ADRi PUBLICATIONS

LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE:

BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES IN A PHILIPPINE PROVINCE

F R A N C I S CO A . M AG N O , P H . D .
I A N JAY S O N R . H EC I TA
The Stratbase ADR Institute for Strategic and International Studies
(ADRi) is an independent strategic research organization with the
principal goal of addressing the issues affecting the Philippines and East
Asia through:

1. Effecting national, regional, and international policy change

or support
2. Fostering strategic ideas based on cooperation and innovative
thinking
3. Providing a regional venue for collaboration and cooperation
in dealing with critical issues in East Asia; and
4. Actively participating in regional debates and global
conversations

With its international focus, ADRi believes that Philippine and

regional security and development can be achieved through the
cooperation of the public and private sectors.
ADRi traces its roots to the Stratbase Research Institute (SRI)
established in 2004. SRI focused on providing strategic solutions to
domestic governance, socio-economic, and other policy concerns. It
aimed to contribute to Philippine development through research and
responsive policy alternatives.
As SRI sought solutions, East Asia’s affairs frequently inserted
themselves into the equation. There was and is a clear relation between
domestic and regional affairs; movement in one reverberates in the
other.
LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE:
BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND
DISASTER MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES IN A
PHILIPPINE PROVINCE

WRITTEN BY
FRANCISCO A. MAGNO, PH.D.
IAN JAYSON R. HECITA

ADRi PUBLICATIONS
STRATBASE ADRi FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Manila, Philippines
Stratbase ADRi
Albert Del Rosario Institute for Strategic and International Studies
Copyright © 2023

A Publication of the Stratbase Albert Del Rosario Institute for

Strategic and International Studies

Stratbase ADRi Website: www.adrinstitute.org

Facebook: https://facebook.com/stratbaseadri/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/stratbaseadri/

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise),
without the prior written permission of the Institute, except in the case of brief
quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this paper are

those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Institute or any of its officers and trustees.

The author is solely responsible for its content.

For information, address ADRi Publications:

The Financial Tower, 6794 Ayala Avenue, Makati City 1226

Design by Carol Manhit

Text set in 11 type Minion Pro

Printed in the Philippines by Rex Publishing

Manila, Philippines
 iii

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION

Victor Andres “Dindo” C. Manhit is the President of Stratbase Albert Del Rosario Institute
for Strategic and International Studies. Concurrently, he is Philippine Country Head
of the renowned BowerGroupAsia (BGA). He was a former Chair and recently retired
Associate Professor of the Political Science Department of De La Salle University. Among
the government positions he held include Undersecretary for External Affairs and Special
Concerns of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and Deputy Secretary for
Administration and Financial Services of the Philippine Senate. Meanwhile, his legislative
experience encompasses the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 12th Congress as the Chief of Staff of the late
Former Senate President Edgardo Angara and senior policy research adviser in key senate
committees.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Ambassador Albert del Rosario was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines from
2011 to 2016. He also served as Philippine Ambassador to the United States of America
from 2001 to 2006. Prior to entering public service, Amb. Del Rosario was on the Board of
Directors of over 50 firms. He received numerous awards and recognition for his valuable
contributions to the Philippines and abroad.

Manuel V. Pangilinan is CEO and managing director of First Pacific Company Limited. He is
also the chairman of Metro Pacific Investments Corp., Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company, Manila Electric Co. (Meralco), and Smart Communications, among others. He is
a recipient of several prestigious awards including the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the
Philippines (TOYM) Award for International Finance in 1983 and the Presidential Pamana
ng Pilipino Award by the Office of the President of the Philippines in 1996.

Edgardo G. Lacson is an honorary chairman of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and

Industry (PCCI). He is the Chairman of the Employers Confederation of the Philippines.
He holds numerous leadership positions in various companies. He served as a Director
of The Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. and is an Honorary Member of the Rotary Club-
Diliman.

Benjamin Philip G. Romualdez is the former president of the Chamber of Mines of the
Philippines. He also holds, among others, the following positions: Chairman of MST
Management, Inc., President of Oxford University and Cambridge University Club of
the Philippines, Director at Philippine-Australia Business Council (PABC), Trustee/Vice
President of Doña Remedios Trinidad Romualdez Medical Foundation, Inc, and Trustee/
Vice President of Dr. Vicente Orestes Romualdez (DVOR) Educational Foundation, Inc.
iv

Ernest Z. Bower is a senior adviser for Southeast Asia at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), having founded the first chair for the region. He is CEO of BowerGroupAsia
(BGA) and a leading expert on Southeast Asia.

Renato C. de Castro, Ph.D is a full professor of international studies at De La Salle

University – Manila (DLSU). In 2009, Dr. de Castro became the U.S. State Department
ASEAN Research Fellow from the Philippines and was based in the Political Science
Department of Arizona State University. A consultant in the National Security Council
of the Philippines during the Aquino administration, he has written over 80 articles on
international relations and security.

Judge Raul C. Pangalangan, Ph.D is a judge of the International Criminal Court. He was
previously the dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law and publisher of
the Philippine Daily Inquirer. He has taught in many universities around the world, such
as Melbourne University, Hong Kong University, and Harvard Law School.

Epictetus E. Patalinghug, Ph.D is a professor emeritus at the Cesar E.A. Virata School of
Business, University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman. He received his doctorate degree
in Agricultural Economics from the University of Hawaii. His works have been featured in
various publications around the world.

Francisco A. Magno, Ph.D is the executive director of the Jesse M. Robredo Institute of
Governance and former President of the Philippine Political Science Association. He is
a professor of political science at DLSU and previously served as Chair of the Political
Science Department and Director of the Social Development Research Center.

Carlos Primo C. David, Ph.D is a licensed geologist and professor in UP Diliman having
obtained his PhD in Environmental Science and Geology from Stanford University. He
is a former the Executive Director of DOST-PCIEERD. A project leader of the DOST’s
Project NOAH, Dr. David pioneers short term rainfall forecasting in the country and
climate change-related research on water resources. (On government service leave)
 v

CONTENTS

Introduction 1
The passage of the Climate Change Act of 2009 and the Disaster Risk Reduction
and Management Act of 2010 emphasizes the critical role of LGUs in
addressing the adverse impact of climate change and disaster risks

Collaborative Arrangements as Risk Management Strategies 2

The study of collaborative mechanisms and institutions and of capacity and cooperation,
is interesting because it reveals how institutional collaboration and coordinated policy
responses can address collective action problems and common pool resource dilemmas

Identifying LGU Capacities for DRRM and Climate Change Adaptation

A. Opportunities and challenges in inter-LGU cooperation in climate 7
change adaptation and DRRM
The dynamism of inter-LGU alliances in the province of Iloilo shows how the
local government consortium performs in service areas ranging from economic
development, health services, watershed and coastal management,
governance, and flood management

B. Developing and implementing DRRM plans and climate 15

change adaptation action plans
DRRM and CCA adaptation plans can be realized by enhancing the technical
skills of local planners in terms of research, problem identification, data
analytics, and policy analysis. The local planning officers need to
upgrade their knowledge and skills using ICT planning tools

C. Role of collaborative governance in strengthening capacity of 26

LGUs in DRRM and CCA
The assessment of opportunities and challenges in inter-LGU cooperation in
climate change adaptation and DRRM and the development and
implementation of action plans highlight the role of collaborative
governance in strengthening the capacity of LGUs

Conclusion 26
This study on climate change action and disaster management practices raises the
imperative of collaborative governance and suggests the need to conduct future studies
on vertical collaboration, as well as the factors that affect the decision to collaborate

