feedback between local

management bodies and watershed stakeholders and constituencies on the effectiveness of

activities being implemented in the watershed. A watershed ‘report card’ also serves as a handy

reference or comparison with other watershed bodies or groups. But most importantly, a

watershed ‘report card’ is a succinct presentation of information that would help set priorities and

guide the actions of local decision-makers or management authorities on existing and emerging

local watershed management issues and concerns.

C. COMMUNICATING TO AUDIENCES/STAKEHOLDERS

Communicating the findings and recommendations to local watershed stakeholders and

constituencies is an essential element of the whole watershed management process. As stated

earlier, the purpose of a SOWR is to serve as inputs to decision-making and action within the

watershed by stakeholders. Presenting and communicating watershed conditions and progress at

reaching management objectives to the general public and other audiences, either through a ‘report

card’ or other forms of media such as press conference/briefings, conferences, workshops, town

hall meetings, assemblies, publications, bulletins, etc. shall depend on the type of response or action

expected from the target audience.

D. USE OF DIGITAL MEDIA, INTERNET AND SOCIAL NETWORKS IN TRANSMITTING

WATERSHED REPORT CARD RESULTS

The use of digital media or “new media” has provided a broader public audience than any

communication or advocacy campaign. Many social and political causes have used digital media and

social networks to facilitate and mobilize people to actions. In the last 2010 national polls, the use

of digital media, social networks, blogs, on-line forums and instant messaging were used as part of

savvy political campaigners to woo voters, especially young adults (age 15-35). The use of digital

media to mobilize and popularize local watershed conditions and management initiatives is an

additional venue for communication and advocacy as well as stakeholder feedback on local

sustainable watershed management programs.

E. TIPS IN COMMUNICATING THE WATERSHED ‘REPORT CARD’

Because a watershed ‘report card’ is primarily a communications tool, here are some important tips

to bear in mind when communicating its contents:6

a. Keep it simple – Report only on the essential indicators. For example, forest cover, surface

water quality and groundwater quality.

b. User-friendly format – User-friendly entails maximizing the use of simple visuals, pictures

and maps to represent the changes and progress. This is particularly important in making

the science behind watershed assessment understandable to the general public and to show

the trajectory of change.

6http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/watershed_monitoring/documents/CO_CCME.pdf


c. Use relevant messaging – The content and language of the report card should conform to its

target audience (i.e., local policy makers, non-technical people, ordinary citizens,

academics/researchers, etc.)

d. Easy access and use – A report card has no value if it does not reach its audience.

Facilitating access and use (particularly on-line) of the report card and information in the

SOWR is one of the means to effectively communicate results.

e. Use of complementary and multiple products – The story of the “state of health” of a

watershed cannot be captured in just one ‘report’ or communications product. Other

complementary materials could include case studies and detailed sectoral reports produced

to elaborate on key watershed characteristics and implementation actions. These can be

made available on the internet. Furthermore, it is essential to maintain continuous communication regarding the watershed to

keep stewardship at the fore of all decision makers’ and constituents’ agendas.

F. BEST PRACTICES

Annex E contains links to reference documents and handbooks on preparing SOWRs and

watershed Report Cards from other jurisdictions in Canada.


ANNEX A: SOWR SOURCES OF INFORMATION

TYPE OF INFORMATION

AVAILABLE WEBSITE

OFFICE ADDRESS AND

CONTACT NUMBERS

A. Socio Economic Data and Statistics

National Statistics Office (NSO)

- Contains most of the socio-

economic, population, labor,

household, business, industry,

trade, production statistics

(national, regional and

provincial levels).

http://www.census.gov.ph/ Carmelita Ericta

Administrator and Civil Registrar

General

Ground Floor Solicarel Building I

Ramon Magsaysay Boulevard

Sta Mesa, Manila 1016

Tel: (632) 7160807

(632) 7137074

Fax: (632) 7137073

(632) 7156503

E-mail: [email protected]

National Statistics and Coordination

Board (NSCB)

- Poverty levels/incidences, MDG

goals, time-series data and

historical analysis of significant

national socio-economic data

and statistics; national

accounts data and information.

http://www.nscb.gov.ph/

Dr. Jose Ramon G Albert

Secretary General

Tel: (632) 895-2439

Tel: (632) 895-2395

Email: [email protected]

Ground, 2nd & 5th Floors

Midland Buendia Building

403 Sen Gil Puyat Avenue

1200 Makati City

Hotline: (632) 8952767

Fax: (632) 890-8456


National Economic Development

Authority (NEDA)

- National and regional data,

statistics and development plan

targets.

www.neda.gov.ph/

Arsenio M. Balisacan, PhD

Socio-Economic Planning

Secretary

Direct line: 6313716

Trunkline: 6313723loc 602

Fax: 6313747

12 Saint Josemaria Escriva Drive,

Ortigas Centre, Pasig City 1605

Trunkline: 6310945 - 56

Local Planning and Development According to local According to local circumstances.


TYPE OF INFORMATION

AVAILABLE WEBSITE

OFFICE ADDRESS AND

CONTACT NUMBERS

Offices (Province, City and

Municipality)

circumstances.

B. Biodiversity and Biophysical Conditions

Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (DENR) and its

field and sectorial offices

(i.e., Forest -Management Bureau,

Land Management Bureau,

Environmental Management,

Protected Areas and Wildlife

Bureaus, Mines and Geosciences

Bureau).

www.denr.gov.ph/

http://forestry.denr.gov.ph/

www.emb.gov.ph/

www.mgb.gov.ph/

www.pawb.gov.ph/

http://lmb.gov.ph/

Ramon J. Paje

Secretary

Department of Environment and

Natural Resources

DENR Compound, Visayas

Avenue

Quezon City

Trunkline: +63-2-929-6626

UP Marine Science Institute

- Coastal and marine areas data

in the selected areas in the

Philippines, including field

studies and scientific

researches, on fisheries, marine

protected areas/sanctuaries,

among others.

www.msi.upd.edu.ph/

The Marine Science Institute

Velasquez Street

University of the Philippines

Diliman, Quezon City 1101

Philippines

Email: admin@ upmsi.ph

Director’s Office:

(632) 9223962

(632) 9818500 loc 2902

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic

Resources (BFAR)-Department of

Agriculture (DA)

- National and local fisheries

data (marine, coastal,

municipal, inland, aquaculture),

catch volume production,

areas; habitat protection and

conditions; fish demand and

markets.

