S

A review of Policy impacts

in the upper watersheds of Davao, Philippines

Declan Hearne |  Strengthening Governance and Institutions

Policy* a statement of intent

Policy -> Action -> desired impacts

But who is measuring?

Are there unexpected outcomes?

If we are not measuring, how can we adapt?

Overview

Watershed Code

Rapid review Power structures governing the uplands Impacts on two user groups Refining policy's and actions

Watershed Code

In 2006, the HELP Davao Network developed a draft IWRM framework

Watershed Management Code was enacted by the City Council in 2007 - lays down the provisions for protection, conservation, and management of the watersheds.

The code regulates the use of 34,000 hectares of watershed areas that are classified into conservation areas, agro-forestry non-tillage areas and prime agricultural lands. Infrastructural development and mono-crop plantations are banned in the first two of these categories.

a shift from narrow issues based policy to recognition of the need for more holistic and integrated approaches for the management of water resources.

4 years on - Risk that the Code has has alienated two sets of major land users

Methods

Review of secondary data (maps, bio, physical and social)

Conduct of rapid field assessments and community interviews

Conduct of review of decision making tools to guide more effective actions and reinforce the intended policy impacts

A rapid assessment of policy impacts

Marilog

S

Findings

84% >4$ day

Status of Indigenous People’s (IP’s) land use systems

Status of Banana land use systems

an increase in demand by the market

loss of productivity on existing production lands

Encroachment on IP Lands

impacting on human and ecosystem health

Banana & its associated economic opportunity is a driver of change in cultural & land use practices

Impacts

Banana

Resistance to formation of the WMC

Outsourcing of production

Organizing marginalised famers

Scoping lands outside the region

IP’s

Unsure of requirement has lead to resistance.

Fear of loss is costly. ‘loss aversion’

…Costs of non participation?

Both impacted

Yet both are valued by society.

The challenge: how to guide the evolution of landscape management practices to reap some of the economic rewards seen in agri-business production models but still retain desirable levels of cultural and ecological integrity across the region.

S

Refining Policy efforts

S

RecommendationsDeeper appreciation of

stakeholders

governance systems

Decision support tools

Who advocated for the policy?

GovernmentCivil Groups

Academe

ReligiousDevelopment Chambers

User Groups

User GroupsIndigenous Peoples

Corporate

Are we are addressing change at a sufficient pace?

Deepening appreciation

awareness of full participation of all stakeholder

GovernmentCivil Groups

Academe

ReligiousDevelopment Chambers

User GroupsUser Groups

Plural governance systems

formal law has the highest legal authority that guides and controls management of natural resources, however…

failure to consider traditional systems can result in costly barriers to implementation.

The value of working with local traditions and culture

Recognizing

Recognized and reinforce the multi layered power structures

Customary Knowledge is adaptive.

Conceptualizing … to Implementing

Put aside planned ‘solutions’ and embrace a real partnerships to achieve real user-driven outcomes

S

Decision support tools

2.1900 only Matigsalugs tribes

Enacted forest ecosystems

4. 1940’s Logging picks up

5. 1950’s first plantation

3.1920 1st Christian Settlers

Mapping Change in Marilog, Davao IWRM Spiral Model

Source: Lincklaen Arriens 2009Adapted from UNESCO-NARBO Guidelines

6. 60’s Logging peak

7. 70s Banana becomes major crop

8. 80’s Christian & IP conflicts

9. 80’s Logging Slows down

10. IPRA law 1992

11. Watershed Code 200712. 07 NGO Partnership Approach

13. 2010 Resistance to W Code

Min

ima

l Im

pa

ctIn

cre

asi

ng

Im

pa

cts

1940

Pro

du

ctiv

e

So

cie

ties

in

ha

rmo

ny

with

n

atu

re?

2015

So

cie

tal

Re

spo

nse

s 1990

Refining management units

leaders in both the private and public sectors have been slow to incorporate ecosystem benefits into decision making.

Why? a complex web of factors that goes beyond science, and reflects a need to consider social, cultural and economic factors.

Scale - initiatives need to be undertaken at the landscape level and coupled with consideration for people and ecosystem services.

Ecological Value: HighEconomic Value: Medium

Mixed Agro Forestry ZoneLow input, high water dependence

Ecological Value: MediumEconomic Value: Medium

Backyard Food ProductionHigh input, high water dependence

Ecological Value: LowEconomic Value: Low

Sloping Agri Cropping ZoneHigh input, high water dependence, Soil erosion high

Agro Forestry subsistence landscapes, Davao, Philippines.Photo: Declan Hearne, HELP Davao ©

S

Defining landscape

s

S

Open Canopy

Grassland

Built Up Areas

Matrix TP

SA2: Riparian landscape

S

Overview of results3 sub-landscapes

3 Sample areas analyzed

•matrix and patch make up•Land cover change

S

In summaryCritical for involvement of a full

spectrum of stakeholders

Invest time to aligning with customary approaches

Localization of decision support tools