References 29

Acknowledgments
About the Author
 vii

ABSTRACT

Policy research that examines the influence of incentive structures in fostering

local collaborative governance and alliance building is still limited. This study
contributes toward understanding the effects of capacity gaps, resource asymmetries,
contextual factors, and transaction costs on the decision of local government units
in the Philippines to engage in partnership arrangements. It explains the role of
enforcement costs, maintenance costs related to cooperation, incentive issues,
and the free-rider problem in shaping the policy choices of local governments
on economic and environmental sustainability. Being a long-term process,
sustainability initiatives require long-term political commitment and economic
investment. This is crucial for sustaining Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
and Climate Change Adaptation programs over time. Hence, it is important to
identify the factors that will sustain interest and motivation among LGUs to
collaborate in environmental governance. The findings of the study centered first
on the discussion of the opportunities and challenges to inter-LGU cooperation in
the area of climate change adaptation and DRRM. Iloilo is among the provinces
with the greatest number of inter-LGU alliances and the service areas of the local
government consortium spans across economic development, health service delivery,
watershed and coastal resource management, metropolitan governance, and flood
management. Second, in terms of developing and implementing DRRM plans and
climate change adaptation action plans, most of the LGUs covered in the study are
updating their CLUPs where they face several capacity challenges. Local planners
often need to enhance their technical skills in certain areas of research, problem
identification, data analytics, and policy analysis. These two focal areas highlight
the role of collaborative governance in strengthening the capacity of LGUs in the
domain of DRRM and CCA. LGUs identified the DILG and the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board as important boundary partners in DRRM capacity building.
Inter-local partnerships are strategic collaborative governance arrangements for
co-learning and joint-capacity building activities through continuous institutional
learning. Hence, this study on environmental governance, i.e., climate change action
and disaster management practices at the local level, raises the policy imperative of
collaborative governance.
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE:
BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND
DISASTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
IN A PHILIPPINE PROVINCE

FRANCISCO A. MAGNO, PH.D.

IAN JAYSON R. HECITA

I n the implementation of the Climate Change Act, LGUs are expected to

craft and employ local climate change action plans. The plans will outline
the programs and strategies of the LGUs in climate change adaptation. City
and municipal governments, including the barangays, would be involved in
identifying relevant climate change issues and ways to address them. LGUs are
also tasked to adopt best practices in climate change adaptation as part of their
regular functions. Apart from implementing a province-wide climate change
plan, provincial governments are mandated to provide technical assistance
to municipalities and cities in the development of action plans. Moreover, the
law encourages the utilization of inter-LGU collaboration as a mechanism to
effectively implement local plans for climate change adaptation.
The DRRM Act requires the establishment of Local Disaster Risk Reduction
and Management Offices (LDRRMOs) in every province, city, and municipality
and a Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committee (BDRRMC)
in every barangay. The LDRRMO is tasked to formulate and implement a
comprehensive and integrated Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Plan (LDRRMP). The LDRRMP should be integrated into the Comprehensive
Development Plan (CDP) and Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The
LDRRMO is assigned to ensure that disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation are incorporated into local development plans, programs, and budgets
as a strategy for sustainable development.
2 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

According to the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk

Reduction, most countries in the developing world report little progress in
mainstreaming and integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change
considerations into local planning. Local governments and communities usually
face the issues of lack of capacity and resources to refocus development programs.
Given the tasks provided by the new laws to address climate change issues, LGUs
need to build their capacity to craft and implement CCA and DRRM plans. They
also need technical knowledge and skills in harmonizing CCA and DRRM into
local development planning.
With the amount of community-based knowledge and practices on
sustainability that have been documented, it is significant to explore approaches
and means to link local knowledge with policies. Effective climate change
adaptation can be based on existing local knowledge and built upon local
participatory analysis of vulnerabilities and capacities. The challenge for
policymakers and researchers is to develop mechanisms to bring scientific
climate information to the service of communities and to make it accessible,
hence informing the crafting of sustainable local CCA and DRRM programs.
Local knowledge development must be built on local capacities. Adaptation
needs to be built upon local capacities and appropriate technologies.
The Climate Change Act states that inter-local government collaboration
shall be maximized in the implementation of climate change adaptation. For
instance, to address disaster risk drivers such as ecosystem decline and an
increase in informal settlers, local governments can consider coordination and
partnership with other local governments and civil society organizations. They
can pool resources and coordinate policy actions thus creating economies of
scale and making sustainable policy development and implementation more
efficient.

Collaborative Arrangements as Risk Management Strategies

This study engaged scholarly literature that looks at the linkages between climate
change and natural disasters and how risk management strategies should
be pursued through local governance platforms, especially in the context of
developing countries. For example, Wamsler and Lawson (2012) indicate that
 MAGNO & HECITA 3

climate change and disasters pose a serious risk to sustainable development.

In developing countries, local coping strategies are an important element of
adaptation to climate and disaster risk.
The Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) 2005-2015 recognizes the important
role of local governance in dealing with disaster risk reduction and in building
resilient communities. Good urban governance which includes sound local
planning, implementation of land use policy, protection and management of
ecosystems, local capacity building, inter-local cooperation, and empowerment
of rural and vulnerable livelihoods and communities reduces the underlying
risk drivers and thus contributes to making safer cities and communities. Local
governments are considered central in playing the role of coordinating and
sustaining multi-level and multi-stakeholder efforts to promote disaster risk
reduction (ISDR 2010: IX). This focuses on strengthening the ability of local
governments to facilitate and forge collaborative efforts in developing and
implementing programs with national government agencies, the private sector,
civil society organizations, and other LGUs.
Given the challenges toward capacity development and resource mobilization
needed to address local issues including disaster risk reduction, some LGUs
have resorted to voluntary inter-local collaboration. LGUs enter in collaborative
partnerships that allow for sharing and coordinating the benefits and costs of
delivery of public goods and services as well as inter-jurisdictional activities,
projects, programs, and plans.
Inter-local collaboration and agreements are voluntary arrangements to
share service delivery responsibilities among local governments (Kwon & Feiock
2010). Inter-local cooperation can also be characterized by a group of LGUs
that are geographically adjacent and contiguous to each other coming together
on a short-term or long-term basis to jointly provide services and implement
projects. Cooperation may also be referred to as local alliances, horizontal
partnerships, local consortia, or inter-city clusters. Inter-local cooperation
has the following elements: common purpose; coordinating structure;
commonly agreed upon systems; and pooled services (GTZ, CIDA & EU 2010).
Mechanisms for voluntary collaboration can be in various forms, including
adaptive partnerships, inter-local contracts, regional councils, and metropolitan
partnerships. In the Philippines, the following are the areas and sectors in which
inter-local alliances are documented: coastal resource management, health
4 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

development, economic development, river management and ecotourism,

natural resource management, local development, environmental protection,
and lakeside management.
There has been a substantial increase in the recognition that decentralized
systems and self-organizing initiatives are effective in improving local public
policy outcomes (Arganoff & McGuire 2003; Bingham & O’Leery 2008). In a
decentralized system, local governments are tasked to directly address the local
issues and problems faced and the demands of their constituencies. The rationale
for decentralization is for governments to enhance efficiency by matching
community preferences for high-quality public services and resource allocation
measures (Feiock 2010).
However, LGUs are often confronted with collective action policy problems
with spillover effects and have positive or negative externalities to their
jurisdiction and other LGUs (Ostrom 1990). Policy problems such as stormwater
flooding, air pollution, watershed management, vehicle traffic management, and
forest protection, are often difficult to address considering the limited resources
of LGUs and their bounded authority and jurisdiction. Fragmented governments
due to decentralization are constrained by their size if there are not enough
citizen-consumers in the jurisdiction or if there are not enough public service
supplies that the LGUs can deliver to address collective action problems (Bish
2000). Decentralized and fragmented initiatives call for collaboration because
individual LGUs do not control all the resources and know-how necessary to
address collective action problems (Shrestha 2012).
Disaster risks often lead to collective action problems that are hard to overcome
by local governments acting alone. Flooding, landslides, air pollution, watershed
degradation, and forest fires are some of the collective action problems resulting
from a lack of coordinated land use plans, an absence of ecosystem programs, a
lack of regional coordination, and poor urban governance.
The study of local government capacity and inter-local government
cooperation is interesting because it reveals how institutional collaboration,
pooling of resources, and coordinated policy responses can address collective
action problems and common pool resource dilemmas. The ability of local
governments to deliver public goods is subjected to policy problems that
transcend the jurisdictional boundaries of governments. Local problems often
transcend local borders, posing a demand for LGUs to cooperate in the planning,
 MAGNO & HECITA 5

implementation, and monitoring of public policies.