http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/

Atty Asis G. Perez

Director

PCA Building, Elliptical Road

Diliman,Quezon City

Phone: (632) 9298074,

9299597

C. Climate Change and Disaster Risk

PAGASA – Department of Science

and Technology (DOST)

- Climate, weather, rainfall and

temperature data; climate and

weather related studies and

researches; historical data and

projections.

www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/

Science Garden Complex

Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon

City

PHILIPPINES 1100

Tel: (632) 4342696

Fax:(632) 4342696

Cable Address: WEATHER

MANILA


Philippine Institute of Volcanology

and Seismology (Philvolcs) –DOST

www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/

The Director


TYPE OF INFORMATION

AVAILABLE WEBSITE

OFFICE ADDRESS AND

CONTACT NUMBERS

- Earthquake, liquefaction and

seismic faults and hazard maps,

areas; volcanic eruptions,

impact areas, historical data;

fault maps and areas; tsunami

levels, warnings and history.

PHIVOLCS Building, CP Garcia

Avenue, UP Campus, Diliman,

Quezon City

Philippines

Tel: +632 426 1468 to 79

Fax: +632 929 8366, 927 4524

Mines and Geosciences Bureau

(MGB)

- Geo-hazard mapping and

threatened areas (landslide,

erosion, flooding threats).

www.mgb.gov.ph/

Engr Leo L. Jasareno

Acting Director

Tel: (632) 9209120;

(632) 9209130

Fax: (632) 9201635


MGB Compound, North Avenue,

Diliman, Quezon City

Tel: (632) 9288642 ;

(632) 9209120


Manila Observatory – Ateneo de

Manila University

- Climate change and weather

monitoring and forecasting

data, history and analysis; geo-

hazard maps; forest cover

maps; urban air quality and

specific researches and studies.

www.observatory.ph/

The Director

Manila Observatory

Ateneo de Manila University

Campus

Loyola Heights, Quezon City

Telephone: (632) 4265921,

4260837, 4266495

Fax: (632) 4260847,4266141


National Disaster Risk Reduction

and Management Council

- Over-all coordinator of disaster

relief and response operations

in the country; monitors all

disaster responses and areas.

www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/

Undersecretary Benito Ramos

Administrator, OCD

Executive Director, NDRRMC

Tel:(632)4211926,

(632)9126675

Fax: (632)9122424

Office of Civil Defense

- Monitors all disaster-related

events and initiatives in the

country, including cost of

damages and effects, and

areas/people affected.

http://ocd.gov.ph/

Undersecretary Benito Ramos

Administrator, OCD and

Executive Director, NDRRMC

Tel: (632)4211926

(632) 9126675

Fax: (632)9122424

Project NOAH

- Integrated information and

data system on disaster and

weather conditions to provide

real-time assessments and

http://noah.dost.gov.ph/


TYPE OF INFORMATION

AVAILABLE WEBSITE

OFFICE ADDRESS AND

CONTACT NUMBERS

warning on typhoons and

storms in the country.

LGU Disaster and Coordinating

Councils

According to local

circumstances.

According to local

circumstances.

Local Academic and research

institutions

According to local

circumstances.

According to local

circumstances.

D. Land Use and Tenurial Arrangements

LGU Local Planning and

Development Offices

- Detailed data, information and

future land uses as contained in

their local land use plans and

development plans; zoning

restrictions and arrangements;

and projected development

areas and resource uses.

According to local

circumstances.

According to local

circumstances.

Housing and Land Use Regulatory

Board (HLURB)

- Local land use plan data and

copies, subdivision and

property development

information and data;

settlement and housing

development plans.

http://hlurb.gov.ph/

Atty Antonio M. Bernardo

Chief Executive Officer and

Commissioner

Housing and Land Use

Regulatory Board,

HLURB Building, Kalayaan

Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

Tel: 9243378/84

Bureau of Soils and Water

Management

- Land and crop/soil suitability

maps; production projection

and type of crops/agricultural

production areas; local climate

change vulnerability

assessment of agricultural

areas; land use reclassification

data; water resources data.

www.bswm.da.gov.ph/

Director Silvino Q. Tejada

Director’s Office

BSWM Building

Visayas Avenue corner Elliptical

Road


Tel: (632) 9204382, 9204318

Fax: (632) 9230454

Land Management Bureau (LMB)-

DENR

- Patrimonial and public lands

data, area, coverage; number of

patents/title issued; cadastral

survey and boundary maps;

foreshore and land lease

http://lmb.gov.ph

Engr. Ralph Pablo

Acting Director

Land Management Bureau

Plaza Cervantes, Binondo

Manila

Phones: (632) 4800041

(632) 2454503


TYPE OF INFORMATION

AVAILABLE WEBSITE

OFFICE ADDRESS AND

CONTACT NUMBERS

agreements; salvage zone areas

and descriptions .

Fax: (632) 2436651

Department of Agrarian Reform

(DAR)

- Distributed lands to agrarian

reform beneficiaries, total

beneficiaries and coverage

areas/hectarage.

www.dar.gov.ph/

Secretary Gil de los Reyes

Office of the Secretary

Department of Agrarian Reform

Elliptical Road


Tel: (632) 474 7405

National Commission for Indigenous

Peoples (NCIP)

- Ancestral land and domains

claims database, tribes,

coverage areas and titles issued

and management plans.

http://www.ncip.gov.ph/

Office of the Chairman

2/f Ndela Merced Building

corner West and Quezon

Avenues, Quezon City

Tel: (632)5751200 loc 1002

Fax: (632)3739787

Email:

[email protected]

m

Housing and Urban Development

Coordinating Council (HUDCC)

- National housing and

settlements plan, database,

locations and coverage areas;

coordinated data from other

housing agencies, projections

and demands.

www.hudcc.gov.ph/

Honourable Vice President

Jejomar C. Binay Chairman

BDO Plaza, 8737 Paseo de Roxas

St, Makati City

Tel: (632) 8128870

(632) 8114168 Fax : (632) 8114158


National Mapping and Resource

Information Authority (NAMRIA)

- Local land cover and use, land

classification, topographical,

contour maps (with different

scales), political boundary

delineations; land and water

resources surveys; nautical

charts and satellite and aerial

photos/images.

www.namria.gov.ph/

The Administrator

NAMRIA

Lawton Avenue, Fort Bonifacio,

Taguig City

DL: (632) 8105471

Trunklines: (632) 8104831-34

Protected Areas and Wildlife

Bureaus (PAWB)-DENR

- Protected area coverage, area

biodiversity assessments,

management plans and

programs.

