Download - Policy Impacts in Davao Watersheds
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