Aside from considering inter-local strategies, this study examined the capacity
gaps that need to be addressed if LGUs are to be effective agents in climate
change adaptation and disaster management. Kusumasari and Alam (2012)
emphasized the importance of capacity development for local governments,
especially in developing country contexts, in managing disaster risks, including
the implementation of disaster adaptation, mitigation, preparedness, response,
and recovery measures.
Collaborative mechanisms and institutions provide a way for governments to
work together and solve policy issues that affect them. Inter-local government
cooperation builds the capacity of local governments to embrace opportunities
and respond to threats in an increasingly complex environment characterized by
sustained fiscal pressures. Cooperative institutional arrangements between local
governments can increase trust, improve communication, and enhance available
information. Partnerships can promote negotiation and inter-organizational
learning among local governments that mitigate information and enforcement
problems.
Using an institutional collective action framework that observes that collective
action occurs when individual local governments find it in their self-interest to join
a group and engage in collective action, this study will identify the incentives and
benefits that affect the interest of local governments in joining alliances (Feiock
2010). Collaborative mechanisms emerge when individual local governments see
that potential benefits are higher than potential transaction and contracting costs.
This addresses the puzzle of why some local governments engage in cooperative
agreements while others do not.
It is critical to understand how weak coordination affects how DRRM
functions in local areas. The fragmentation of disaster risk management and
climate change adaptation mechanisms, due to sector-based, geographic, and
administrative issues can be seen to have also contributed to the ineffectiveness
and inefficiency of existing technical and institutional capacities. However,
documented best practices indicate the utilization of inter-LGU alliances as
a mechanism to effectively address collective environmental problems such as
watershed protection and coastal resource management. A more comprehensive
analysis of the potential of inter-local collaboration will help LGUs in the search
for sustainable policy options.
6 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Identifying LGU Capacities for DRRM and Climate Change Adaptation

While developing the capacity of LGUs is imperative to effectively implement

the Climate Change Act and the DRRM Act, it is still a puzzle as to what types
of organizational capacities and technical resources are needed by LGUs. For
instance, the DRRM law requires cities and municipalities to have local hazard
mapping and vulnerability assessment systems. It is a fair question to ask whether
LGUs are ready to fulfill this mandate.
There is also a need to identify the incentives and constraints local governments
face in developing DRRM and climate change adaptation policies. Linking
DRRM and sustainable development tools into local policy requires additional
work, resources, and attention. There is a need to understand what motivates
local governments to engage in local capacity building, technology transfer, and
sustainable development.
Various studies have identified the lack of organizational capacity, support
systems, and resources as critical barriers for LGUs in accomplishing their
mission. However, many of these works also fail to specify the exact skills and
resources needed by LGUs to fulfill their mandates. In the same vein, there is a
need to evaluate the capacity of local governments in the context of developing
training programs that will improve their skills in crafting particular plans that
apply to climate change adaptation and DRRM.
Given the need for capacity assessment on local DRRM, this study was
conducted to accomplish the following: (1) to produce knowledge for capacity
development of LGUs in climate change adaptation and DRRM; (2) to identify the
opportunities and challenges for inter-local government cooperation in climate
change adaptation and DRRM programs and projects; (3) to assess the incentives
and constraints that LGUs face in developing DRRM plans and CCA action plans;
(4) to investigate the local planning tools utilized by LGUs in linking DRRM and
sustainable development tools into local policies and; and (5) to explore the role
of inter-local cooperation and collaborative governance in strengthening the
capacity of LGUs on DRRM and climate change adaptation.
This study utilized the baseline data set from the Local Government Capacity
and Cooperation in Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management
Project coordinated by Francisco Magno, with the support of the Commission
on Higher Education, in 2013. Using a semi-structured instrument, the project
 MAGNO & HECITA 7

surveyed the LDRRMOs and Municipal Planning and Development Offices

(MPDOs) / City Planning and Development Offices (CPDOs) of forty-two
(42) municipalities and one (1) component city in the province of Iloilo. The
research locale was purposively selected given the scope and extent of inter-
LGU collaboration in the province. The comprehensive data collected in all the
component LGUs of the province of Iloilo can provide a model for conducting
a baseline assessment of local DRRM and CCA practices in other Philippine
provinces.
The study conducted key informant interviews (KIIs) with Local Chief
Executives (LCEs), regional heads of national government agencies, representatives
from civil society organizations (CSOs), and local higher education institutions
(HEI) officials. The study interviewed the Mayors of Alimodian, Oton, San
Dionisio, Zarraga, and Mina. The Executive Director of the Metro Iloilo-Guimaras
Economic Development Council (MIGEDC) and the Regional Director of the
DILG VI also served as key informants. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were
organized in the municipalities of Alimodian and Mina. The LGU officials and
CSO representatives in these towns took part in the FGDs. The research also
collected and reviewed documents such as local development plans, DRRM
plans, climate change action plans, and local government programs. The research
team also visited the local DRRM offices of the LGUs.

A. Opportunities and challenges in inter-LGU cooperation in climate change

adaptation and DRRM
There is a multitude of inter-LGU alliances in the province of Iloilo. It is among
the provinces with the greatest number of inter-LGU alliances (GTZ 2010). The
service areas of the local government consortium in Iloilo range from economic
development, health service delivery, and watershed management to coastal
resource management, metropolitan governance, and flood management. The
LGU members in the observed alliances are usually geographically adjacent to
each other. This can be explained by the numerous river systems and watersheds
that traverse the boundaries of adjacent LGUs.1
Inter-local economic partnerships in the province are established voluntarily by
LGU members to strategically rationalize and harmonize local economic policies
and agricultural programs to benefit member LGUs. The relevant policies include
8 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Table 1a . Iloilo Province Inter-Local Collaboration