www.pawb.gov.ph/

Theresa Mundita S Lim

Director


Ninoy Aquino Parks and

Wildlife Center

Diliman, 1100 Quezon City


TYPE OF INFORMATION

AVAILABLE WEBSITE

OFFICE ADDRESS AND

CONTACT NUMBERS

Tel: (632) 9246031 to 35

Fax: (632) 9240109

Mines and Geosciences Bureau

- Mining areas, coverage,

permittees, volume production

and projections, investment

areas, affected communities

and population, investment

inputs; mineral resources data

and assessment.

www.mgb.gov.ph/

Engineer Leo L. Jasareno

Acting Director

Tel: (632) 9209120

(632) 9209130

Fax: (632) 9201635


MGB Compound, North Avenue,


Tel: (632) 9288642

(632) 9209120


Forest Management Bureau

- Forestland statistics, areas,

production volume,

status/conditions, forest cover

conditions, tenurial

arrangements and management

schemes issues/coverage,

rehabilitation and reforestation

figures; specific studies and

researches; watershed areas

and delineation, assessments;

lease agreements and patents

issued.

www.forestry.denr.gov.ph/

Forester Ricardo L. Calderon,

CESO III

Office of the Director

FMB Building, Visayas Avenue

Quezon City

Tel: (632) 9289313, (632)

9274788

Fax: (632) 9200374

DPWH

- Road and infrastructure

network plans, timetables,

location and targets.

www.dpwh.gov.ph/

Secretary Rogelio Singson

Email:

[email protected]

Bonifacio Drive, Port Area,

Manila City, Metro Manila

Tels: (632)3043000,

(632)3043300

E. Water Resources and Water Quality Management

National Water Resources Board

- Surface and domestic water

source data, estimated

flow/capacity, water permits

and rights/utilization rate.

www.nwrb.gov.ph

Director Vicente S. Paragas

Executive Director's Office

8/f NIA Building, EDSA, Diliman,

Quezon City

Tel: 9282365

9202641

Fax: 9202724

Email Address:

[email protected]


TYPE OF INFORMATION

AVAILABLE WEBSITE

OFFICE ADDRESS AND

CONTACT NUMBERS

Environmental Management Bureau

(EMB)-DENR

- Water quality testing and

monitoring of surface water

bodies (i.e. DO, BOD, TSS, etc.);

wastewater disposal and

monitoring; industrial water

and pollution discharges

monitoring, water body

monitoring.

www.emb.gov.ph/

Atty. Juan Miguel T. Cuna

Director

DENR Compound, Visayas

Avenue


Tel: 9202253

9202258

9202246


Local Water Utilities Administration

(LWUA)

- Water distribution supply and

demand, coverage areas and

connections, future plans and

expansion areas; water source

identification and reservation;

water district geographic

information system (WD-GIS).

www.lwua.gov.ph

Acting Administrator Eduardo

C. Santos

Local Water Utilities

Administration,

MWSS-LWUA Complex,

Katipunan Avenue,

Balara, Quezon City

Tel: (632) 9205581 to 89

(632) 9260557

(632) 9296107

(632) 9205439- Office

of the Director

Fax: (632) 9223434

Department of Health (DOH) –

Regional Centers

- Potable water quality

monitoring and testing (i.e. E

coli) compliance to PNSDW

standards of water districts,

public and private water

systems and service providers.

www.doh.gov.ph

According to local

circumstances.

National Irrigation Authority (NIA)

- Water flow estimates and

projections of major water

bodies to be tapped for

irrigation purposes, general

conditions of areas, and ground

and surface water sources;

conducts feasibility studies of

large irrigation projects and

systems; agriculture coverage

areas; weather and rainfall

analysis and projections.

www.nia.gov.ph/

According to local

circumstances.


TYPE OF INFORMATION

AVAILABLE WEBSITE

OFFICE ADDRESS AND

CONTACT NUMBERS

Local water districts and service

providers

- Water supply/flow, coverage

and connections/services;

future demands; water quality

testing (adherence to PNSDW

standards); groundwater

quality/status monitoring.

According to local

circumstances.

According to local

circumstances.

Department of Public Works and

Highways

- Flooding and flooded areas and

vulnerable areas; flood control

projects and road

infrastructure; storm water

monitoring and projections.

www.dpwh.gov.ph/

Secretary Rogelio Singson

Bonifacio Drive, Port Area,

Manila City, Metro Manila

Tel: (632) 304 3000

(632) 304 3300

Email:

[email protected]

National Power Corporation (NPC)

- Water flow status and volume

of major hydroelectric plants

and dams; coverage and service

areas; energy generate;

watershed management

programs/plans.

www.napocor.gov.ph/

http://www.napocor.gov.ph/

WMD%20WEBPAGE/home.h

tml

BIR Road corner Quezon

Avenue

Diliman, Quezon City,

Philippines

Tel: (632) 9213541

Fax: (632) 9212468

Philippine Coast Guard (PCG)-DOTC

- Marine pollution control and

enforcement.

www.coastguard.gov.ph/

Vice Admiral Edmund Castor

Tan

Philippine Coast Guard HQ

139 25th Street Manila

Tel: (632) 5278481 loc

6290/6292

Direct line (632) 328-1098

Fax: (632) 527-8481 loc 6291

F. Others

Google Earth and Google Maps earth.google.com/

maps.google.com/

Handbook on Preparing State of Watershed Reports in the Philippines | 45

ANNEX B: SAMPLE SOWR TABLE OF INDICATORS

Indicator Category

Indicator Assessment Role of Indicator Metric

(i.e. that which is directly measured) Indicator

Type Water Quality

River Water Quality Index (AENV)

Provides a general overall assessment of water quality by summarizing chemical, physical, and biological data. It reflects the impact of activities that significantly change water quantity or cause changes in inputs to rivers from either point or non-point sources

Composite index value is calculated as an overall average of the combined index values for each of the four specific variable groups:

• River Metals Index

• River Bacterial Index

• River Nutrient Index

• River Pesticide Index

Condition

River Metals Index (AENV)

Provides a general measure of heavy metal concentrations in rivers and streams, and identifies potentially toxic or impaired reproductive conditions for humans and aquatic life.

