Opening the Floodgates
Economic, Social and Environmental
Assessment of the Proposed
Laiban Dam Project
ENS 242 – Environmental Economics
Economic Valuation of Environmental
Impacts and Natural Resource Systems
1st Semester, School Year 2009-2010
Prepared by:
Kathreena Engay
Jonathan Galindez
Zaldy Luna
Aisa Manlosa
Yuri Munsayac
Mayla Viray
Consultant: Dr. Nicomedes Briones
Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Acronyms
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
1. Project Valuation Process
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Scope and Limitations
1.3 Methodology
1.3.1. Data Gathering and Validation
1.3.1.1. Baseline Information
1.3.1.2. Key Informant Interviews
1.3.1.3. Site Visits
1.3.1.4. WTP Survey
1.3.2. Data Processing
1.3.3. Data Analysis
1.4. Valuation Team
1.5. Conceptual Framework
2. Project Information
2.0 Location of the Project
2.1 Project History
2.2 Project Proponent and Institutional Arrangements
2.3 Project Rationale
2.4 Project Objectives
2.5 Project components
2.6 Major works undertaken
2.7 Expected Outputs
2.8 Proposed Timing and Phasing of Project Activities and Outputs
2.9 Project Cost
2.10 Opportunities of Income Generation/Capital Build-up
3. Environmental Impacts - Introduction
3.0 Baseline Biophysical Condition
3.1 Physical Environment
3.1.1 Topography
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
8
9
9
11
12
13
13
13
14
16
16
17
17
18
18
3.1.2 Land Use
3.1.2.1 Laiban Dam
3.1.3 Geology and Geotechnical Conditions
3.1.4 Lithology
3.1.5 Seismicity
3.1.6 Meteorology
3.1.7 Hydrology
3.1.8 Hydroecology
3.1.9 Water Quality
3.1.9.1 Pantay Water Treatment Plant
3.1.10 Air Quality
3.2 Biological Environment
3.2.1 Terrestrial Flora and Fauna
3.2.2 Aquatic Ecology
3.3 Impacts on the Biophysical Environment (Without the Project)
3.3.1 Climate/Meteorology
3.3.2 Geology
3.3.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
3.3.4 Air Quality
3.3.5 Terrestrial Flora and Fauna
3.3.6 Land and Resource Use
3.4 Impacts on the Biophysical Environment (With the Project
3.5 Risk Analysis
3.5.1 Geologic aspects of the foundation of the dam
3.5.2 Stability of the valley flanks at Laiban Dam site
3.5.3 Slope stability in the reservoir
3.5.4 Impact of dambreak
3.5.5 Impacts of tunneling
3.5.5.1 Seismic activity in the project area
3.6 Environmental Benefits
4. Valuation of the Socio-Economic and Cultural Impacts of the
Proposed Laiban Dam
4.0 Introduction
4.1 General Description of the Affected Communities
4.2 Rehabilitation of the Watershed
4.3 Utilization of Resources
4.4 Economic Impacts to the Communities
4.5 Willingness to Pay of Direct Beneficiaries for the Laiban Dam
18
19
20
22
22
23
24
25
26
26
26
26
26
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
36
37
37
37
40
40
41
42
Service
4.5.1 Profile of Respondents
4.5.2 Water Use and Consumption
4.5.3 Willingness to Pay
4.5.3.1 Analysis
4.5.3.2 From Primary Data
4.5.3.3 From Secondary Data
4.6 Socio-cultural Impacts to the Communities
4.7 Caveats
4.8 The Inaccuracies of Estimation and Under compensation
4.9 Socio-economic Benefits
5. Benefit and Cost Analysis
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Computation of Environmental Costs
5.2 Computation of Socio-economic Costs
5.2.1 Computation for Replacement Cost of Livelihood Loss
5.2.2 Computation for Replacement Cost of Lost Dwellings
5.3 Determination of Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
6.0 Conclusions
6.1 Recommendations
References
Annex
42
42
43
43
44
45
45
48
48
49
50
50
51
54
54
55
57
59
59
60
Table No.
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
Figure
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Chronology of Activities and Agencies Responsible for the Laiban Dam Project
Indicative Laiban Dam Project schedule
Summary of Estimated Project Cost
Summary of mean monthly discharge based on previous studies
Monthly flows at Laiban Dam site as determined by different studies, all values
in m3/s
Mean monthly discharge at Laiban Dam site, m3/s
Biophysical impacts of the project and its proposed mitigation
Summary of environmental benefits
Number of families that will be affected by barangay
Magnitude of impacts and losses
Data on livelihood loss
Livelihood replacement costs
Data on loss of dwellings
Dwelling replacement cost
Sum of livelihood and replacement costs
BCA table
Analytical Framework for Valuation
Framework for Analysis
Project Location
Water demand projections until 2030 (Manila Water Supply III Project)
General Plan of the Laiban Dam Project
Land classification map of Kaliwa watershed
Geologic map of the project area
Average Monthly rainfall of Angat, Kanan, and Kaliwa Watersheds
Lenatin River and Limutan River
Vegetation of the proposed project dam site
Page
10
15
16
24
24
25
31
36
38
41
Page
7
7
8
12
14
20
21
23
25
27
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AFP
ADB
DAR
DA
DENR
DENR-EMB
DPWH
DO
ECC
EIS
LGU
MWSP III
MWCI
MWSI
MWSS
NCR
NCIP
NEDA
NWRB
OGCC
PAMB
Armed Forces of the Philippines
Asian Development Bank
Department of Agrarian Reform
Department of Agriculture
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesEnvironmental Management Bureau
Department of Public Works and Highways
Dissolved Oxygen
Environmental Compliance Certificate
Environmental Impact Statement
Local Government Unit
Manila Water Supply Project III
Manila Water Company Incorporated
Maynilad Water Services Incorporated
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
National Capital Region
National Commission on Indigenous People
National Economic Development Authority
National Water Resources Board
Office of the Government Corporate Counsel
Protected Areas and Management Bureau
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following for their valuable contribution and
assistance in the preparation and conduct of this study:
Mr. Joyce Palacol
Mr. Jojit Latayan
Mr. Myrna Gimena
Ms. Aurora Corales
Chieftain Abner Reyes and the other chieftains and
Councilors of the Dumagat Tribal Council
and the kind people of Barangay Daraitan, Tanay, Rizal.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Laiban Dam Project is a multi-purpose water supply and power project
envisaged by the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) as a
major source of water to complement the current supply for Metro Manila and
neighboring areas provided by Angat Dam. Utilizing the Kaliwa River Basin in
Tanay, Rizal, the dam will provide an average yield of 22 cubic meters per second or
1,900 million liters per day of water supply and about 30 Mega Watts of hydroelectric
power.
The project was conceived during the term of President Marcos and has since been
deferred by succeeding administrations until 2008, when President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo identified the Laiban Dam as a priority project.
The construction of the proposed Laiban Dam is expected to be completed within a
seven-year period under a Built-Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme. It involves the
construction of a 113 m high concrete-face rockfill dam and spillway sited about 0.5
km downstream of the confluence of the Lenatin and Limutan Rivers at Barangay
Laiban in Tanay, Rizal. The dam will have an effective reservoir storage capacity of
470 MCM supplied by a watershed area of 276 sq km.
The estimated cost of the proposed project is PhP 47.68 Billion, where 95 percent
will be sourced from loans while the remaining 5 percent will be as GOP counterpart.
The bulk of the cost will be spent on the construction of distribution system and
headworks (79%), while the cost of resettlement, land acquisition and right of way
have the lowest budgetary allocation at only 8.6 percent.
Laiban Dam is intended to serve an estimated population of about 5.5 million or
equivalent to 690,000 households in the Province of Rizal and southern Metro
Manila. With the project, clean and safe water will be guaranteed, and water supply
services and delivery will be improved. However, the project would also result to the
displacement of 4,413 families including a community of indigenous people. It will
have potential impacts on the surrounding environment given that the project site
being targeted for the dam’s construction is part of the watershed of the Sierra
Madre Mountains.