Inter-local Area/Sector Member Local
Collaboration Government Units

Metro Iloilo Guimaras Economic Economic development, Iloilo City, Oton, Sta. Barbara, San
Development Council environmental management, Miguel, Pavia, Leganes, Cabatuan,
tourism, industry development, and Province of Guimaras
health service provision, and
airshed management
Southern Iloilo Health Zone Health service delivery Oton, Tigbauan, Miag-ao, San
Joaquin, Guimbal
Jaluar Watershed Management River watershed management Lambunao, Duenas, Barotac Nuevo
Western Iloilo Local Health Health service delivery Lambunao, New Lucena, Badiangan
Zone Alliance
Integrated Central Iloilo Alliance Economic development, Mina, Janiuay, Lambunao, Badiangan,
for Economic Development agricultural development, Lambunao, Cabatuan, Potatan,
sustainable farming, agricultural Maasin, Calinog, Bingawan
capacity building
Southern Iloilo Coastal Coastal resource management San Joaquin, Oton, Tigbauan,
Resource Management Guimbal, Miag-ao
Alliance of Northern Iloilo for Health service delivery Batad, Ajuy, Sara, Carles, San
Health and Development Dionisio,
Balasan, Concepcion
Northern Iloilo Alliance for Coastal resource management, Batad, Ajuy, San Dionisio, Sara,
Coastal Development economic development, Lemery, Balasan, Carles, Concepcion
environmental protection
2nd Integrated Area Economic development, Sta. Barbara, Alimodian, Zarraga,
Development local planning, agricultural Leon, Pavia, San Miguel, Leganes
development
Tigum Aganan Watershed River-watershed management Maasin Alimodian, Sta. Barbara, San
Management Board Rafael, Leon, Pavia
Dumangas-Anilao DRRM Disaster risk reduction and Dumangas and Anilao
Partnership management
Banate-Barotac Bay Resources Coastal resource management, Anilao, Barotac Nuevo, Barotac Viejo,
Management Council economic development Banate
Tangyan-Jaro-Guimbal River-watershed management, Guimbal, Igbaras, and Tubungan
Watershed Board environmental protection
Lamunan-Asisig Watershed River-watershed management, Bingawan, Passi City, San Rafael, San
Board environmental protection Enrique
Banate-Barotac Local Health Health service provision Barotac Viejo and Banate
Services
Magapa-Suage River Basin River-watershed management, Potatan, Janiuay, Badiangan, New
Management Council environmental protection, Lucena, Mina
agricultural development
Abangay-Ulilam-Manafil River-watershed management Pototan, Dingle, Lambunao, Duenas,
Watershed Council Badiangan
Metro Iloilo Health Alliance Health service provision Pavia, Iloilo City, Oton, Leganes, San
Miguel, Sta. Barbara, Cabatuan
Metro Iloilo Airshed Board Environmental protection Pavia, Iloilo City, Oton, Leganes, San
Miguel
Panay River Basin Board River and watershed Lemery, Bingawan, Barotac Nuevo,
management, environmental and Capiz municipalities
protection
Central Iloilo Local Health Health service delivery Barotac Nuevo, Anilao, Dumangas,
Alliance Duenas, Zarraga, Pototan, Mina,
Dingle, Anilao
Source: Authors’ data management
 MAGNO & HECITA 9

common preferences in local trading, information sharing, expertise exchange, and

product matching.2 Economic development partnerships also engage in strategic
spatial planning. The spatial planning system allows LGU members to identify
their roles in the alliance. For example, the Metro Iloilo Guimaras Economic
Development Council (MIGEDC) adopts a multi-pronged spatial development
approach that designates development zones and roles to member municipalities.3
In this regard, Guimaras Province assumes the role of agri-eco-tourism center,
Pavia as the agro-industrial center, Leganes as the center for light industries, San
Miguel as the agricultural basket, Oton as the dormitory hub, and Sta. Barbara as
the international air travel gateway. Iloilo City will remain the residential, financial,
commercial, governance, and educational hub (Manalo, 2009).
In the case of health alliances, LGUs can share common health facilities,
provide common health programs, share local expertise, and pool resources.
Health alliances in the province grew because of the promotion of the Department
of Health of the integrated area development program as applied in the delivery of
public health services in the 1990s.4

Table 1b . Ecosystems in Iloilo

Ecosystem Percent of Municipalities Frequency

Forest 61.90 26
Rice/ crop fields 78.57 33
Mountain/ upland 61.90 26
Marine (Coastal) 42.86 18
Freshwater (River) 71.43 30

Source: Authors’ data management

While most inter-LGU alliances in the province address the issues of local
health access and economic development, there are also local government
partnerships that relate to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.
For instance, the Metro Iloilo-Guimaras (MIGEDC) has established air shed
boards consisting of members of the MIGEDC. The inter-LGU alliance in
Central Iloilo is looking to venture into sustainable farming.5 Various coastal
resource management councils were also established. The Southern Iloilo Coastal
Resource Management Council has ventured into joint LGU coastal monitoring
10 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

(Bantay Dagat) activities to ensure the sustainability of environmental resources

for the member municipalities. The local consortium on watershed management
also implements various flood management programs and projects. Other
municipalities pool resources for emergency management such as fire department
resources, ambulances, and other rescue equipment.
With more than 20 rivers and three major river basins (MRBs) surrounding
Iloilo, several river and watershed boards have been established.6 This study has
counted a total of eight (8) formal or informal river and watershed boards with
varying levels of organizational capacity. The Tigum-Aganan Watershed Board
is viewed as the most organized and institutionalized collaborative mechanism.7
Inter-LGU alliances in Iloilo are mostly self-organized and voluntary. Local
governments facilitate LGU cooperation through the signing of a MOA. This serves
as a contract that guides the member LGUs on the scope and limitations of the
partnership. MOAs are usually binding for one year. An LGU may opt not to be
part of the partnership in the succeeding year. Singing MOAs every year is seen as a
contractual mechanism that allows greater flexibility for LGUs to modify or change
the status of their membership. The MOA also articulates the responsibilities and
rights of members of the consortium in each period. In some cases, the MOA is

Table 1c . Major River and Watershed Basins in Iloilo

River/ Watershed System LGUs Size in Hectares

Aganan River Watershed Alimodian and Maasin 11,300

Barotac Viejo River Watershed Barotac Viejo, Lemery, Ajuy 9,150

Jaluar River Watershed Dingle, Pototan, Janiuay, Passi, 107,700

Duenas, Calinog, Lambunao,
Anilao, Banate, Barotac Viejo

Sibalom River Watershed Leon, Alimodian, Tigbauan 11,400

Jaluar Suage River Watershed Janiauay, Maasin, Cabatuan, 17,480

New Lucena

Tigum River Watershed Cabatuan, Maasin, Janiuay 11,4000

Source: Authors’ data management

signed to cover the three-year term of office of the LCE. This is done to accommodate
the local electoral cycle and to ensure the continuity of the programs of the alliance.
 MAGNO & HECITA 11

Informal policy arrangements are also utilized as tools of cooperation. Informal

policy arrangements usually stem from the personal and professional network of the
LCE with leaders of other LGUs. The existence and sustainability of informal policy
arrangements are dependent on the level of trust and communication between
leaders of LGUs. Informal arrangements are usually brought about by previous
engagements between the parties through personal, political, and economic ties.
The Leagues of Municipalities and Vice Mayors’ League are also seen as important
channels of communication. Regional agencies such as the DILG and the higher-
level LGU (provincial government) are expected to organize programs and activities
that allow for improved communications among local governments in Iloilo.

Table 2 . Area of Inter-LGU Partnerships in Iloilo

Areas of Partnerships (Multiple Responses) Frequency

Economic Partnerships 23

Solid Waste Management 11

Disaster Rescue and Emergency Response 12

Forest Management 10

Health Service Provision 27

Housing 5

Flood Control 11

Fire and Police 10

Coastal Resource 17

Dispute/Conflict Resolution 2

Land use 7

River and Watershed Management 18

Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

LGUs deem that membership in cooperative arrangements should be voluntary.

The prerogative to continue membership lies in the decision of the respective
LGUs. In this regard, local governments usually seek support from their respective
12 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Table 3 . How do LGUs Forge their Partnerships?