Subset of up to 22 metals and ions (Aluminum, Arsenic, Beryllium, Boron, Cadmium, Cobalt, Copper, Iron, Lead, Lithium, Manganese, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Thallium, Uranium, Vanadium, Zinc, Cyanide, Fluoride)

Condition

River Bacterial Index (AENV)

Provides an indication of bacterial contamination suggesting recent contamination with fecal matter from humans or animals. Bacteria contamination may pose a potential risk to human, animal and ecosystem health.

• Fecal coliforms

• Ecoli

Condition

River Nutrient Index (AENV)

Provides a general measure of nutrient concentrations in rivers and streams. Nutrient Index results may also be used to assess non-point source nutrient contamination.

Subset of the following six parameters: total phosphorus, total nitrogen, dissolved nitrite, total ammonia, dissolved oxygen, pH

Condition

River Pesticide Index (AENV)

Typically used as a measure of non-point source contamination. Presence of pesticides in rivers may be of significant concern to water users (i.e., drinking water, irrigation, stock watering).

Subset of 17 commonly applied pesticides (2,4-D, MCPP, MCPA, Diazinon, Lindane, Picloram, Dicamba, Triallate, Atrazine, Bromoxynil, Cyanazine, Malathion, Methoxychlor, Chlorpyrifos, Imazamethabenz, Diuron, Dichlorprop

Condition

CCME Water Quality Index

Provides a general assessment of water quality based on chemical and physical parameters.

Subset of the following physical, chemical, and biological parameters: chloride, fecal coliforms, copper, iron, lead, manganese, zinc, NO3 and NO2, total kjeldahl nitrogen, total dissolved phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, pH, sodium, sulphate, total dissolved solids

Condition

Lake Trophic Status Provides a general assessment of a lake’s productivity or fertility.

Based on the following collective or individual measures:

• Total phosphorus

• Chlorophyll a

• Secchi-disk visibility

Condition

Nutrients Provides a general measure of nutrient concentrations in Alberta rivers and streams and may be used to assess non-point source nutrient contamination.

• Phosphorus

• Nitrogen

Condition

Pathogens Provides an indication of bacterial contamination that may pose a potential risk to human, animal and ecosystem health.

• Fecal coliforms

• E. coli

• Enterococcii

• Giardia

• Cryptosporidium

Condition


Indicator Category


(i.e. that which is directly measured) Indicator

Type Water Quality

Dissolved Oxygen Provides insight into potential factors influencing the distribution and abundance of aquatic species, as well as other critical chemical processes, including the release and adsorption of pollutants in sediments. Also reflects degree of mixing of water body.

• Concentration of dissolved oxygen

• Percent saturation

Condition

Water temperature Provides insight into the distribution and abundance of aquatic species.

Water temperature Condition

pH Provides information on the chemical balance and biological state of the ecosystem.

Relative acidity of water Condition

Sediment contamination

Provides information on sediment supply and contaminant dynamics, as many nutrients and contaminants adhere strongly to sediment.

• Total suspended solids

• Turbidity

Condition

Individual pesticides

Provides an indication of pesticide contamination that may pose a potential risk to human, animal and ecosystem health

Presence/absence of select pesticides Condition

Individual heavy metals

Identifies potentially toxic conditions for humans and aquatic life.

• Lead

• Arsenic

• Cyanide

• Mercury

Condition

Wastewater loadings (municipal or industrial)

Provides an indication of direct human inputs to natural system.

• Nutrients

• Pathogens

• Total suspended solids

Pressure

Water Quantity

Lake Level Index Shows the status of individual lakes from year to year. This information can assist in interpreting related observations of changes in water quality, fisheries, or recreational opportunities as lake levels change over time.

Lake level elevation relative to a standard level

Condition

Deviation of recorded flows from naturalized flows

Illustrates the extent the natural flow regime has been altered and provides insight on status of meeting any apportionment agreements.

Deviation of actual recorded flow from what would have occurred naturally (i.e., in the absence of any man-made effects).

Condition

Deviation of recorded flows from Water Conservation Objective (WCO)

Illustrates where, when, and to what extent water management targets are being achieved.

Deviation of actual recorded flow from water management targets set by Alberta Environment for the protection of that water body.

Condition

Deviation of recorded flows from In-stream Flow Need

Illustrates where, when and to what extent natural aquatic ecosystem components may be stressed.

Deviation of actual recorded flow from what has been scientifically determined to be required to sustain a healthy aquatic environment.

Condition

Floodplain presence and flooding pattern

By considering where and how frequently it floods, illustrates changing conditions to floodplain ecosystems.

Area of historically connected floodplain vs. area of currently connected floodplain

Condition

Hydrograph alteration

Reflects changes to natural seasonal flow patterns and potential impact on flow-dependent ecosystem functions.

Changes in duration, timing, and magnitude of:

• Peak flow

• Base flow

• Seasonal patterns in hydrograph

• Frequency of overbank flow

Condition


Indicator Category


(i.e., that which is directly measured) Indicator

Type Water Quantity

Surface water allocations and withdrawals by sector (i.e., irrigation, industrial, municipal)

Illustrates relative level of water use and withdrawal from the natural system.

Volume, rate and timing of withdrawals allocated through Water Act registrations, permits and licenses

Pressure

Groundwater extraction

Illustrates level of water use and withdrawal from the natural system.

Volume of groundwater allocated through Water Act registrations, permits and licenses.

Pressure

Landscape Wetland inventory Reflects land use conversion from a natural to “developed” state and identifies potential alterations to local hydrological patterns and water quality.

• Current wetland area (%)

• Wetland area lost due to human activity (%)

Condition

Riparian health Reflects type and extent of human disturbance and degree of natural ecosystem function contributing to stream health.

• Width of vegetated zone

• Species composition, age structure, and percentage of tree canopy cover within the riparian area

• Bank condition

Condition

Land cover Identifies habitat types within the watershed

Impervious area, bare area, and vegetated area by vegetation type

Condition/ Pressure

Land use Illustrates extent and location of natural and human disturbed areas.

Percentage of industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural, protected, etc. within watershed.

Condition/ Pressure

Terrestrial habitat connectivity

Illustrates level of human disturbance, wildlife mobility, and viability/ sustainability.

Size, shape and spatial arrangement of habitat patches and corridors.

Condition/ Pressure

Industrial features Illustrates extent and location of human disturbed areas and identifies different types of pressure on local ecosystem.