This study was conducted to determine the environmental, social and economic
implications of the proposed Laiban Dam Project. Specifically the study assessed
the current biophysical condition of the area and identified the impacts of the
proposed project; described the social acceptability of the project; and, analyzed the
costs and benefits of the project towards the formulation of recommendations for
decision making. To meet these objectives, the study employed several methods for
data gathering and validation (key-informant interviews, focus group discussion, field
visits, WTP survey) processing (economic valuation and statistical tools) and
analysis.
The findings of the study are as follows:

The project is expected to deliver significant benefits since it will reduce water
shortages and will improve the quality, safety, and reliability of water supply
for domestic use in the urban and suburban areas of Metro Manila and the
bordering provinces;

Socio-economic benefits for the community include: improved access to safe
water, reduced incidences of water-borne illnesses, improved sanitation and
health, reduced dependence on groundwater resources, reduced
dependence on imported oil and generation of employment opportunities;

With the project development, impacts are unavoidable. Destruction or
interference with natural habitats and other biological life is likely to happen
which could yield several impacts like erosion and accelerated run-off that will
affect water quality downstream;

The Laiban Dam project would adversely and negatively impact the World
Bank funded Kaliwa Watershed Management which has been classified as a
forest reserve. A portion of this area has been declared a national park under
Proclamation No. 1636;

The dam is located near a geologic fault line. This may jeopardize the
stability of the dam structure. Dam breaks may cause flooding that can result
in deaths and loss of properties in 7 barangays of Tanay, Rizal and Gen.
Nakar, Infanta and Real, Quezon;

Flooding in the event of a catastrophic dam break will cause an irreversible
loss of agricultural resources and scenic spots (Sta. Ines Falls, Sangab Cave)
and impairment of cultural areas/monuments and ancestral domains of
indigenous people (IPs);

Directly affected communities fear a decline in their water supply as a result
of the project, affecting their irrigation needs and farm productivity. They are
however amenable to the project if they will be justly compensated;

Interviews with several chieftains in the directly affected areas revealed that
the willingness to accept of displaced families is P1.5 M per household to
cover house construction, land title, forgone earnings from crops and forgone
opportunity for livelihood;

Like in any other valuation studies of environmental projects, non use values
such as cultural, social, etc. are undervalued;

The investment cost of the project is too expensive. Thus, the water rates it
will pass on will be too much for the consumers to afford as shown by the
results of the WTP survey conducted;

Based on the valuation study conducted, the NPV is negative and the BCR is
less than 1. This means that the proposed project is economically not
feasible and should not be pursued. Implementation of the project will result
to environmental, socio-economic and cultural losses that will far outweigh the
expected benefits.
Based on these findings, the following recommendations were formulated:
 Conduct a comprehensive valuation study to determine further the actual
extent of the project ‘s impact;
 Process of dealing with the indigenous community must be done with
transparency; negotiations must be honest, fair and strictly in accordance with
the agreements;
 Stakeholders of the project should be properly consulted and should always
be engaged in all decision-making processes involving them;
 Socio-cultural impact is a crucial part of the valuation process. Thus, more
studies on this should be conducted and considered in the over-all valuation;
 Consider other sources of water for Metro Manila residents such as the Wawa
Dam. The said dam is found to be more cost-effective, can provide almost
the same volume of water and 10 times more hydroelectric power, the dam
site is more accessible and with less families to relocate and displace.
In closing, economic and environmental goals are often perceived as contradictory.
Oftentimes, a choice must be made between the two as most would think that both
objectives will be hard to achieve at the same time. Such is true in a society like
ours where the environment has become a scarce resource which is continually
pressured and exploited for economic development.
The Laiban Dam Project is just one of the many environmental projects in the
conventional environment-economy conflict. While the proposed dam guarantees
the availability of clean and safe water for the people of Metro Manila and
neighboring provinces by 2015, government and MWSS must proceed with the
decision-making on this project with caution and with a conscientious approach to
determine if the environmental, social and economic benefits of this important
project will far outweigh the costs of its construction.
Let this reminder from the late Pope John Paul II be the guide of decision makers on
this project: “We establish government institutions, and legislate laws to safeguard
the divine mission to protect what remains of the bounty for us and future
generations…In the end, more than the law, our conduct should be guided by a
spirituality that promote and protect the integrity of creation, respect for life and the
dignity of the human person.”
PART 1:
Project Valuation
Process
1. PROJECT VALUATION PROCESS
1.0 Introduction
This study was done in partial fulfillment of the requirements in ENS 242,
Environmental Economics: Economic Valuation of Environmental Impacts and
Natural Resource Systems under the supervision of Dr. Nicomedes D. Briones. The
study was conducted from August to October 2009.
The proposed Laiban Dam Project was selected by the team not only because of the
controversy it has generated but also its extent and potential impact on the
environment, economy and the society. While the proposed dam guarantees the
availability of clean and safe water for the people of Metro Manila and neighboring
provinces by 2015, there is still a need to determine if the environmental, social and
economic benefits of this important project outweigh the costs of its construction.
In this study, the team gathered and objectively considered information from both the
proponents and opponents of the project. It is not the intention of the team to select
a side on this issue, but rather use the economic theories and valuation methods
learned in ENS 242 and apply it in environmental and natural resource
management, in this case that of the Laiban Dam.
While this study is merely a class requirement that allows students to practice and
apply economic valuation tools on actual environment setting, the team believes that
the result of this study could be a good source of information and a useful reference
especially for decision-makers in analyzing further the costs and benefits of the
proposed Laiban Dam Project.
1.1 Objectives
The main objective of this study is to determine the environmental, social and
economic value of the proposed Laiban Dam project. Specifically, the team:
a) Assessed the current biophysical condition of the area and identified the
impacts of the proposed project;
b) Described the social acceptability of the project;
c) Analyzed the costs and benefits of the project towards the formulation of
recommendations for decision making.
1.2 Scope and Limitations
In general, this valuation study looked at the bio-physical, environmental and
socio-economic aspects of the proposed Laiban Dam project. However, more
emphasis was given on the socio-economic implications of the project and less
on the bio-physical and environmental components as the team referred to the
available secondary data (EIS prepared by the MWSS and information from
the internet) to determine the latter. The socio-economic implications were
determined using primary data (key informant interview, informal interviews,
focus group discussion and survey) and analyzed using economic valuation
and statistical methods.
The team wanted to conduct more field visits and spend more time with the
affected tribe and communities to gather more primary data and further validate
secondary data. However, because of the costs of travel, time requirement,
security concerns, prevailing rainy weather and distance of the proposed dam
site, the team’s visit was limited to only two (2). The team, nevertheless, was
able to secure a copy of a recent case study conducted on the area, which they
used in determining particularly social implications of the proposed project.
The Hydroelectric Power Plant, which is one of the major components of the
project, was not included in this study. The team decided to limit its valuation
on the construction of the dam and its capacity to provide sustainable water
supply. As regards the WTP survey, the purpose of the survey is basically to
gather the sentiments and readiness of some people regarding the project. As
such, it is not representative of the population of Metro Manila. This decision
was done with the knowledge and consent of the team’s consultant, Dr.
Briones.
1.3 Methodology
1.3.1 Data Gathering and Validation
1.3.1.1 Baseline Information
Baseline data on the physical, biological and socio-economic aspects of the
proposed Laiban Dam project were gathered from three important documents: 1)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by MWSS in 2007; 2)
Selection/Tender Documents for the Implementation of the Laiban Dam Project
(Manila Water Supply III Project) from the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel (OGCC); and 3) Case Analysis of the class on CED 301 (Philosophy of
Development) conducted on 1st Semester, School Year 2007- 2008. As the project
is surrounded by controversy, the first two documents were not made available to
the public. Because of this, the team accessed them not from MWSS and OGCC but
from an inside source. Meanwhile, the copy of the case study was requested by the
team from Ms. Aurora Corales from referrals of Mr. Jojit Latayan and Mrs. Myrna
Cacho. The three are members of the said CED 301 class.