Facilitating Partnerships (Multiple Responses) Frequency

Informal Policy Partnerships 14

Memorandum of Understanding 11
Memorandum of Agreement 39
Local Ordinance or Statue 13
National Law/Executive Order 7
Service Contracts 4

Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

local councils to join an alliance. Membership in an inter-LGU consortium is

authorized by local legislators through the passage of a local ordinance. While
the MOA serves as the operational contract for collaboration, the local ordinance
serves as the organic document that serves as the basis for LGU participation in
an alliance. The contents of the MOA are negotiated depending on the nature and
scope of the consortium.
Annual membership fees are levied against member LGUs to sustain local
cooperative arrangements. For instance, LGUs are asked to pay between
PHP100,000.00 to PHP300,000.00 annually as membership fees in inter-LGU
alliances. Fees are used to finance programs, operating expenses, personnel
costs, and other expenditures.8 Other alliances, such as the Northern Iloilo
Alliance for Coastal Development, do not require LGUs to pay a fixed amount
but calibrate the fees to be collected based on the income classification of the
LGU.
Non-financial cost sharing is also utilized as part of maintenance costs. For
instance, the steering committee of alliances is rotated to member LGUs every
year. Thus, the assigned LGU for the year shall have the burden of managing the
operations of the alliance.9 Alliances that do not collect fees rely on the sharing of
non-financial counterpart resources, such as personnel, meals, office space, and
meeting facilities.10
Other LGU alliances tap or appoint a separate management committee such as
an executive director or a program manager to oversee the day-to-day activities of
the alliance.11 However, in most cases, LCEs appoint a particular employee from
 MAGNO & HECITA 13

Table 4 . How do LGUs Maintain Partnerships?

Facilitating Partnerships (Multiple Responses) Frequency

Cost Sharing 35

Alignment of Plans 28

Membership Dues 28

Commitment of Non-Financial Resources 26

Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

the LGU to administer an LGU federation. The alliance manager or staff from a
particular LGU usually receives a small allowance to compensate for the extra
work rendered to the alliance.
Cooperation incentives are seen as strategic incentives. LGUs enter a particular
collaborative arrangement with the view of improving relationships with other
LGUs. Acquiring knowledge about and communicating with other LGUs creates
an opportunity for members to facilitate networking, identify potential resource
generation sources, exchange know-how in governance, and learn from other LGUs.
The willingness to establish an inter-LGU alliance usually comes from the
commitment of LGU officials. The “personal mission drive” of an LCE serves as
a primary ingredient in initiating inter-LGU cooperation. The opportunity to
become a model LGU and the desire to improve governance outcomes are viewed
as strategic incentives in attracting additional resources and learning new tools to
develop innovative programs.
Political obstacles such as electoral cycles and the lack of support of local
councils are seen as obstacles in initiating and sustaining inter-LGU arrangements.
Given that the sustainability of cooperative arrangements is contingent on LGU
leadership, the risk of discontinuing membership in an alliance is always present.
For example, newly elected mayors are wary about the agreements into
which the former LCE entered. Inter-LGU alliances usually provide seminars for
newly elected LCEs about the need to continue their membership in inter-LGU
alliances.12
Changes in local leadership, party configuration, and political dynamics due to
the three-year electoral cycle are seen as risks in entering long-term cooperative
14 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Table 5 . What are the Motivations and Incentives to Collaborate?

Willingness to Engage in Partnerships (Multiple Responses) Frequency

Increase LGU revenues 38

Gain electoral votes 12

Become a model LGU 30

Improve governance performance 40

Expand political connections 10

Access external resources 38

Learn and share practices and knowledge from/ with other LGUs 41
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

Table 6 . What are the Obstacles that LGUs Face in

Collaboration Mechanisms?

Obstacles in Collaboration (Multiple Responses) Frequency

Cost/lack of funds 7

Conflict with other budget priorities 5

Lack of expertise and skills 5

Lack of info about other LGUs 3

Lack of support from constituents 9

Lack of support from LCE 9

Lack of trust with other LGUs 5

Lack of perceived incentives 4

Political and economic competition 2

Lack of support from local council 9

Not sustainable due to electoral cycles and political changes 10

Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

agreements. The risk is not limited to changes in the LCE but also to changes in the
membership of local councils that are tasked to legally approve LGU membership
in a consortium. In most cases, LGUs need an imprimatur from local legislators
to have a right to enter in any collaborative governance arrangement.
 MAGNO & HECITA 15

B. Developing and implementing DRRM plans and climate change adaptation

action plans
Most of the LGUs surveyed are updating their CLUPs. LGUs are mandated to
update their CLUPs periodically.13 In the process of updating the CLUP, LGUs
face several capacity challenges. Local planners often need to enhance their
technical skills in certain areas of research, problem identification, data analytics,
and policy analysis. The municipal planning officers also reiterate the need to
update their knowledge and skills in stakeholder mapping and using information
and communications technology (ICT) planning tools such as Geographical
Information Systems (GIS).

Table 7 . Updated Comprehensive Land Use Plan

LGUS with Updated CLUP Frequency

With updated CLUP (updated in the last five years) 4

Still in the process of updating the CLUP 39

Total 43
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

Table 8 . Capacity Areas in Local Planning that Needs Improvement

Rank of the Capacity Development Areas Mean Score Frequency

that Needs Improvement

Community problem and identification 5.93 6

Problem identification and analysis 4.67 3
Data gathering 3.93 1
Monitoring and evaluation of previous plans 6.84 8
Auditing of previous plans 7.14 9
Environmental scanning and stakeholder analysis 5.72 4.5
Finance/resource generation 5.72 4.5
Equipment and facilities 6.79 7
Technical skills of personnel 4.26 2
Geographic Information System (GIS) 7.53 10
Partnerships with other LGUs 11.12 13
Partnerships with international donors 10.95 12
Use of ICT 9.53 11
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013
16 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Interestingly, the survey showed that local planners find input from the local
community as the most useful source of information in local planning. LGUs deem
that a systematic and effective way of collecting information from the community
is needed to successfully update the local plans. The ability to get input from
the community is also recognized as an important skill in problem analysis and
stakeholder mapping. Given that most planners have disciplinal backgrounds in
Engineering, the respondents stressed the need to invest in ‘soft tools’ and ‘social
science-based’ planning tools to be integrated into ‘hard planning (infrastructure
development, urban planning)’.

Table 9 . Sources of Information Local Planners Find Relevant

in Crafting Local Plans

Relevant Sources of Information in Crafting Frequency

the CLUP and CDP (Multiple Responses)

Inputs from local community 28

Memos, orders, laws 23

Plans of other local governments 12

Websites of NGAs 13

Websites of international donor agencies 9

News from television and radio 7

Websites of universities in Manila and abroad 5

Books and manuals on urban planning 22

Resources from CSOs 16

Attendance in trainings and seminars 26

Inputs from barangay 22

Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

With the passage of the two landmark laws, the DRRM Act of 2010 and the
Climate Change Act of 2009, LGUs are mandated to integrate DRRM and climate
change adaptation considerations in other local planning documents such as
the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) and the Annual Investment Plan
(AIP). LGUs need to craft local action plans and establish DRRM councils and
offices. Moreover, a specific portion of the National Tax Allotment (NTA) of the
 MAGNO & HECITA 17

LGU is required to be allotted to DRRM, particularly in disaster preparedness.

In addition to the DRRM and CCA laws, local governments are also required
to craft a Solid Waste Management (SWM) Plan by the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2000.