Density of livestock operations (CFOs), industrial processing plants, oil and gas wells, groundwater wells, landfills

Pressure

Human population Provides general measure of the level of human pressure on the environment.

• Population density

• Dwelling unit density

Pressure

Livestock density Provides measure of water quality degradation risk via contaminated run-off and effluent.

Livestock units per unit area. Pressure

Linear development Provides general measure on extent of human disturbance and fragmentation.

Extent of transportation routes, utility corridors, and seismic lines.

Pressure

Stream connectivity Illustrates level of disturbance to natural flow conditions that could impair natural ecosystem function.

Number and impact of culverts or other natural and artificial hydraulic breaks (i.e., dams, weirs, culverts).

Pressure

Soil erosion Identifies potential, extent of, and contribution to sedimentation impacting water quality and flow.

Rate of soil erosion (measured or model predicted).

Pressure

Fertilizer/ pesticide application rates

Provides measure of water quality degradation risk via contaminated run-off.

• Fertilizer application rates as per Canada Agricultural Census data

• Rate and location of pesticide application on land within watershed.

• Record of pesticide sales

Pressure


Indicator Category


(i.e., that which is directly measured) Indicator

Type Biological Community

Index of Biotic Integrity

Reflects the quality and amount of aquatic habitat

Subset of the following fish species richness, composition, abundance, and condition metrics:

• Total number of fish species

• Number of specific native, intolerant and sensitive fish species

• Percentage of fish that are omnivores, insectivores, and carnivores

• Percent of individuals that are hybrids

• Percent of individuals that are diseased or deformed

Condition

Macrophyte community

May reflect level of eutrophication, or other condition within water body

Species composition and abundance Condition

Benthic macroinvertebrates assemblage

Reflects cumulative effects of chemical, physical, and biological health of watersheds. May also reflect presence, level, and type of potential pollutant.

Species composition and abundance Condition

Individual indicator species

May reflect level of human disturbance (i.e., development/ encroachment, manipulation of water levels, recreational activities, etc.).

Presence/ absence of leopard frogs, piping plover, American white pelican, bull trout, cottonwoods, other species sensitive to human disturbance

Condition

Blue-green algae outbreaks

Reflects level of water body euthrophication and provides frequency and level of potential risk to human, animal and ecosystem health.

Record of Cyanobacterial blooms Condition

Invasive/ introduced species

Confirms stress incurred by native species competing with invasive or introduced species.

Presence of purple loosestrife, common tansy, Eurasian water milfoil, Didymosphenia geminate, quagga mussels, mud snails, spiny waterflea, other

Pressure

Source: “Handbook for State of the Watershed Reporting: A Guide for Developing State of the Watershed Reports

in Alberta”. Province of Alberta, Canada. November 2008, pp 26-30.


ANNEX C: TIGUM-AGANAN WATERSHED INDICATORS Goal: Abundant and clean water

Thematic Area Importance

1. Forest Cover Forests retain stormwater, reduce erosion, provide oxygen and filter out pollutants.

Indicators Metric

1a. Increased forest cover • Hectares of primary and secondary forest (aggregate public and private lands)

1b. Increased number of indigenous tree species • Ratio on indigenous versus exotic tree species (in ha.)

1c. Increased production of indigenous tree species by local nurseries

• Indigenous tree species production per season

1d. Increased number of communities involved in community-based forest stewardship

• Percentage of total barangays in TAW engaged in stewardship activities

• Type of stewardship activities

1e. Improved riverbank (riparian zone) protection • Percentage of river and stream bank length with woody riparian vegetation


2. Surface water Surface water flow rates affect water available for human consumption and irrigation, with urbanization and deforestation causing reduced baseflows and increased peak flows.

Indicators Metric

2a. Surface water flow rate • Cubic meters/second (m3/s) at critical points in time at stream gauge stations (in the absence of gauge stations we will be using monthly (1 day)spot calibration)

2b. Increased volume of rainwater captured (for domestic use)

• Number of households with rainwater collection tanks (RWCTs)

• m3 of water collected by RWCTs

2c. Increased volume of surface water impounded for domestic, irrigation and industrial use

• Number of reservoirs/water impounds

• m3 of water collected

2d. Surface water quality • TSS level

• DO level

• BOD level

• TDS level

• E. coli level

• fecal coliform level

• pH levels

• Temperature


• Nutrients (Phosphates and nitrates)

2e. Increased number of solid waste disposal systems in local communities and industries (based on Act RA 9003)

• Ratio of communities/industries with disposal systems versus total number of communities/industries

2f. Increased number of industries and commercial establishments with waste water treatment facilities

• Ratio on number of industries and commercial establishments with treatment facilities versus total number of industries and commercial establishments


3. Groundwater Provides the baseflow for streams and rivers that drain the watershed and is a source of water for drinking and irrigation.

Indicators Metric

3a. Groundwater quantity • Rate of groundwater extraction (m3) for industrial, domestic and irrigation use

(there must be a local legislation to monitor and regulate groundwater extraction)

3b. Ground water quality • E. coli

• Total fecal coliform

• Absence/ presence of metals/chemicals

• TDS

3c. Increased number of households with efficient and effective sanitary waste disposal system

• Ratio of households with efficient and effective sanitary waste disposal versus total number of households

3d. Increased number of communities with communal sanitary waste disposal system (communal toilets, sewage systems)

• Ratio of communities with communal sanitary waste disposal versus total number of communities with the same level of water distribution systems (measurement only for communities with level 1, level 2, or absence of water distribution systems)


4. Biodiversity Healthy habitats (forests, wetlands, riparian zones, rivers) support a broad range of animal species, allow wildlife to move around easily and provide recreational opportunities for people.

Indicators Metric

4a. Increase in area of wetlands present in the watershed Ha. of wetland


4b. Increase in biodiversity of flora and fauna • % cover and distribution of different vegetation communities

• Presence or absence of designated indicator species of animals (indicator species are animals that indicate the condition of the environment such as the level of pollution, habitat availability and the size and degree of disturbances)

4c. Increased buffer zones in protected and/or bio-diversity areas

TBD

Goal: Sustainable Agriculture and Livelihood


5. Agricultural land How well agricultural land is being protected affects food security and sustainable livelihood of farmers.

Indicators Metric

5a. Maintenance of total land area devoted to agricultural production

• % of land area (ha.) in TAW devoted to agriculture


6. Sustainable farming The adoption of sustainable/organic farming methods can improve water quality in the watershed and reduce deforestation.