Additional information were obtained through the use of internet search engines
such as www.google.com and www.yahoo.com particularly in gathering news clips,
press statements, editorials, commentaries, position papers and analyses of several
civil society groups that closely monitor the project.
1.3.1.2 Key Informant Interviews
Separate informal interviews were conducted with two key informants: Mr. Jojit
Latayan, engaged in community development work in the Kaliwa Watershed,
Southern Sierra Madre; and Mr. Joyce Palacol of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference
of the Philippines - National Secretariat for Social Action (CBCP-NASSA). The said
interviews were carried out to determine the position of the church and civil society
groups on the proposed project. On the side of the proponents, MWSS and San
Miguel Bulk Water Corporation, no interviews were conducted but their positions
were taken from the statements they released regarding the project. These
statements were made public and were accessed on their respective company’s
websites.
1.3.1.3 Site Visits
The team conducted two (2) site visits to the area affected by the proposed dam
project. In the first visit, informal interviews with local chieftains and community
members in Barangay Daraitan were conducted to determine the sentiments of the
people directly affected by the proposed project. Four members of the team
conducted the first visit.
The second visit was conducted in Sitio Manggahan with the entire ENS 242 class
accompanied by its professor, Dr. Briones. Ocular inspections were done at the
tunnels, which was constructed during the 1980’s when the Laiban Dam Project was
first proposed. The class also visited the point where the Lenatin (Kaliwa) and
Limutan (Kanan) Rivers diverge. These rivers will be the source of water for the
proposed dam.
Informal interviews and a focus group discussion (FGD) were also conducted with
the Dumagat Tribe Chieftains and a member of the Tribal Council. These were done
to gather primary data from directly affected stakeholders and validate data gathered
from secondary sources.
1.3.1.4 WTP Survey
An actual willingness-to-pay (WTP) survey was conducted by the team in
Intramuros, Manila where 10 respondents were randomly selected.
The
respondents include informal settlers, “Calesa” and “Pedicab” drivers, security
guards, vendors, office workers and other professionals. Another 8 WTP survey
forms were e-mailed to Metro Manila residents who are close friends and relatives of
the team members bringing the total number of respondents for the WTP to 18.
The survey was conducted to determine the acceptance and readiness of Metro
Manila residents with regards to the proposed project. Likewise, the water condition
and “willingness to pay” of the respondents were also gathered from the survey.
1.3.2 Data Processing
Six (6) workshops were conducted by the team in processing the gathered primary
(Interviews, FGD and WTP Survey) and secondary (three main documents and
internet searches) data. Each member was assigned to focus on a particular
component of the project’s environmental, social and economic implications.
Specifically, the team identified and discussed the project’s background,
components, expected outputs, over-all costs/budgetary requirements, cost-sharing,
opportunities, organizational arrangements, anticipated environmental and socioeconomic impacts, projected risks, and people’s perception.
The team worked on the maps relevant to the project such as location, drainage,
topographic, slope, land cover and classification, and geologic. Project construction
lay-outs and other designs were also processed by the team for inclusion in the
study.
Statistical analysis was used in this study particularly in processing the results of the
WTP survey. Multiple Regression analysis was done using PASW 18 (formerly
known as Statistical Packages for Social Sciences) to determine which among the
parameters affect people’s willingness to pay for the services to be provided by the
proposed project.
Actual photos taken from the site visits and group workshops were processed and
included as part of the documentation of the project. These photos are incorporated
in the text of this valuation study and can be found at the Annex Section.
1.3.3 Data Analysis
The proposed Laiban Dam necessitates a Benefit-Cost Analysis that looks into both
financial and economic costs and benefits of the project to determine its feasibility.
The study focused on valuing the environmental costs of the project, which includes
a reduction in the carbon sequestration function of the watershed, a loss in
biodiversity, among others, due to the flooding of an estimated 28,000 hectares of
land when the dam is built, and the socio-economic costs of loss of livelihood and
dwellings.
The environmental costs considered in this study were determined using the Benefit
Transfer method. Monetary values attached to specific environmental services of
tropical forests from completed studies were used and adjusted using either
Consumer Price Index or currency exchange. These values were then applied and
further adjusted for the specific magnitude of impacts of the proposed dam.
The socio-economic costs for loss of livelihood were computed using the
Replacement Cost Method. Loss of livelihood and dwellings was quantified using
data from completed studies. The quantified impacts were then monetized by
calculating the costs of purchasing farm lands and home lands and the costs of
establishing a new and stable livelihood and building a decent house, respectively.
The cultural impacts on the indigenous population were tackled through descriptive
analysis but were not quantified and monetized. The other values used in BCA were
taken from secondary sources.
The investment cost, expected financial return, environmental benefits,
environmental costs and the socio-economic costs were distributed through the 50-
year estimated lifespan of the project and were discounted at 10 percent. Such
discount rate was chosen as it is commonly adopted for projects operating under a
World Bank loan. Under the defined scope of the study, the discounted partial costs
were deducted from the discounted partial benefits to determine the discounted
partial economic value of the project. The Net Present Value (NPV) and the Benefit
Cost Ratio (BCR) were computed to determine if the project is economically feasible
given the limited values that were considered. The NPV and BCR were then used as
decision criteria and as bases for recommendations.
1.4 Valuation Team
Name
Specialization
Task
Kathreena Engay
Forestry
Environmental Impacts, Monetization
of Environmental costs, Photo
Documentation
Jonathan Galindez
Crop Protection/
Entomology
Project Lay-out and design, Project
Components
Zaldy Luna
Aquaculture
Aisa Manlosa
Environmental Science
Project Output, Organizational
Arrangements
Financial and Economic Analysis
Yuri Munsayac
Agriculture/Plant
Pathology
Introduction, Executive Summary, WTP
Regression Analysis, Conclusion and
Recommendations, Final Editing and
Lay-out
Mayla Viray
Development
Communication
Social Impacts, Filipino Translation of
Executive Summary
From Left to Right: Zaldy, Aisa, Mye, Yuri,
Kath and Jo
1.5 Conceptual Framework
The over-all framework used in this valuation study and the framework for analysis
are as follows:
Figure 1.1 Analytical Framework for Valuation (Taken from ENS 242 Handout)
Laiban Dam
Project
Financial
Analysis
Costs
Economic
Analysis
Benefits
Soc, Eco, Envt
Soc, Eco, Envt
Costs
Benefits
Economic Net
Benefit
Financial Net
Benefits
TEV
Figure 1.2 Framework for Analysis
PART 2:
Project
Information
2. PROJECT BRIEF
2.0 Location of the Project
The proposed Laiban Dam is approximately 100 km east of Metro Manila and will be
located within the Kaliwa River basin in Barangay Laiban, Tanay, Rizal. The project
lies 14º35’ N latitude, 121º20’ E longitude and 15º00’ N latitude and 121º35’ E
longitude (Figure 2.1).
The Kaliwa River basin has an area of 276 sq km and is connected by two rivers:
the Lenatin (130 sq km) and Limutan (146 sq km). The river drains a mountainous
watershed of approximately 28,000 hectares on the eastern slope of the Sierra
Madre Mountains. The Kaliwa River merges with the Kanan River forming the Agos
River which discharges into the Pacific Ocean in Infanta, Quezon Province.
There are two main access roads to reach the proposed dam. One is the ManilaRizal-Laguna-Quezon (MARILAQUE) Road and the other is the Marcos Highway
and Sampaloc-Daraitan Road which passes through the Tanay Estate of former
President Joseph E. Estrada.
