Advertisement

Sustaining Water Resources with Environmental Protection

  • Rex Victor O. CruzEmail author
Chapter
  • 351 Downloads
Part of the Global Issues in Water Policy book series (GLOB, volume 8)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on past and current policies (including programs) on environmental protection and how these policies facilitate or constrain the implementation of policy actions to promote the sustainability of water resources in the Philippines. Alongside water policies, policies on land use management and allocation, forestry, agriculture, natural resource management, and pollution control are examined with respect to its expected outputs versus actual outputs and impacts. Cases of synergy and conflicts of environmental and water policies and what attempts were made to achieve concurrently environmental protection and sustainable water resources are presented. The chapter concludes by drawing out policy recommendations from the best practices and lessons learned from past experiences. Specifically, key policies and programs related to sustainable agriculture and food security, forest and biodiversity conservation, land use planning and management, environmental impact assessment, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and soil conservation, among others, are examined. The National Integrated Protected Areas Systems (NIPAS Law), the National Greening Program, and the Solid Waste Management Act are some of the key policies and programs that are reviewed in this chapter.

Keywords

Water resources Environmental protection Environmental policies Policy implementation Integrated area-based planning 

References

  1. Carandang, A. P. (2008). The forestry sector: Cost of environmental damage and net benefits of priority interventions. A contribution to the Philippines’ country environmental analysis. Manila: World Bank Philippines.Google Scholar
  2. Carandang, A. P., Bugayong L. A., Dolom, P. C., Garcia, L. N., Villanueva, M. M. B., & Espiritu, N. O. (2013). Analysis of key drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in the Philippines. Bonn: German Cooperation (Deutsche Zusammenarbeit) and GIZ (Deutsche Gesellshaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit Gmbh).Google Scholar
  3. Corpus, A. (2013). Land use policy impacts on human development in the Philippines (pp. 19). HDN Discussion Paper Series No.1. PHDR 2012-2013.Google Scholar
  4. Cruz, R. V. O. (2015). Framework formulation and study of spatial development, climate change, and the environment: Natural resources component (Consolidated Report). Pasig City: The Center for Sustainable Human Development, Development Academy of the Philippines.Google Scholar
  5. Cruz, R. V. O. (2016). DA – Strengthening implementation of Adaptation and Mitigation Initiative in Agriculture (AMIA Project 1) draft main report. SEARCA-UPLBFI for the Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  6. Cruz, R. V. O., Fernando, E. S., Bantayan, N. C., Castillo, M. L., Estoque, C. D., & Ata, J. P. (2013). Scoping study on climate change and biodiversity of protected areas and key ecosystems in Southeast Asia. Bonn: German Cooperation (Deutsche Zusammenarbeit), GIZ (Deutsche Gesellshaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit Gmbh), and ASEAN Center for Biodiversity.Google Scholar
  7. DAO No. 99-01. (1999). Adoption of the watershed and ecosystems planning framework. Quezon City: Department of Environment and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  8. DASWCCO AMIA-NCCAG. (2017). Department of Agriculture-Systems Wide Climate Change Office. Adaptation and Mitigation Initiative in Agriculture, National Color Coded Agricultural Guide Map, Quezon City.Google Scholar
  9. DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) (2016). Accomplishments of National Greening Program. ngp.denr.gov.ph . Accessed 21 Apr 2017.
  10. Dovey, L. (2003). Achieving better social outcomes in New Zealand through collaboration: Perspectives from the United States. Wellington: State Services Commission.Google Scholar
  11. EEA. (European Environment Agency). (2006). How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment? EEA Report No. 7/2006. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  12. EO 2011-23. (2011). Declaring a moratorium on the cutting and harvesting of timber in the National and Residual Forests and Creating the Anti-Illegal Logging Task Force.Google Scholar
  13. EO 2011-26. (2011). Declaring an Interdepartmental convergence initiative for a National Greening Program. Signed by President Benigno Aquino on February 24, 2011.Google Scholar
  14. FDC (Forestry Development Center). (1996). Assessment of cancelled/suspended/terminated timber license agreement (TLA) areas in the Philippines. Los Banos: FDC, College of Forestry and Natural Resources, UP Los Banos.Google Scholar
  15. FMB (Forest Management Bureau). (1990). Master plan for forestry development in the Philippines. Quezon City: Forest Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  16. FMB (Forest Management Bureau). (2010). Philippine forestry statistics. Quezon City: Forest Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  17. Guiang, E. S., & Braganza, G. C. (2014). National management effectiveness and capacity assessment (NMECA) of protected areas in the Philippines (p. 53). Bonn: Deutsche Gesellshaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Gmbh.Google Scholar
  18. Guiang, E. S., Borlagdan, S. B., & Pulhin, J. M. (2001). Community-based forest management: Preliminary assessment (203 pp). Quezon City: Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila.Google Scholar
  19. Haines-Young, R. (2009). Land use and biodiversity relationships. Land Use Policy, 26, 178–S186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. HLURB (Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board). (2013). A guide to comprehensive land use plan preparation 2013 (246 pp). Volume 1: The planning process. Quezon City: HLURB.Google Scholar
  21. IPCC (International Panel for Climate Change). (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (976 p). Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lepers, E., Lambin, E. F., Janetos, A. C., DeFries, R., Achard, F., Ramankutty, N., & Scholes, R. J. (2005). A synthesis of information on rapid land-cover change for the period 1891–2000. Bio Science, 55(2), 115–124.Google Scholar
  23. Majumdar, D. (2006). Collaboration among Government agencies with special reference to New Zealand: A literature review. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand Issue, 27, 183–198.Google Scholar
  24. Mattessich, P., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work. St. Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ramankutty, N. (2010). Agriculture and forests — Recent trends, future prospects. In Linkages of sustainability (pp. 11–31). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. RP (Republic of the Philippines). (1991). Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991. Manila: RP.Google Scholar
  28. Sala, O. E., Sax, D., & Leslie, L. (2009). Biodiversity consequences of increased biofuel production. In: R. W. Howarth & S. Bringezu (Eds.), Biofuels: Environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use. Report of the Internatinal SCOPE Biofuels Project. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  29. Tuomisto, H. L. (2012). “Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?” – A meta-analysis of European research. Journal of Environmental Management, 112, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. UNGSDR (UN Global Sustainable Development Report). (2015). UN Global Sustainable Development Report (198 p). Advanced unedited version. New York: UN.Google Scholar
  31. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2014). Assessing global land use: Balancing consumption with sustainable supply (131 pp.). A Report of the Working group on land and soils of the International Resource Panel. Bringezu S., Schütz H., Pengue W., O’Brien M., Garcia F., Sims R., Howarth R., Kauppi L., Swilling M., and Herrick J. Pari, France.Google Scholar
  32. Walker, A. (2004). Overcoming the neoliberal legacy: The importance of trust for improved interagency collaborative working in New Zealand. Research Paper Number 11. Wellington: School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  33. World Bank. (2002). Forestry strategy and appendices. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Forestry Programme, College of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of the Philippines Los Baños, CollegeLos BañosPhilippines

Personalised recommendations