Indicators Metric

6a. Increased productivity in sustainable/organic farming • Average yield (tons/hectare/year) of sustainable/organic food versus traditional agricultural products

6b. Increased number of cooperatives / farmer associations practicing sustainable/organic agriculture (number of Farmers practicing organic agriculture)

• Number of cooperatives / farmer association/ Farmers engaged in sustainable/organic agriculture


7. Upland forest conservation

Alternative forms of livelihood in upland areas can wean communities off agricultural and agro-forestry practices that are harmful to forest reserves.

Indicators Metric

7a. Increase in the number of households in upland municipalities engaged in livelihoods (eco-tourism, sustainable agriculture) that reduce forest degradation and deforestation

• Number of households engaged in alternative livelihoods

Goal: Disaster Resilient Communities


8. Secure communities Reducing risks to households due to extreme weather events and climate change can save lives and improve economic competitiveness.

Indicators Metric


8a. Increased formulation of action plans related to climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and emergency response

• Number of LGUs with DRRM/CCM/CCA plans in place (in compliance to Act RA10121)

8b. Decrease in the number of vulnerable families living in high risk areas

• Number of families living in high risk areas

8c. Increased control measures against geo-hazards (landslides, erosion, flooding) in riparian zones and landslide/erosion prone areas

• Ratio on areas with control measures versus total area of land with identified hazards

8d. Increased number of households/communities in high risk areas in a state of emergency preparedness

• Number of household/communities in high risk areas participating in disaster drills

• Number of barangays/communities with access to early warning systems

Goal: Stewardship of the Watershed


9. Community and stakeholder involvement

The level of engagement of communities and stakeholders in watershed management can help accelerate the pace of environmental restoration in the watershed.

Indicators Metric

9a. Improved level of awareness and support for watershed stewardship by communities and stakeholders

• Number of IEC materials produced through print, broadcast and social media

9b. Improved community and civil society engagement in watershed management

• Number of barangays conducting micro-watershed planning and implementation incorporating DRRM, CCA, and CCM.

• Number of CSOs engaged in watershed management

9c. Increased business sector participation in watershed management

• Number of businesses or business organizations exercising CSR for watershed stewardship

9d. Increased academic community engagement in watershed management

• Number of universities and colleges actively participating in TAW activities

9e. Improved LGU leadership for watershed management • Number of policies, ordinances and funded programs per TAW LGU supporting watershed stewardship


ANNEX D: SAMPLE TABLE OF CONTENTS OF A SOWR7

SOWR Section Description of Content

1.Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Report

The state of the watershed report should provide a benchmark

against which the effectiveness of future stewardship activities

and best management practices aimed at improving watershed

health may be assessed.

The information should provide landowners, stakeholders,

municipalities and stewardship groups the information needed

to make sound management decisions aimed at implementing

beneficial management practices and developing possible

solutions to protect and enhance their land and water resources.

Although the report will not identify specific solutions to issues

within the watershed, it should prioritize the issues to be

addressed and make recommendations toward the development

of a strategy to address those issues and opportunities.

Furthermore, the SOWR should also include statements on who

did the report, and what governing body or local alliance

authorized its production and distribution.

1.2 Scope of the Report The report should summarize current and historic information

on the watershed. It may include information on the watershed,

stream and lake water quality/quantity, presence/absence of

biological species, land-use and the potential effect of resource

and land-use practices.

The report should also mention limitations, a general statement

identifying the expected outcome of the project.

Each section of this report is intended to provide and summarize

known information (social, physical, and environmental).

1.3 Approach of assessment The report should consider the physical aspects of the entire

watershed – first at a broad scale, then focusing on the specific

land, water, biological and even air resources.

1.4 Description of format and

content of report

This section should provide a brief overview of the layout of the

report and the manner in which the information is being

presented.

7This was adapted from the Handbook for State of the Watershed Reporting: A Guide for Developing State of

the Watershed Reports in Alberta, published by Province of Alberta, Canada, November 2008, pp 14-21.



2.0 Public perception and concerns

The objective of this section will be to highlight current and/or

previously identified public concerns so that they may be used

to provide direction/focus to the report, and perhaps also

identify issues to be addressed through the findings of the

report. Information may come from previous municipal or other

surveys, interviews, public meetings, letters to the editor,

statements of concern, etc. Changes to public perceptions can be

measured over time to determine if education and levels of

participation are improving.

3.0 Existing plans and programs

Includes the review of existing or proposed local village by-laws,

ordinances, area structure and municipal development plans.

Review should also consider current or past municipal

initiatives and programs intended to safeguard

lakes/watershed/wildlife habitat. This information may

illustrate how the local municipalities, agencies, and/or

stakeholders are addressing local issues, and may also highlight

opportunities for improvement.

It will be beneficial to identify past and current watershed

stewardship projects/programs/ efforts within the watershed.

Review should highlight any existing watershed management or

land-use plans for the area within the boundaries of the

watershed.

4.0 Watershed Characteristics

4.1 General description of the

watershed

General description of watershed (location, size, boundaries),

including the identification of relevant sub-watersheds within

the larger watershed. This section will set the geographical

context of the watershed within the larger region, and also

delineate the smaller sub-watersheds that exist within. This may

also provide opportunity for smaller scale investigations into

localized issues and opportunities.

4.2 Climate Local climatologic data (precipitation, temperature, wind). This

information may be used to characterize seasonal weather and

run-off patterns in the watershed, to understand the local water

budget for the region, and also for modeling purposes.

4.3 Land and vegetative cover Geographical breakdown of land cover

(public/private/agricultural/residential/forested/ natural)

within the watershed and sub-watersheds as interpreted from

available satellite, air and/or orthophotos. A chronological

sequence of current and historic air photos, combined with

ground surveys, could be used to illustrate trends in land cover

and conversion over time. Different land cover types have



different potential impacts on water quality, quantity, and other

resources. Vegetative cover should be assessed both in terms of

quantity and quality; factors such as size, shape, connectivity,

distribution and adjacent influences all have an impact on

quality.

4.4 Wildlife resources Description of types of wildlife and their habitat requirements

(particularly species at risk). This information may identify

critical wildlife habitats to protect, and may also identify

pollutant sources associated with wildlife (i.e., seasonal flocks of

waterfowl may be an important source of bacteria and nutrients

affecting water quality). Review should assess fragmentation,

connectivity, and configuration of wildlife habitat (terrestrial

and aquatic).