Figure 2.1 Project Location
2.1 Project History
The Office of the President during the Marcos era took the initiative of implementing
the Laiban Dam Project. However, the project was deferred as it was not
considered a priority during the Aquino and Ramos administrations. The
implementation of the project only resumed during the Estrada administration until
his ouster in 2001. Now, President Arroyo continued the project allotting a budget
through the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) to resume its
construction. Support for the project will be from loans coming from the Government
of China and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Local agencies like the
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the
Rizal Provincial Government will be task in the implementation of the proposed
project. Table 1 at the Annex Section shows the chronology of events on the Laiban
Dam Project.
2.2 Project Proponent and Institutional Arrangements
The Arroyo administration has given the highest priority to the implementation of the
Laiban Dam Project to provide long term water source and stable supply to Metro
Manila. The participation of private sector towards its realization is being sought by
government through the MWSS.
The MWSS is an attached agency of the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) which was created in 1971 by virtue of Republic Act No. 6234. MWSS is
responsible for constructing, maintaining, and operating dams, reservoirs, conduits,
and other waterworks to supply water to Metro Manila and its adjoining towns. The
agency also tasked to operate domestic sewage collection, disposal and treatment.
The construction of the Laiban Dam is the direct responsibility of MWSS, under its
mandate to insure an uninterrupted and adequate supply and distribution of potable
water for domestic and other purposes, and its equally important responsibility for
protecting of the watershed areas, to ensure sustainable sources of clean water for
future generations.
MWSS as project developer is taking the lead role in the planning of the MWSP III
and thus, serves as the main proponent of the project. The table below shows the
chronology of activities for Laiban Dam Project and the agency responsible for each
activity.
During the preparation of EIS and securing of ECC the following agencies were
involved: DENR-EMB, NCIP, PAMB, NWRB, DA, DAR, DPWH, LGU of Tanay and
Quezon. For water protection and co-management the PSP, MWSS, AFP and
DENR were tapped.
Public meetings, consultations and negotiations are being undertaken with the
presence and participation of NEDA, OGCC, GPPB, DOJ including some private
sector observers from recognized experts in the field of government infrastructure
projects.
Table 2.1 Chronology of Activities and Agencies Responsible for the Laiban Dam Project
Year
1979-1983
Activities
Feasibility Study and Detailed
Engineering Design
1997
Review/Update of Engineering and
Design including Tender
Documents for the Manila Water
Supply Project III (Laiban Dam
Project)
Review/Update of the financial,
legal/institutional and other
aspects of Laiban Dam Project
Preliminary Resettlement Planning
2000
2002
2007
2007
Preparation of Bid Documents and
Assess Tenders
Further Geological Investigation to
confirm/validate the extent of
limestone formation at damsite
In-charge
Done by associated firms
of Electrowatt, Renardet,
Technosphere, Philtech
and FF Cruz
Done by foreign
consultant Electrowatt
Engineering
Done by foreign
consultant GHD and
partners
Done by local consultant
UPSARDF
Done by local consultant
Daruma
Done by local consultant
Daruma
2.3 Project Rationale
Various projections on water demand has been done in the past and it shows that
there is an increasing trend of water demand in the future based on the average
daily demand of the Metro Manila residents (Figure 2.2). This indicates the urgency
to identify and construction of alternative source of water supply for Metro Manila.
The existing water supply source system, the Ipo and Angat dam could not sustain
the water supply needed in the future.
The national government through the MWSS need to identify an alternative water
source to supply and capable of producing to address the water deficit in the near
future. So far, the Laiban Dam project is the only identified source that could fully
meet the projected growth in water demand of metro manila with complete certainty.
The implementation of this project was supported by multi and bilateral agencies
who have given their considerable support for the urban sector and for the MWSS
sector in the Philippines. Since 1974, ADB has played a major role by providing 19
loans to the MWSS sector amounting to approximately $728 million, and 27
technical assistance grants totaling $12.41 million. Projects for MWSS financed by
ADB include 8 loans for water supply and 1 for sewerage. In addition to ADB, the
major providers of official external assistance are the Japan Bank for International
Cooperation and the World Bank. Others include the Australian Agency for
International Development, Canadian International Development Agency, European
Union, France, Germany (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
and Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau), Japan International Cooperation Agency, New
Zealand, and United Kingdom Department for International Development, United
Nations, and the United States Agency for International Development.
MWSS services a total area of about 1,940 km2 covering 17 towns and cities in the
National Capital Region (NCR). Of the total area, 1,400 km2 is under MWCI and 540
km2 for MWSI. The projected 2008 population in the service area is about 14.7M.
By 2015 it is estimated that population will increase to about 16M people with
another 2M being added in 2025. Currently, MWSS serves about 9M population.
The major components of MWSS existing water supply system include the Ipo Dam
at the confluence of the Ipo and Angat rivers, a 6.4-kilometer tunnel from Ipo to Bicti,
a 36-billion liter impounding facility in Novaliches, a 7.5 km raw water aqueduct from
Novaliches to Balara in Quezon City, the Balara Filtration Plant and a covered
reservoir in San Juan that is capable of holding 40-million liters of water. With the
existing source (Angat-Ipo) capacity of 3200 MLD, 90 MLD from ground water
sources and about 990MLD from Umiray and Sumag Rivers, any new source or
sources should be capable of producing at least 1720 MLD (JICA demand
projections 2001 of about 6000 MLD) by 2015. The 1950 MLD of the Laiban Dam
project could address this deficit.
So far, the Laiban Dam project is the only identified source that could fully meet the
projected growth in water demand, with complete certainty. More so that the Kaliwa
River source can be supplemented by the Kanan River source through a transbasin
tunnel increasing water availability to more than double its natural capacity (Manila
Water Supply III Project).
Figure 2.2 Water Demand Projections until 2030 (Manila Water Supply III
Project)
2.4 Project Objectives
The following are MWSS’s objectives for the construction of the Laiban Dam:
1. Supplement the long-term water supply requirements of Metro Manila;
2. Avoid the risk of possible water shortage in the future considering the
increasing water demand; and
3. Generate hydroelectric power.
2.5 Project components
The major components of the project are as follows:
 113 m. high rockfill dam
 13 km – 3.60 m. dia. Tunnel & pipeline
 30 megawatt hydropower plant
 2400 MLD water treatment plant
 10 km – 3.60 m. dia tunnel & pipeline to Taytay reservoir
 120 ML reservoir 7pressure control station at Taytay
 100 MLD pumping station &20 ML reservoir at Antipolo
 Trunk and primary distribution mains
 Right of way acquisition and relocation of about 4,000 plus affected
families including site development of proposed 4,424 hectares
resettlement site in San Ysiro, Antipolo City, proclaim as resettlement
site under proclamation 2480.
2.6 Major works undertaken
 Feasibility Studies (FS) and Detailed Engineering was completed in
1984
 River Diversion Tunnels, twin-9m.ø x 500 meters long concrete-lined
tunnel was constructed in 1984
 Acquisition of affected titled lands (only 10% physical accomplishment)
and compensation of above-ground improvements (87% financial
accomplishment)
 Updating of FS and Detailed Eng’g. in 1997
 Review/Update of the Financial, Legal / Institutional & other aspects of
the Project in 2000
 Preliminary Resettlement Planning in 2001
 FS review and preparation of bid documents completed in March 2007
2.7 Expected Outputs
The Laiban Dam is envisaged as a multi-purpose development project expected to
provide an average yield of 1,950 MLD supply of water and generate 30 MW of
hydropower. It will be the second major source of water supply for Metro Manila,
next to Angat Dam. The project will supplement 45% of the long term water supply
requirements of Metro Manila. According to the MWSS, the dam is the only fully
identified and integrated source and distribution system development that can meet
the expected growth in water demand by the year 2015.