Table 10 . LGUs with DRRM, CCA, and SWM Plans

Plans Frequency

LGUs with Disaster Reduction and Management Plan

With DRRM Plan 38
Without DRRM Plan 8

LGUs with with Climate Change Action Plan

With CCAP Plan 14
Without CCAP Plan 28

LGUs with with Climate Change Action Plan

With SWM Plan 31
Without SWM Plan 12
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

Except for eight (8) LGUs, thirty-five (35) local governments crafted their
DRRM plans in 2013. On the other hand, only fourteen (14) have developed
their climate change adaptation plans. LDRRMO respondents in the survey
claim that CCA and DRRM practices and policies can be ‘overlapping’ given how
CCA practices can help reduce disaster risks. There are also more incentives to
comply with the DRRM law because of the Seal of Disaster Preparedness program
implemented by DILG.14 Furthermore, local planners are more aware of the
DRRM Act than the CCA law because the 2010 law was disseminated well at
the level of the LGUs. The Provincial government of Iloilo and the DILG widely
promoted and disseminated DRRM in the municipalities.15 On the other hand,
more than 75% of the LGUs have crafted their SWM plans.
Local government planners have trouble integrating DRRM, climate change
adaptation, and solid waste management considerations in their local planning
design. Only twenty-two LGUs have DRRM integrated into their planning system
while only seven (7) have incorporated CCA in their CLUPs. LGUs need to re-
tool their planning skills relevant to disaster management. In this regard, local
planners are seeking technical capacity development opportunities that shall
18 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Table 11 . Integration of SWM, DRRM, and CCA Plans in the CLUP

Plans Frequency

Is SWM Plan Integrated in CLUP?

Yes 22
No 14
Is DRRM Integrated in CLUP?
Yes 19
No 17

Is SWM Plan Integrated in CLUP?

Yes 7
No 36
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

upgrade their planning tools and techniques. The DILG has guidelines on the
harmonization of DRRM and CCA with the comprehensive land use plan and the
comprehensive development plan.16

Table 12 . Presence of LGU Office for DRRM and CCA

Office Frequency

Presence of Local DRRM Office

Yes 27
No 16

Presence of CCA Office

Yes 21
No 19
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

27 out of 43 LGUs surveyed have a separate DRRM office separate from the
LGU. Appointed by the mayor, a local DRRM officer heads the local DRRM office.
Local planning officers (MPDO/ CPDO) are usually tasked to be local DRRM
officers. In some cases, the local agriculture office or the local environmental
office is assigned the main role in local DRRM. Some LGUs consider their DRRM
office as having ‘the same’ function as the CCA office. The local planners find
the following as the important functions of a CCA office: local environmental
planning, enforcement of land use laws, implementation of environmental
 MAGNO & HECITA 19

protection and advocacy programs, and assistance in disaster preparedness,

evacuation, and rescue.17

Table 13 . LGU Policies, Programs, and Practices ‘Related’ to CCA

What policies, programs, and programs did Frequency

your LGU implement that you think is related to CCA?
(Multiple Responses)

Recycling 32
Air quality control 19
Water quality management 31
Ecosystems protection 28
Sustainable energy 12
Promotion and use of energy efficient devices 26
Environmental-friendly agriculture 38
Climate change education and advocacy 34
Environmental-friendly infrastructure 19
Banning the use of plastics 13
Disaster prevention and mitigation education 36
Non-biodegradable waste 12
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

Table 14 . LGU Policies, Programs, and Practices ‘Related’ to SWM

What policies, programs, and programs did Frequency

your LGU implement that you think is related to SWM?
(Multiple Responses)

Waste identification and segregation 37

Waste collection, transfer, and processing 38
Recycling 32
Composting 41
Proper waste facility 34
Privatization of SWM 6
Partnership agreements 4
SWM education and advocacy 38
Banning the use of plastics 9
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013
20 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

LGUs have implemented the following policies, programs, and practices

‘related’ to CCA: disaster prevention, climate change education, recycling,
ecosystems protection, and sustainable agriculture. The respondents also
consider these programs as contributing to the implementation of the CCA law
even though CCA action plans have not been crafted in their LGUs. Some LGUs
have been practicing “climate-friendly” policies and programs even before the
passage of the CCA law.18
In compliance with the SWM Act, LGUs in Iloilo have been implementing
the following policies and programs relevant to solid waste management: waste
identification, effective waste collection and processing, recycling, composting,
and the establishment of a proper waste facility. A few LGUs have also adopted
the plastic ban policy implemented in major cities in the country.

Table 15 . LGU Policies, Programs, and Practices ‘Related’ to DDRM

DRRM Policies, Programs, and Practices Frequency

Contingency planning 30

Early warning and evacuation alert system 25

Risk assessment and mapping 20

Stockpiling and equipping 37

Evacuation centers 41

Local weather forecasting 15

Mobilizing volunteers 41

Use of ICTs 39

Relief goods delivery 28

Fund raising for DRRM 14

DRRM Training 35
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

The common DRRM-relevant policies, programs, and activities implemented

in the LGUs include volunteer mobilization; use of mobile phones during rescue
and emergencies; stockpiling of equipment and resources; contingency planning;
and continuous provision of training and capacity-building activities for the LGU.
Most of the LGUs need to address their capacity gaps in early warning systems
development, vulnerability risk assessment, local weather forecasting, and
 MAGNO & HECITA 21

resource generation for disaster preparedness programs. Local hazard mapping is

also considered critical given the common hazards such as flooding (39 out of 43
LGUs) and landslides (26 out of 43).

Table 16 . Common Hazards Experienced by LGUs

Common Hazards in Your LGU Frequency

Flood 39

Landslides 26

Fire 22

Storm surges 20

Earthquake 13

Drought 27

Pestilence 11

Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

Table 17 . Obstacles and Capacity Gaps Faced by LGUs

in DRRM Planning and Implementation

Obstacles in DRRM Planning and Implementation Frequency

Lack of technical knowledge and skills 25

Conflict with other LGU priorities 9
Lack of time to develop a plan 16
Lack of informational resources 13
Lack of community awareness and support 13
Lack of support from local chief executive 5
Lack of support from NGAs 20
Lack of support from local businesses, universities, and CSOs 22
Lack of support from international donors 19
Lack of support from local councils 9
Lack of funding to develop plan 12
Lack of support from NGOs and Pos 19
Need for better cooperation and coordination with other local 15
governments

Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

22 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Table 18 . Obstacles and Capacity Gaps Faced by LGUs in CCA

Obstacles in CCA Planning and Implementation Frequency

Lack of technical knowledge and skills 25

Conflict with other LGU Priorities 5

Lack of time to develop a plan 16

Lack of informational resources 21

Lack of community awareness and support 18

Lack of support from local chief executive 11

Lack of support from NGAs 9

Lack of support from local businesses, universities, and civil 12

society organizations

Lack of support from international donors 13

Lack of support from local councils 16

Lack of funding to develop plans 16

Lack of support from NGOs and Pos 13

Need for better cooperation and communication with other 17

LGUs

Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

LGUs in Iloilo identified the following as the most important capacity

gaps both in DRRM and CCA planning and program implementation: lack
of technical knowledge and skills; lack of informational resources to develop
plans; lack of support from national government agencies (NGAs); absence of
support from the private sector such as universities, local businesses, and non-
government organizations; lack of funds; and the need for better cooperation and
communication with other LGUs. The capacity needs that require enhancement
are those related to planning, problem identification, data gathering, and the use
of various planning tools (e.g., stakeholder mapping, vulnerability assessment,
and transect mapping).
In the area of capacity development, local DRRM and CCA officers look for
capacity-building opportunities and support from the national government
(DILG, DOST, and DOH), provincial government, universities, and local
businesses. Local planners also explain the necessity for better communication
and collaboration initiatives among LGUs in terms of exchanging and sharing
 MAGNO & HECITA 23

expertise on DRRM and CCA. The best practice models on DRRM and CCA
program planning and implementation can be cascaded by LGUs through peer-
sharing modalities.