4.5 Geography, soils and

topography

Description of bedrock and surface geology, soils, topography,

elevation, and landforms. This information may identify areas of

groundwater recharge/discharge, areas at risk of groundwater

contamination, soil erosion, etc.

4.6 General hydrology and

drainage infrastructure

General overview of surface resources, drainage patterns and

infrastructure (i.e., dams and diversions), volume-to-area ratio,

lake residence times. This section may also consider the water

balance that exists between the lake and its watershed. Those

contributing/non-contributing areas within the basin and the

extent of contribution should be identified, outlining areas to

consider for potential source water protection.

4.7 Groundwater

resources/aquifers

Overview of known groundwater resources in terms of volume,

depth to water table, direction and speed of flow, yield, recharge

rates, and potability. This section should include discussion on

the importance and usage of groundwater within the watershed,

either as a domestic/industrial water source or its contribution

to lake volumes or river flows. Discussion may also include

inventory of known and licensed groundwater withdrawals.

4.8 Air quality Overview of known information on status of air quality, trends,

sources of contaminants (i.e., major urban centres, industrial

plants), etc. A summary should include discussion on any air

quality public advisories, and known or potential impact upon

other media (water, land).

5.0 Land use and social/cultural resources

5.1 History of human

settlement

Information on the history of development

(urbanization/industrialization/agriculture), description of

communities, demographics, resources, and cultural values. This

section begins to assess the development pressures upon the

local resources and provides a chronological perspective of local



development activities. Acknowledging and honouring the past,

before proposing changes to current activities and lifestyles, will

create a deeper sense of ownership within the community, and

may result in more engagement and buy-in to the project.

5.2 Land Use

5.2.1 Land resource overview Land uses (i.e., agricultural, residential, commercial,

recreational, industrial, transportation and utilities, resource

extraction, protected, etc.) are an important factor influencing

the physical and biological conditions of the watershed. Land

use may be associated with particular pollutant stressors or

sources. Evaluating land use distribution may guide/direct

implementation of future beneficial management practices

and/or stewardship programs, while also identifying areas

currently protected or in need of protection. It may also identify

potential stakeholders. The environmental and social factors

should direct land use in the future.

5.2.2 Agricultural resources Overview of agriculture in watershed/sub-watersheds,

breakdown of agricultural lands (cropland/forage/pasture),

farm type/size/abundance/ distribution, agricultural

production and livestock density/placement,

trends/threats/opportunities in agriculture. Knowledge as to

the type, intensity and location of agricultural practices (i.e.,

tillage, fertilizer/pesticide applications, etc.) may highlight

potential issues as well as potential partnership opportunities.

5.2.3 Forestry resources Inventory of timber resources (type, volume, age) and overview

of forestry activities (past/current/planned). A review of

detailed forest management plans within the watershed offers

the opportunity to incorporate current and future harvesting

plans and practices into the assessment.

5.2.4 Recreational resources Inventory of permanent and seasonal lakeshore or other

residential/commercial developments, recreational

facilities/areas (i.e., beaches, parks, campgrounds), planned and

potential expansions, usage rates, services, waste production

and disposal facilities, trends/threats/opportunities in

recreational activities or investments, mapping of shoreline

municipal and environmental reserves, review of shoreline

development and municipal land-use zoning planning processes.

Similar to the overview of agricultural resources, this inventory

may highlight potential issues and partnership opportunities.

5.2.5 Other human/industrial

influences

Assessment of oil & gas/mining/gravel extraction/other

industrial activities. Assessment should include discussion on

potential impacts from current and future levels of resource

development.



Knowledge of these activities will be important in identifying

potential watershed stressor and pollutant sources, and areas

for additional or future management efforts.

5.3 Water supply and waste

water systems (municipal,

private)

Identification of all sources of drinking water within the

watershed, description of water treatment processes and any

delivery infrastructure, as well as processes for local treatment

of wastewater (lagoon, septic fields, land-spreading of septage,

etc.). Include a discussion on deficiencies (i.e., water loss) and

any future plans for expansion of supply systems, and/or other

actions to meet future demands.

5.4 Riparian health

assessments

Review of any available shoreline assessment and riparian data

collected within the watershed. Issues of stream/lake water

quality/quantity may be related to riparian health and

management. Any assessment of shoreline and riparian areas

may assist in identifying beneficial actions to be taken. The level

and impact of nuisance beaver activity within the watershed

may also be considered in this section.

5.5 Wetland inventory Review of wetland inventory findings where such an inventory

has been conducted. This section should include a snapshot of

current wetlands and wetland conditions, and a discussion on

any known changes in wetland number, type, and surface area

from known historical conditions. Consider a discussion on

calculated cumulative loss/gain of storage volume and

associated impact on run-off rates, soil moisture conditions, etc.

6.0 Surface water quality

6.1 Water quality parameters

(historic, current, trends)

Record water quality monitoring initiatives, and assessments of

chemical, physical and biological data for lakes within

watershed (i.e., bacteria, nutrients, dissolved oxygen,

transparency, chlorophyll, caffeine). Since the downstream point

of accumulation for the watershed’s catchment area is a lake or

the sea, the health of the lake is often indicative of the health of

its watershed. Based on findings, the SOWR should identify

potential point/non-point sources, internal/external sources.

Paleolimnological studies may also provide insight into historic,

pre-settlement water quality conditions of the lake and its

watershed, and provide some context as to natural water quality

conditions.

Record water quality monitoring initiatives and assessments of

chemical, physical and biological data for tributaries within

watershed (i.e., bacteria, nutrients, dissolved oxygen,

transparency, chlorophyll). Combined with stream flow data,

this information can be used to calculate nutrient loadings.



Assessing and comparing the quality of water in the various

tributaries will also assist in prioritizing stewardship projects

and activities.

Note: Water quality is one of the primary measurable indicators of

watershed condition.

6.2 Point source discharges Identification of the location of any known pollutant point

sources (storm water outflows, treated wastewater release sites,

industrial discharges, etc.), and summary of conditions imposed

on these.

6.3 Aquatic ecosystem health

(biological indicators)

Assessment of current and historic fish habitat inventory data.

Records of catastrophic and seasonal events, such as recorded

winter fish kills, algal blooms, or changes to diversity of aquatic

species (extirpations/introductions) may be incorporated. This

information may be used as an indicator of water quality and

may also highlight particular environmental threats or

reoccurring events that should be considered.