Figure 2.3 General Plan of the Laiban Dam Project
The Laiban Dam project is intended to serve an estimated population of about 5.5
million or equivalent to 690,000 households in the Province of Rizal and southern
Metro Manila. With the project, it is also expected that water supply and related
services will be improved.
2.8 Proposed Timing and Phasing of Project Activities and Outputs
The MWSP III or Laiban Dam Project has two stages of development: Stage 1involves the construction of Laiban Dam; while Stage 2 is the Kanan No. 2 Dam with
a transbasin tunnel conveying water from Kanan Watershed to the Kaliwa reservoir
(Laiban Dam). It includes the headworks (dam and appurtenant works), raw water
intake works, headrace (tunnel and pipeline), hydropower works (tunnel and
powerhouse), water treatment plant, treated waterways (tunnel and pipeline) and
storage reservoir.
The construction of the proposed Laiban Dam is expected to be completed within a
seven-year period (Table 2.2) under a Built-Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme. Actual
construction of the dam and appurtenant works is expected to proceed by 2010 up
to 2013. This is on the assumption that land acquisition and relocation of settlers
within the Kaliwa watershed were already finalized by the end of 2007.
Access road to the Kaliwa intake shall commence construction in 2008 while the raw
water outlet works shall proceed by 2009. Construction of the trunk mains, headrace
and hydropower works, water treatment plant, trunk mains 1 (pipeline no. 2), treated
waterways, Taytay reservoir, Antipolo pumping station, trunk mains (distribution) and
primary pipelines shall be undertaken in 2010.
By the fourth quarter of 2011, the Taytay reservoir and Taytay pressure control
stations shall be constructed. Testing and commissioning of the project is expected
by the end of 2013. The project components must be packaged to suit the
qualification/expectation and financial capability of the would-be Contractors.
Table 2.2 Indicative Laiban Dam Project Schedule.
2.9
Project Cost
The estimated cost of the proposed Laiban Dam Project is at PhP 47.68 Billion. The
bulk of the cost will be spent on the construction of pipelines, tunnels, reservoirs,
pumping station and other components of the distribution system. Meanwhile,
headworks such as major tunnels, roads and the dam itself were allotted than 1/3 of
the budget. Lowest budget was given on the cost of resettlement, land acquisition
and right of way (Table 2.3). As to the cost sharing, 95% will be sourced from loans
while the remaining 5% will be as GOP counterpart. Table 2 at the Annex Section
shows the detailed breakdown of costs.
Table 2.3 Summary of Estimated Project Cost
Project Components
Headworks (Dams, Tunnels)
Water Treatment Plant
Distribution System
Resettlement, Land Acquisition,
Right of Way
GRAND TOTAL (Estimate Cost)
Total Cost (PhP)
16,333,621,183.70
5,911,758,286.20
21,350,027,262.90
%
34.25
12.39
44.76
4,103,733,811.50
8.60
47,689,140,544.30
100
2.10 Opportunities of Income Generation/Capital Build-up
The Laiban Dam Project is expected to generate income since the fees per cubic
meter of water used would be increased from the existing rate of PhP 30-33 to PhP
40.00/m3. However, MWSS can only add as much as P0.89 per cubic meter per
year in tariff on water rates, much less than what the project requires and lower than
can be added if the project proponent would be from the private sector. The tariff to
be levied on water from the dam will cost about P10/m3 or P6.9 billion per year, and
will run for about 7 years.
PART 3:
Environmental
Impacts
3. INTRODUCTION
Economic and environmental goals are often perceived as contradictory. Oftentimes,
a choice must be made between the two as most would think that both objectives
will be hard to achieve at the same time. Such is true in a society like ours where
the environment has become a scarce resource which is continually pressured and
exploited for economic development.
The Laiban Dam Project in Tanay, Rizal proposed by MWSS is just one of the many
environmental projects in the conventional environment-economy conflict. The
project seeks to address the water crisis in Metro Manila predicted to set in six to
seven years from now. Consequently, this project would result to the displacement
of 4,413 families including a community of indigenous people. It will also have
potential impacts on the surrounding environment given that the project site being
targeted for the dam’s construction is part of the watershed of the Sierra Madre
Mountains.
In this section, the environmental conditions in the proposed dam site were
presented and the potential impacts of the project assessed. Most of the information
found in this section was lifted from the Environmental Impact Statement prepared
on March 2007 by Daruma Technologies and Norconsult, firms that conducted the
Environmental Impact Assessment commissioned by the MWSS.
3.0 Baseline Biophysical Condition
The Kaliwa watershed area covers 28,000 has. of which 276 sq. km. are allocated
for the proposed Laiban Dam site. The Valley of Lenatin River, which forms the
western side of the catchment, is characterized by sparse vegetation consisting of
bushes and scattered trees. The Limutan watershed, on the other hand, has
moderate to intensive forest cover and is virtually inaccessible.
The reduction of forest cover due to small scale logging, grazing and slash and burn
(“kaingin”) practices continues in various parts of the catchment basin. Population
has increased in the area, as new houses and government structures are continually
being built within the watershed.
3.1 Physical Environment
3.1.1 Topography
The highest elevation at the Kaliwa River watershed is about 1,465 meter above sea
level (masl) at Mt. Caladang. The elevation of the dam site is at 175m and this
yields a relief of 1,290m. The basin slope is slightly steeper than the contiguous
Marikina River watershed and is estimated to be at 5.3 percent. Topography of
mountain barangays ranges from 0-45 degrees.
In the lowland areas, silty loam to loam soil is the major soil type. The watershed is
characterized almost entirely by Quarternary (Pliocene-Pleistocence) clastic,
pyroclastic and volcanic rocks. The extreme northern portion of the region is mainly
occupied by Tertiary rocks and a few erosional remnants of Cretaceous rocks.
The proposed dam site is in a NW-SE trending, 600m long section of the Kaliwa
Valley. It is terminated upstream by the confluence of the SW-NE trending Lenatin
River and NW-SE trending Limutan River. The elevation at the floor level of the dam
site is 176m-180m, while the width of the valley is at 130m, including the alluvial
terrace which extends to the right bank.
The right flank of the dam site is the termination of the spur of 600m width as its
base, which was created by a meander of the river. The slope of the right flank is 25
to 45 percent below elevation 250m, and about 50 percent above elevation 250m.
Immediately southwest of the abutment, the flank crests in a NE-SW trending ridge
of about 600m length with a maximum elevation of 322m and saddle with minimum
elevation 285m. The left flank has an irregular topography because of the NE-SW
trending creek upstream of the dam axis. The slopes are 10 to 20 percent at the
dam axis, and 30 to 60 percent near the creek.
3.1.2 Land Use
Forest and grasslands dominate at least 66 percent of the provincial land area of
Rizal. The forested areas are found in Rodriguez and Antipolo in the north and
Tanay and Pililla in the northeastern part. Another dominant land use of about 163
hectares (12%) are built-up areas composed of urbanizing suburbs, spilling over
from the Metro Manila area. Flatlands bordering Laguna Lake are for agriculture
(20%) which is intensively farmed for rice and sugarcane production while
mountainous areas are cultivated for bananas and coconuts, and where timber is
harvested and a large patch of hilly shrub and grassland is found.
Most economic activities are located in Antipolo, Cainta, Taytay and Tanay. Other
minor urban areas are concentrated along the coastal municipalities of Angono,
Binangonan, Cardona, Baras, Pilillia, Jala-jala and along the town centers of San
Mateo, Rodriguez, Taytay and Teresa. Because of the extension of Ortigas Avenue
in Pasig City, Metro Manila, industrial establishments are concentrated in Cainta and
Taytay and some may also be found in Antipolo and Binangonan. Other
municipalities have very low industries.
3.1.2.1 Laiban Dam
Swidden agriculture (kaingin), grazing and upland agriculture are the most dominant
land uses in the project site. Kaingin areas are considered as grasslands owned by
Dumagats living in the watershed. These are either planted with upland rice or other
crops like cassava, sweet potato, patches of bananas and vegetables.