Table 19 . Sources of Information for Crafting and Implementing

Local CAA Plans and Programs

Resources for Crafting CCA Plans and Programs Frequency

Inputs from local community 35

Memos, orders, laws 28
CC plans of other local gov’ts 23
Websites of NGAs 19
Websites of international donor agencies 11
News from television and radio 20
Websites of universities, colleges, schools 11
Books and manuals on CCA 31
Resources from CSOs 18
Attendance in trainings/seminars 33
Websites of news agencies 15
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

Table 20 . Sources of Information for Crafting and Implementing

DRRM Plan and Programs

Information Resources in Crafting DRRM Frequency

Programs and Policies

Inputs from local community 41

Memos, orders, laws 38
DRRM plans of other local gov’ts 25
Websites of NGAs 26
Websites of international donor agencies 18
News from television and radio 27
Websites of universities, colleges, and schools 16
Books and manuals 36
Resources from CSOs 23
Attendance in trainings/seminars 41
Websites of news agencies 25
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013
24 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Consistent with the identified needs of local planners on crafting and updating
the CLUP, local DRRM offices cited inputs from the local community as the
most important source of information in DRRM and CCA. Local planning tools
and techniques, as deemed by the respondents of this study, should be able to
effectively capture the input and feedback of the community. This is critical in
problem identification and the development of local programs, particularly on
DRRM and CCA.
The Internet is considered an important source of information on DRRM and
CCA. News websites and national government websites (DOST, PAG ASA, and
Project Noah) are being browsed by LGUs to look for weather forecasts, early
warning information, policies, and programs on DRRM, as well as evacuation
and relief assistance information. Email is still considered the most used online
platform in DRRM although LGUs are using social media sites such as Facebook
and Twitter in disseminating DRRM-related information.
Mobile phones and two-way radios remain the most utilized ICT in DRRM
in Iloilo. Mobile phones are particularly useful in disseminating information on
early warning systems, weather forecasts, rescue and evacuation, and volunteer
management.

Table 21 . Information from the Internet Found Useful in DRRM

What information do you find useful? Frequency

(Multiple Responses)

Weather forecasts 41

Training modules 24

Early warning information 35

Volunteer information 19

Hazard maps 36

Policies and programs from NGAs 27

Evacuation information 26

Relief assistance information 23

Others (News) 1

Others (Project Noah) 1

Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013
 MAGNO & HECITA 25

Table 22 . Website or Online Platform Used in DRRM

What website or online platform do you use in DRRM? Frequency

(Multiple Responses)

Email 15

Facebook 13

Twitter 3

LGU Website 11

Chat 3
Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

Table 23 . Ways Mobile Phones are Used

Why do you use mobile phones in DRRM? Frequency

(Multiple Responses)

Weather forecasts 33

Early warning information 40

Volunteer information 31

Rescue contact details 39

Evacuation information 32

Relief assistance 32

Others (Monitor calamity) 1

Others (Accident report) 1

Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

Table 24 . Initiatives of Women in Dealing with Calamities

Initiatives of women or women’s groups in DRRM? Frequency

(Multiple Responses)

Yes 27

No 16

Source: Magno and Hecita. 2013

26 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Cases of women participating in DRRM are limited to advocacy about disaster

preparedness. Church-based women’s organizations organize and participate in
activities such as training seminars and workshops on relief operations, disaster
preparedness, and volunteer management. Women also participate as volunteers
in evacuation centers.

C. Role of collaborative governance in strengthening the capacity of LGUs in DRRM

and CCA

LGUs in Iloilo rely on national government agencies and the Provincial

Government for support in DRRM and climate change adaptation. LGUs
recognize the need to upgrade their financial, administrative, and absorptive
capacity to fulfill their roles and mandates in DRRM. LGUs identified the DILG
and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board as important boundary partners
in DRRM capacity-building.
Learning from other LGUs is an acknowledgment that good practice models
can be replicated. The survey indicates that several LGUs consult LCEs and
planners of other LGUs regarding planning and program development. Inter-
local partnerships are strategic collaborative governance arrangements for co-
learning and joint capacity-building activities through continuous institutional
learning.
There are still weak knowledge partnerships between LGUs and Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) in local DRRM and CCA programs. With data
collection regarded as the most important capacity area for improvement, there
is a need to link knowledge producers and knowledge consumers in DRRM. The
survey found the lack of participation of critical stakeholders such as local HEIs in
local DRRM planning and program implementation. Universities can be tapped
to serve as a knowledge hub in documenting collaborative governance practices.

Conclusion

This study provided a baseline assessment of a Philippine province in

understanding local cooperative arrangements, particularly the costs and benefits
 MAGNO & HECITA 27

of collaborative governance in local DRRM and CCA planning and governance.

It also identified various prototypes and models for cooperation. The findings
from this study can serve as inputs in designing incentive arrangements for
promoting collaborative governance and knowledge partnerships. Capacity-
building activities can be developed to guide LGUs in addressing complex local
problems such as climate change adaptation and disaster risk management
through collaborative governance.
Future studies can address the following research concerns. First, given the
dependency of LGUs on national government agencies, what are the prospects
of vertical collaboration in local DRRM and CCA governance? Second,
how can vertical collaboration impact the incentives and costs of horizontal
collaboration (inter-LGU) arrangements? Third, what are the peculiar local
characteristics, community contexts, and local demographics that affect the
decision to collaborate? Fourth, what is the role of income and the amount of the
internal revenue allotment on the design of alliances and sustainability of LGU
membership?
28 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

1 With 15 rivers and two major river watersheds, Jaluar which has a length of 123 kilometers (107
hectares), and Tigum Aganan, the province has one of the longest widest river watershed systems in the
Philippines
2 This is the Municipal Information System (MAIS), a program implemented by the Integrated Central
Iloilo Alliance for Economic Development. The information was obtained through interview with the former
Mayor of Mina, Iloilo, Lydia Grabato last March 22, 2013.
3 Interview with MIGEDC Executive Director Mr. Joni Penalosa, March 2013
4
Interview with Dr. Colmenares Quinon, Assistant Provincial Health Officer, Province of Iloilo, May
2013
5 Municipal Agricultural Information System (MAIS) as explained by former Mayor Lydia Grabato,
March 2013, Mina, Iloilo
6 The DILG and the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) have recognized
Jaluar River Basin and the Tigum-Aganan Basin as critical major river basins in the Philippines.
7 The experience of the Tigum-Aganan Watershed Board was showcased in the 2012 International
River Summit held in Iloilo City
8 MIGEDC’s operations, maintenance, and common projects are funded by contributions from its
member LGUs. Iloilo City and Guimaras contribute PHP200,000 each every second quarter of the year, while the
five municipalities contribute PHP100,00 each every second quarter of the year. The total annual contribution of
MIG LGUs to MIGEDC is PHP900,000. The Inter Alliance of Central Iloilo for Economic Development collects
between PHP50,000 to PHP100, 000 annually for membership fees.
9
Interview with former Mayor Lydia Grabato, Mina, Iloilo, April 2013.
10
Focus Group Discussion with the officials of Alimodian, Iloilo, April 2013.
11
Such in the case of MIGEDC and the Tigum-Aganan Watershed Board
12
Interview with MIGEDC Executive Director Mr. Joni Penalosa, March 2013.
13
DILG and House and Land Use Regulatory Board Joint Circular 01 Series of 2009.
14
Focus group discussion with Alimodian LDRRM officials
15
Interview with the DILG VI Director Evelyn Trompeta and DILG VI Local Government Capacity
Development Division Head, Ms. Teodosia Sumagaysay.
16
Undated and unnumbered document entitled “Guidelines on mainstreaming DRRM/ CCA in local
planning” downloaded from the DILG website.
17
Based on interviews with the DRRM officials in Alimodian, Mina, San Dionisio, and Guimbal
18
Validated by interviews with local DRRM officers in Iloilo City, Guimbal, and Alimodian.
 MAGNO & HECITA I REFERENCES 29