6.4 Public Health This section should include a discussion of any recorded public

beach closures, fish consumption advisories, boil water

advisories, etc., along with a description of factors or events

contributing to and reacting to public health advisories.

7.0 Surface water quality and management

7.1 Hydrology and lake levels

(historic, current, and

trends)

Record of lake level fluctuations (in isolation and/or in relation

to other local lakes), river/stream/tributary base flow,

inventory and management of lake/river/drainage/ storm-

water infrastructure, history of flood/drought events.

Delineation of 1-in-100-year floodplain as it relates to

recreational/residential/industrial development would also be

informative. Compilation of this information could provide

insight into events, activities, and landscape or management

changes that may influence water volumes or be threatened by

high/low water levels.

7.2 Apportionment and other

flow agreements (sector-

based, inter-provincial,

regional)

Review of conditions of any recognized apportionment and

other agreements influencing water flow and management (i.e.,

inter-provincial apportionment agreements, existing

watershed/sub-watershed water management plans, approved

diversion and dam construction and operating guidelines, etc.).

7.3 Water allocations,

withdrawals and

consumption

Assessment of current and past licensed/permitted water

withdrawals from rivers, lakes and tributaries for

domestic/livestock/irrigation/industrial/wildlife usage. Data

could illustrate the significance of water withdrawals in the



watershed and its influence on seasonal flows and lake levels.

7.4 In-stream flow needs and

water conservation

objectives

Provide existing base flow data. Review any studies of calculated

flow requirements for rivers/streams within the watershed.

Review current flow conditions compared to desired conditions

and existing plans or efforts to achieve water conservation

objectives.

8.0 Issues and challenges

8.1 Interpretations of SOWR

assessment findings

Validation of public issues and concerns and recognition of

additional threats and opportunities (including lack of

planning/enforcement). This section will provide an overall

summary of the issues as identified from findings highlighted in

each of the above sections.

8.2 Discussion of data and

data gaps

Discussion of data gaps and limitations with available

data/knowledge, identification of potential sources of additional

data, along with recommendations for the collection of any

additional data (including the means of collecting this data).

9.0 Conclusions and recommendations

Discussion of where we go from here, how this SOWR should be

used by landowners, stakeholders, municipalities, and other

government agencies in future watershed management.

Discussion of the role, responsibility and mandate of

institutional and regulatory bodies in light of this information.

10.0 Stewardship opportunities

Discussion of the role of the watershed stewardship group in

terms of communications/ outreach, program/project delivery.

Recommendations for future project areas and stewardship

initiatives.


ANNEX E: REFERENCES TO OTHER SOWRS, WATERSHED

REPORT CARDS, WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS AND

HANDBOOKS Alberta Environment. November 2008. Handbook for State of the Watershed Reporting: A Guide for Preparing

State of the Watershed Reports in Alberta. http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8044.pdf

Alberta Environment and Natural Resource Development. October 2012. Guide to Reporting on Common

Indicators in State of the Watershed Reports. http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8713.pdf

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. 2007. Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Watershed Report

Card. http://www.abca.websmart.ca/reportcard.php

Bow River Basin Council. 2005. The 2005 Report on the State of the Bow River Basin.

http://www.brbc.ab.ca/issues2.asp

Conservation Ontario. 2011. Guide to Developing Conservation Authority Watershed Report Cards.

http://www.conservationontario.ca/members/members_ebulletin_links/documents/COReportJan18FULL.p

df Essex Region Conservation Authority. 2005. Watershed Report Card.

http://www.erca.org/downloads/watershed_report_card06.pdf

Iron Creek Watershed Improvement Society. 2006. Iron Creak Riparian Health Report Card 2001 – 2006.

Keepers of the Athabasca. 2008. State of the Athabasca Watershed 2008.

http://www.keepersofthewater.ca/athabasca/state2008.pdf

Lac La Nonne Watershed Stewardship Society. 2006. Lac La Nonne State of the Watershed Report.

http://www.laclanonnewatershed.com/LLN_SoW_Report.pdf

Mackenzie River Basin Board. 2003. State of the Aquatic Ecosystem Report 2003.

http://www.swa.ca/Publications/AquaticEcosystem.asp

Muskoka Watershed Council. 2007. The Muskoka Watersheds Report Card.

http://www.muskokaheritage.org/watershed/watershedreportcard.asp##2007

North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance. 2005. State of the North Saskatchewan Watershed Report.

http://nswa.ab.ca/pdfs/SOWR.pdf

Nose Creek Watershed Partnership. 2003. Watershed Health Report: Health of the Nose Creek Watershed.

http://www.nosecreekpartnership.com/documents/Watershed%20Health%20Report%20Card/Watershed

%20Health%20Report%20Card%202002.pdf

Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. 2007. State of the Watershed Report.

http://www.swa.ca/StateOfTheWatershed/Default.asp

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2008. Humber River State of the Watershed Reports (various).

http://trca.on.ca/the-living-city/watersheds/humber-river/resources.dot


Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2008. Humber River Watershed Plan Implementation Guide.

http://trca.on.ca/the-living-city/watersheds/humber-river/resources.dot

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2008. Humber River Watershed Plan - Pathways to a Healthy

Humber. http://trca.on.ca/the-living-city/watersheds/humber-river/resources.dot

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2007. Listen to Your River: A Report Card on the Health of the

Humber River Watershed. http://trca.on.ca/the-living-city/watersheds/humber-river/resources.dot

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2011. The Living City Report Card. http://trca.on.ca/the-living-

city/watersheds/humber-river/resources.dot

Skeleton Lake Stewardship Association.2007. Skeleton Lake State of the Watershed Report 2007.

http://skeletonlake.com/info/Skeleton_SoW_with_App_B.pdf

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 2007. The 2007 Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards.

http://www.thamesriver.on.ca/Watershed_Report_Cards/Watershed_Report_Cards-2007.htm

This handbook is a product of the Metro Iloilo-Guimaras Bio-

region Initiative, a component of the International Urban

Partnerships Program of the Canadian Urban Institute

(canurb.org). Technical expertise on watershed management

was provided by the Toronto and Region Conservation

Authority (trca.on.ca). The program and the production of this

handbook were made possible through a generous financial

contribution from the Government of Canada.

Copyright: Tigum-Aganan Watershed Management Board and

the Canadian Urban Institute, 2013

Date post:	29-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lisa-cavicchia
View:	228 times
Download:	5 times