The watershed area is 27,608 hectares (Figure 3.1). The Rizal side has a total area
of 16,600 hectares, 10,279 hectares of which are public forest land and 6,321
belong to the Alienable and Disposable (A&D) land. The Quezon side has an area of
11,008 hectares, with 10,960 hectares as forestland and only 48 hectares A&D land
exhibiting the land cover of Kaliwa Watershed.
The existing land use at the intake area, access roads and pipelines are considered
rural. The intake area and access road will require an area of about 15 hectares. A
gravel-paved access road is available from the Marcos highway going to Sta. Ines
which was constructed as part of the Kaliwa River Watershed Management and
Development Project of the DENR, implemented in 1997 and completed last June
2005.
The proposed site of the Pantay Watershed Treatment Plant and Hydropower
Station in Antipolo is also considered rural which requires a land area estimated at
184 hectares. The site is primarily used as riceland and there are no settlers within it
but approximately 50 houses can be found along the road.
Figure 3.1 Land classification map of Kaliwa watershed (Source: MWSS)
The site proposed for the Antipolo Pumping Station and Reservoir are considered
rural. Both facilities will have an estimated area of 3 hectares each. In contrast, the
proposed Taytay Reservoir is within a vacant lot at the Maharlika Hills Subdivision at
an elevation of 129m which is adjacent to a chapel and the subdivision’s existing
reservoir.
3.1.3 Geology and Geotechnical Conditions
The Laiban Dam area has been reassessed by means of geological mapping during
the walk-over survey conducted by an EIA team along the proposed alignment of the
conveyance pipelines route, reservoir area, and diversion tunnel. Three seismic
hazards – ground rupture, ground acceleration, and reservoir induced seismicity,
have been evaluated to determine their effect on the design of project components.
Considering foundation conditions, two cases of design earthquake criteria is
recommended, reckoned at a distance of 20 km. to the nearest known fault and
magnitudes of 8.0 and 8.2.
Rock formations underlying most part of the reservoir and dam site belong to older
predominantly clastic sediments and intercalations unit comprising of flyash type
rock, partially volcaniclastic, some volcanic intercalations and limestones indurated
and in places slightly metamorphosed.
The ridges are forming the rim along the entire periphery of the reservoir more than
1km wide at the lake level and consist mostly of competent rock where only
exceptional pervious formations can cause notable water losses.
Below is the geologic map of the Laiban Dam project site:
Figure 3.2 Geologic Map of the Project Area (Source: MWSS)
3.1.4 Lithology
Overburden, weathered bedrock and sound bedrock represent the three categories
of the general lithology at the dam site. The overburden category comprises river
alluvium, residual and colluvial soils. Based on the observations of drill cores and
test pits, three-stage scale of weathering was established as intensely, moderately
and slightly weathered bedrock. The sound clastic and pyroclastic rocks are
composed of an alternating sandstone, siltstone, marl and wacked which are
generally stratified and hard. The thickness of bedrocks vary from 2cm to about 5cm.
Materials available in the vicinity of the Laiban Dam site include river alluvium (sand,
gravel, cobbles), river terrace deposits (sandy-clayey silt), residual soils that are
highly to completely weathered rock, volcanistic rocks, and limestone.
3.1.5 Seismicity
According to the 1996 Study Team that reviewed seismic risk analyses performed
for MWSS projects, the seismotectonic features in the damsite and reservoir
identified were: Infanta Fault (part of the Philippines fault), West Marikina Fault, East
Marikina Fault, Daraitan Fault, and Lenatin Fault. All fault status was considered
active. The 1982 study mentioned the Central Philippine fault but have no direct
influence on the seismic risk in the project area. Montalban Fault was considered in
the deterministic analysis in1996 due to its proximity to the project area.
At the Laiban-Pantay-Taytay Interbasin Tunnel, a synclinal trough termed as the
Masungit-Kamunay Syncline is expected to be intersected along the tunnel has
strikes perpendicular to the tunnel axis and dips northward. Major faults also occur
at the intake area manifested by gouge-bearing shear zones. Minor faults were at
the outlet area, in gullies near the tunnel alignment and in drill cores recovered.
There are no major faults observed along the stretch of Tunnel No.2 although the
dacite rock in the inclined shaft area is partly sheared. Approximately 1km west of
the proposed treatment site is a presumed branch of the Philippine Fault that passes
through the Pantay Valley and another fault is observed approximately 3 kms
northeast of the plant site. However, there has been no recorded active faulting
within the plant site.
3.1.6 Meteorology
The proposed site and other appurtenant works of the project is under the influence
of Type I climate zone (based on the Modified Coronas’ Scheme of Climate
Classification) that experiences two pronounced seasons.
The prevailing wind is easterly and the eastern slopes receive more rainfall than the
western slopes but during months of July and August, the prevailing wind is westerly
and the western slopes receive more precipitation. Trade winds come from the east
during the rest of the year and whenever the monsoon is weak. The prevailing wind
direction in the project area is easterly at a wind speed of 3 meter per second (mps)
on an annually averaged data and 2 to 3mps monthly.
The annual maximum and minimum temperature is at an average of 28.8 oC and
20.6 oC, respectively. An annual average rainfall of 1,740.9mm is recorded at the
AgroMet station in Tanay, Rizal with higher precipitation occurring from May to
November of 11 to 16 rainy days a month at 100mm monthly rainfall (Figure 3.3).
The relatively dry period is from December to April with less than 10 rainy days a
month of less than 100mm monthly rainfall. Relative humidity ranges from 75
percent to 88 percent monthly with an annual average of 82 percent.
Figure 3.3 Average monthly rainfall of Angat, Kanan and Kaliwa Watersheds (Source: MWSS)
3.1.7 Hydrology
The Laiban dam watershed is composed of two sub-basins, the Lenatin and Limutan
sub-basins (Figure 3.4). Though generally the whole Laiban dam watershed seems
to fall into the Type 1 climate region as per the Philippine (Luzon) climatic map, the
Limutan sub-watershed might be already within the Type 2 climate. The mean
monthly flows for Laiban follows the monthly rainfall characteristics. The mean
monthly flow for Laiban is about 25 CMS. Previous reservoir operation simulation for
the Laiban Dam shows that diversion of 22 CMS (1,900 MLD) would have failures in
some years. To reduce this failure without raising the dam, an ungated spillway
should be designed instead of a gated one. It is feasible to raise the reservoir full
supply level by one (1) meter with this change and the equivalent additional active
storage is by about 170 MCM, enough for three (3) months supply of 1,900 MLD.
Flood routing shows that the ungated spillway is safe even with occurrence of the
Probable Maximum Flood.
The following tabular information has been commissioned by MWSS to determine
the hydrological setting, mean monthly flow, and mean monthly discharge at Laiban
site used in the EIS prepared by DARUMA Technologies Inc. and Norconsult (2007).
Table 3.1Summary of Mean Monthly discharge based on previous studies.
Report
MWSP III 1979
JICA F/S 1981
MWSP III Review 1997
Guttreridge 2000
EDCP 2001
Nippon 2003
Values Selected
Mean Monthly Discharge m ³/s – Area km²
Laiban Dam site
Kaliwa Low Dam Site
25.2 - 276
26.0 - 279
25.4 - 276
25.4/18.9 – 276 *
24.8 - 280
38.9 – 397.5
25.8/23.4 – 276**
32.1/27.9 - 366
24.8 - 280
Table 3.2. Monthly flows at Laiban dam site as determined by different studies,
all values in m ³/s
MWSP-(83-890)- Q
97 –REV. (27-89)
01- EDCP (61 – 99)
03-NIPP-1 (Long RR)
JAN
16
12
15
19
FEB
12
8
11
14
MAR
9
7
8
9
APR
12
9
6
7
MAY
16
16
11
9
JUNE
26
23
22
19
JULY
32
36
36
31
AUG
41
46
45
35
SEP
40
48
36
39
OCT
51
42
38
40
NOV
34
35
39
33
DEC
21
25
30
26
AVG
25.8
25.4
24.8
23.4
Table 3.3 Mean monthly discharge at Laiban dam site, m ³/s
Month
Mean
Discharge
Jan
16.3
Feb
11.8
Mar
9.0
Apr
11.8
May
15.9
June
26.0
July
32.3
Aug
41.1
Sep
40.2
Oct
50.0
Nov
34.0
Dec
20.6
Mean
25.8
Source:NWRB
Figure 3.4 Lenatin River (left) and Limutan River (right). Photo from MWSS.