REFERENCES

Arganoff, Robert & Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative public management. New strategies for local
governments. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bish, R.L. 2000. “Evolutionary alternatives for the metropolitan areas. the capital region of British
Columbia,” Canadian Journal of Regional Science, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 73-87.
Carr, Jered; Elisabeth Gerber; and Eric Lupher. 2009. “Explaining Horizontal and Vertical Cooperation
in Michigan,” In Sustaining Michigan. Metropolitan Policies and Strategies. Jelier, Richard and Gary
Sands. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press
Feiock, Richard & John Scholz. 2010. Self-organizing Federalism: Collaborative Mechanisms to Mitigate
Institutional Collective Action Dilemmas. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Feiock, Richard; Jill Tao; Linda Johnson. 2004. “Institutional Collective Action: Social Capital and
the Formation of Regional Partnerships,” In Feiock, Richard (ed.): Metropolitan Governance:
Competition, Conflict, and Cooperation. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Gessellschaft fur Technische Zusammernabeit (GTZ), Canadian International Development Agency
& European Union. 2010. Critical Ingredients in Building and Sustaining Inter-local Cooperation.
Makati, Philippines: European Union Delegation to the Philippines.
Gessellschaft fur Technische Zusammernabeit. 2008. Making Alliances Work: Lessons from the 1st Inter-
Local Government Unit Alliances Summit. Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, Philippines.
International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2010. Local Governments and Disaster Risk Reduction:
Good Practices and Lessons Learned. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations
Kusumasari, Bevaola and Quamrul Alam. 2012. “Bridging the gaps: the role of local government capability
and the management of a natural disaster in Bantul, Indonesia,” Natural Hazards, vol. 60, no. 2, pp.
761-779
Kwon, Sung-Wook & Richard Feiock. 2010. “Overcoming the Barriers to Cooperation: Intergovernmental
Service Agreements,” Public Administration Review. November- December, pp. 876-884.
Magno, Francisco A., and Ian Jayson R. Hecita. 2013. “Local Government Capacity and Cooperation in
Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction,” De la Salle University (DLSU) Sustainability
Studies Program and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Philippine Higher Education
Research Network (PHERNET), September 4.
Manalo, Zenaida. 2009. An Innovative Regional Governance Model in the Philippines and Its Role in
Enhancing Urban-Rural Economic Linkages. Paper presented at the Urban-Rural Linkages Migration
Conference, September.
Ostrom, Elinor (1990). Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
United Nations Development Programme. 1997. Capacity Development: Technical Advisory Paper No. 2.
UNDP Management Development and Governance Division. New York: UNDP
Wamsler, Christine and Nigel Lawson. 2012. “Complementing institutional with localised strategies for
climate change adaptation: a South–North comparison,” Disasters, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 28-53.
World Bank Institute. 2009. “The Capacity Development Results Framework: A Strategic Results-Oriented
Approach to Learning for Capacity Development.” Washington DC: The World Bank.
30 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Stratbase ADR Institute extends its deepest gratitude to all involved in
developing this special study. This publication would not have been possible
without your commitment, collaboration, and support.
The strength of this special study comes not from any single policy. Rather, it
draws from the collective insight of our expert authors from the academe, public
and private sectors, and civil society. Hence, we are grateful for our authors’
generous sharing of knowledge and experiences that make up this special study.
We would especially like to thank Prof. Victor Andres ‘Dindo’ Manhit,
President of the Stratbase ADR Institute, for this initiative would never have come
to fruition without his leadership, vision, and direction.
Finally, we would like to thank the tireless and dedicated members of the
Stratbase ADR Institute;
Our design consultant, Ms. Carol Manhit, for the publication layout and cover
design;
Stratbase ADR Institute’s editorial team composed of Deputy Executive
Director for Research, Dr. Jimmy Jimenez, Deputy Executive Director for
Programs and External Affairs, Ms. Krystyna Louise C. Dy, Research Director
Venice Isabelle Rañosa, and Director for Policy and Advocacy Ms. Shanice
Espiritu-Amador for their diligence and hard work.
 MAGNO & HECITA I ABOUT THE AUTHORS 31

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Francisco A. Magno

Professor
De La Salle University-Manila

Dr. Francisco A. Magno has held key roles including Full Professor in the
Political Science and Development Studies Department, Chair of the Political
Science Department for multiple terms, and the pivotal role of Graduate Program
Coordinator responsible for developing the Master of Arts in Development
Policy Program. His influence extends globally, having served as a Visiting
Researcher at Osaka University in Japan and an Associate Scholar/Scientist
at Florida State University’s Institute for Energy Systems, Economics, and
Sustainability. He has also contributed significantly to international education
as a Visiting Professor at Hiroshima University and Waseda University in Japan,
and as a Visiting Researcher at the University of Reading in the UK.
His dedication to education is evident through roles as a Lecturer and
Teaching Assistant at various institutions, including the University of Hawaii
at Manoa. Additionally, he has been an instrumental force in policy research,
as a Research Intern at the East-West Center in Hawaii and as part of the
Policy Research Team at the Office of the President in the Republic of the
Philippines.
Beginning with a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Hawaii
at Manoa, supported by a graduate fellowship from the prestigious East-West
Center in Honolulu, USA, he reached a pinnacle of academic achievement in
1997. Prior to this, he honed their expertise with a Master’s degree in Political
Science from the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, in 1992,
and a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the same institution in 1983.
32 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Notably, his dedication and scholastic prowess led to his recognition as a College
Scholar in 1981-1982. Beyond traditional education, Dr. Magno sought to
expand his horizons through practical experiences and international exposure.
He participated in the International Seminar on New Public Management at
the Theodore Heuss Academy in Gummersbach, Germany, from October 27 to
November 3, 2006. Later, he delved into the realm of Public-Private Partnerships,
gaining specialized expertise through the Local Capacity Building Institution
Program’s PPP Project Development and Management training, conducted by
the Public-Private Partnership Center on August 7-8 and August 14-15, 2014.

Ian Jayson R. Hecita

Lead Policy Research Specialist
La Salle Institute of Governance-Manila

He is the Lead Policy Research Specialist and former Program Manager at the
La Salle Institute of Governance, working on local governance, sustainable
development, open government, and public policy. He is also an Assistant
Professorial Lecturer at the Department of Political Science and Development
Studies of De La Salle University (DLSU). He serves as Lab Coordinator of the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) City Lab of DLSU. Mr. Hecita was a
Visiting Research Scholar at Florida State University.
For over two decades, Mr. Hecita has worked with national government
agencies, local government units, civil society organizations, Philippine and
foreign universities, and international development institutions on research
programs, capacity development projects, and community engagement
initiatives.

The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute or any of its officers and
trustees.

The authors are solely responsible for its content.

 ADRi PUBLICATIONS
STRATBASE ADRi FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
The Financial Tower
6794 Ayala Avenue
Makati City,
Philippines 1226

www.adrinstitute.org