3.1.8 Hydroecology
The groundwater component may influence the hydroecology in the upstream area
of Laiban Dam due to the presence of limestone deposits. From the river level in the
valley floor, the water table rises laterally at a somewhat flatter gradient than the
valley flanks. It was found that the water table are at depths 20m to 50m below
ground surface based from boreholes drilled at higher elevations. There are some
small seeps issue from loose or fissured rocks. Results of the water pressure tests
(WPT) obtained are at best considered as qualitative. In general, the permeability
tests and drill cores convey the impression that the permeability of the bedrock is
low to moderate and the construction of a grout curtain will not meet unusual
problems.
3.1.9 Water Quality
The water quality of the watershed conforms to the PNSDW except for color as
indicated by the physic-chemical tests conducted. The pH values are between 6.58.5 at the watershed area which may have been contributed by the presence of
limestone in the waters of Lenatin and Limutan Rivers.
The total coliform and fecal coliform content failed to conform to the PNSDW. The
contamination in the water may be contributed by discharges from households, farm
animals and wildlife. Heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides in the water are below
the detectable limits.
3.1.9.1 Pantay Water Treatment Plant
The water quality in the proposed location of the Pantay Water Treatment Plant
conforms to the PNDW except for color, dissolved hydrogen sulfide, turbidity,
aluminum, total coliform and fecal coliform. Turbidity of the water may be due to the
presence of suspended matter from recent rainfall events and from domestic wastes.
Aluminum compounds may be detected in the water because of the existence of
rocks, clays, and soils.
3.1.10 Air Quality
Results and analyses of the ambient air samples obtained by the EIA team from the
vicinity of the project site indicate that the overall quality of air is generally good at
present.
3.2 Biological Environment
3.2.1 Terrestrial Flora and Fauna
At the western side of the catchment is the Valley of Lenatin River, characterized by
sparse vegetation consisting of bushes and scattered trees (Figure 3.5). It is under
severe pressure due to unregulated human activities may be due to its accessibility.
Figure 3.5 Vegetation of the proposed project dam site. Photo by KG Engay.
The Kaliwa watershed is characterized by major ecosystem types of forest,
savannah, grassland, streambank, agroforest, floodplain and riparian. It has
moderate to intensive forest cover and virtually inaccessible but small scale logging,
grazing and kaingin seen in various parts of the basin causing forest cover
reduction. The Kaliwa watershed is composed of 94 plant species belonging to 43
families and 85 genera of tree, shrub, forb, grass, vine and ferns.
Climax tree species or the dipterocarps are the most dominant type of vegetation at
the top\ridge and hilly portions of the landscape. Grass, legume and vine are found
in the open spaces created by commercial and illegal logging activities. Trees
growing with grasses became savannah vegetation. However, wildfires often happen
due to its proximity to cultivated farmlands and agro-forest areas.
A significant decrease of fauna sightings and volume of animal catch was noted by
the residents. The threatened wildlife species observed and reported include the
bleeding heart pigeon (Gallicolumba luzonica), musang (Viverra tangalunga), fruit
bat (Cynopterus brachyotic var. luzoniensis), king fisher (Alcedo athis), labuyo
(Gallus gallus), lawin (Halicistus Indus intermedius), monitor lizard (Varanus
salvador), palm civet cat (Paradoxurus philippinensis), Philippine bulbul (Hypsipetes
philippinus), pulanga (Pycnonotus goiavier), tariktik (Penelopides Panini), tikling
(Rallus striatus var. striatus) and baboy damo (Sus celebensis var. philippinensis).
This data was sourced from a Study on Water Resources Development for Metro
Manila in the RP, March 2003. The residents also reported sightings of the
Philippine eagle (Pithecophaga jeferrjii).
3.2.2 Aquatic Ecology
Based on the survey conducted in 2003, the phytoplankton community of the KaliwaKana-Agos River system is composed of the blue-green algae (Cyanophyta), green
algae (Chlorophyta), and diatoms (Bacillariophyta) that predominates along the
Kaliwa river. The phytoplankton biomass is favored by the sluggish flow of water
along the Kaliwa river. The zooplanktons serving food to most fish include Phyla,
Rotifera, and Arthropoda species. In terms of fish species, the fish species in the
Kaliwa-Kanan-Agos River system are commonly found in most Philippine rivers
except for theraponing, migek and the eleotrid species like bayaksan, bakyu and
manontok. Some migratory fish species include freshwater eels, pike eels and
mullets. This information was sourced from a Study on Water Resources
Development for Metro Manila in the RP, March 2003.
3.3 Impacts on the Biophysical Environment (Without the Project)
It is predicted that conditions within Kaliwa watershed without the project would likely
worsen in the future. Water quality, air quality and soils would degrade further due
to significant disturbances caused by deforestation and ‘kaingin’, erosion,
sedimentation, and mining/quarrying activities in and around Kaliwa watershed.
Adverse effects to water quality due to human activities upstream of the proposed
dam site combined with an accelerated soil erosion would have correspondingly
degrade dependent aquatic and terrestrial life.
The physical, social and ecological setting may continue to change and that adverse
environmental consequences may occur even without the project when appropriate
actions are absent towards avoidance, minimization and mitigation of current
practices harmful to the environment. The future deterioration of the area will both be
influenced by natural and human forces on the environment that have resulted in its
present degraded condition.
3.3.1 Climate/Meteorology
Climatic parameters like rainfall, temperature, humidity, rate of evaporation, wind
patterns and tropical cyclones or typhoons in the catchment area in various
intensities will continue to produce the current climatic regime in the area with or
without the project.
3.3.2 Geology
The geological features of the area like bedrock units, lithologies and topography are
likely to persist indefinitely in the future with natural and man-induced changes.
Erosion and sedimentation; and continued exposure of surficial soils and rocks will
be aggravated by increased use and human activities such as farming, livestock
grazing, gold panning, quarrying and mining. Natural events such as earthquake
and flooding could also potentially alter the future geology and terrain of the area.
3.3.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
The natural rate of sedimentation of the Lenatin and Limutan rivers will be further
augmented by the sediments coming from human activities. Pollution sources will
increase in the rivers due its continued use as source of fisheries resources. Flood
prone areas will include those areas where river approaches the alluvial plains.
There will be an increase in the erosion of the river basin in the absence of
meaningful watershed protection and restoration measures such as reforestation
programs and government-sponsored public education and involvement programs
promoting environmental stewardship. Failure to control ‘kaingin’ and ‘slash and
burn’ practices will consequently increase siltation and sedimentation of river
systems, degrading water quality.
Without the project, there will be increased dependence on groundwater for water
supply which could result to lowering of the water level in some wells since
groundwater levels in the area will continue to depend on rainfall, run-off and
percolation from the watershed.
3.3.4 Air Quality
Current and future sources of airborne pollutants are the slash and burn farming
practices and forest fires which are not expected to significantly change in the future.
The possibility of the area developing into a major industrial center is very remote
since it has been declared as a protected area.
3.3.5 Terrestrial Flora and Fauna
The changes in biological communities are driven by natural events such as floods
and earthquakes; and human interventions such as land clearing, farming and
introduction of domestic species.
Without the project, activities such as deforestation and slash and burn will further
impact the ecosystem without resource planning initiatives. This will result to
reduced species diversity, elimination of species in their entirety, reduced
abundance of desirable and beneficial forms, increased abundance and persistence
of undesirable introduced species, and loss of species or entire ecosystem types
relevant for educational or economic use.
3.3.6 Land and Resource Use
Areas currently used for residential, farming and agriculture would proliferate in the
future with the increase in number of population.
3.4 Impacts on the Biophysical Environment (With the Project)
The project is expected to deliver significant benefits as it will reduce water
shortages and will improve the quality, safety, and reliability of water supply for
domestic use in the urban and suburban areas of Metro Manila and the bordering
provinces. These benefits include: improved access to safe water, reduced
incidences of water-borne illnesses, creation of employment opportunities, reduced
dependence on groundwater resources, and reduced dependence on imported oil.
However, with the project development, impacts are unavoidable. Destruction or
interference with natural habitats and other biological life is likely to happen which
could yield several impacts like erosion and run-off that affects water quality
downstream. There is a possibility of flooding of 7 barangays in Tanay, Rizal; 1 in
General Nakar, Quezon; Pantay WTP and San Ysiro Relocation site. This includes
barangay Sta. Ines, Mamuyao, Cayabu, Sto. Nino, San Andres, Laiban, Limutan,
Tinukan and Daraitan. This event will cause an irreversible loss of agricultural
resources and scenic spots (Sta. Ines Falls, Sangab Cave) and impairment of
cultural areas/monuments and ancestral domains of indigenous people (IPs).
Table 3.4 summarizes the biophysical impacts of the project and its proposed
mitigation measures.
Table 3.4 Biophysical impacts of the project and its proposed mitigation (Source: DARUMA
Technologies, Inc. and Norconsult 2007)
Biological
1. Aquatic life
2. Terrestrial
flora and
fauna
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Impacts
Proposed Mitigation
-reduced light penetration of the water Environmental flow should be
column from increased turbidity,
maintained downstream of the dam and
possibly reducing primary productivity
enforcement of regulations against
illegal fishing activities.
-vegetation loss during construction
activities
-potential increase in illegal logging,
fuelwood and illegal hunting
-localized disturbance of wildlife
Minimization of damage or disruption to
vegetation, revegetation and support to
community-based forest management
plan.
Provisions of resource use, monitoring,
law enforcement, and sanctions to
control illegal logging, etc including
deployment of environmental guards.
Physical
1. Hydrology
2. Water
quality
Impacts
Proposed Mitigation
-temporary cut off or blockage of river
affecting downstream users and river
ecology
-sedimentation in the slow-flowing
river stretches resulting in the
shallowing of deep pools
- water turbidity due to sanitary
effluents and waste waters; and oil and
chemical spills
-leaching of ammonia and nitrogen
from the tunnel blasting and spoil rock
deposits
-tributary system dry-ups when the
reservoir is being filled
Use diversion tunnel to channel water
into the downstream river system to
maintain water uses and ecology
All wastewater will be treated to comply
with the Effluent Standards.
There will be no direct discharge of
untreated sanitary waste to surface
water bodies.
Installation of sedimentation tanks,
sewage treatment facility, and portable
toilet facilities.
Truck and other vehicle maintenance will
be strictly controlled to prevent
discharge of waste oil into the river.
3. Air quality
-increased dust levels from the
construction machinery, etc
-production of airborne dust downwind
from the construction sites
-air pollution from vehicle emission and
construction equipment
Regular monitoring of water quality of
the river will be essential.
Regular water sprinkling areas prone to
dust emission during dry and windy
conditions.
Adopt wet approach in aggregate
screening process and mix concrete in
closed integrated mixing equipment.
Erect clear warning signs for vehicles
slow running and use water spray trucks
for dust suppression.
Paving of main access and exposed
service roads in populated communities.
4. Soils
5. Noise
6. Traffic
congestion
-loss or scrapping off of topsoil
-failure to refill and revegetate borrow
areas and temporarily used land
-erosion and soil slides due to quarrying
and road construction
-soil contamination by products used
for the project
-generation of noise and vibration from
vehicular movements, concrete mixing,
etc
-high noise levels estimated from 8095dBA at a distance of 15m where
workers may suffer from hearing
deficiencies
-increase traffic in Antipolo, Taytay and
Muntinlupa due to pipeline
construction
-roads may be fully or partially closed
causing temporary inconvenience to
residents, etc
Provide respirators to workers.
Storing and reusing of topsoil,
revegetation of slopes, installation of
sediment run-off control devices and
monitoring of erosion.
Install clear warnings.
Enforce ban on nighttime blasting.
Install vibration isolation facilities to
high-noise generating equipment and
on-site sound barriers around concrete
mixing machines.
Measures on occupational health and
safety measures.
Undertake appropriate coordination
with the local authorities to address
traffic concerns.
Biological
1. Terrestrial
flora and
fauna
2. Aquatic life
Physical
1. Hydrology
2. Water
quality
OPERATION PHASE
Impacts
Proposed Mitigation
-loss of habitat and disturbance of
Implementation of enforcement rules of
breeding sites
the forest reservation and imposition of
-loss of forest resources and arable
sanctions.
lands due to submersion
-revegetated areas may be exposed to
Monitoring of illegal activities in forest
grazing and logging
around project areas.
-long-distance migratory species will
Aquaculture introduction to increase fish
disappear because of the barrier effect productivity.
of the dam
-large diurnal flow and water level
Environmental flow in the river should
variation in the river between the dam
be released to minimize loss of the river
and the confluence with the Kaliwa
continuum and provide water for wildlife
River will strongly reduce the biological especially in the dry season.
productivity of the river by up to 75
percent
-bottom animals and fish will decline,
both in production and biodiversity of
up to 30 percent fish yield
-inundation of upstream dam will result
in a loss of river habitats and will be
replaced by a lake
-inorganic erosion material will settle in
the reservoir bottom and reduce the
nutritional value of bottom sediments
for animals dwelling at the bottom
Impacts
Proposed Mitigation
-changes in downstream hydrology of
Maintain minimum flows through water
Pantay Creek
release from reservoirs of 0.85m3\s for
-flood occurrence
ecological functions downstream of the
-natural river and water flows will be
damsite.
intercepted reducing flows or dry-up
without the release of riparian flow
Recover and use one of existing
-water loss in Kaliwa River Basin due to diversion tunnels to route water for the
a limestone horizon resulting to
downstream users.
seepage loss computed at an average
of 0.341 cubic meter per second per
Delineate clearly flood release areas.
100km2 of drainage area
-seepage may occur in flooding areas
Erect clear warning signs.
below since groundwater level in the
adjacent areas in the southern part of
Develop strict safety procedures and
the reservoir is lower than normal
enhance management and education.
water level in the reservoir
-changes in downstream water quality
Use of multi-level intakes to ensure
due to temperature changes, removal
water temperature and quality is
of nutrients and flooding of forests
maintained.
-large scale erosion by discharge of
large amounts of water from the dam
spillway gates for short periods
-sedimentation of rivers downstream
from silt and clay fraction of erosion
material
-water pollution from wastewater
discharge of project components’
operation
-spillage of hazardous wastes and
disposal of domestic and industrial
wastes will affect groundwater and
adjacent water bodies
Installation of sewage treatment facility
that complies with the Effluent
Standards.
Installation of gate and other control
measures at the access road to limit
public access to reservoir.
Implementation of sanitation and
sewerage targets and plans to protect
Metro Manila waterbodies against
pollution from domestic sources.
Cleaning of reservoir site before flooding
and control of upstream agricultural
non-point source pollution and domestic
wastewater.
3. Sludge
disposal
-generation of sludge from the water
treatment plant
4. Geology
-geological disaster and dam failure
-water loss in reservoir
Road maintenance, water quality
monitoring, soil conservation, and
enhancement of education and guidance
on importance of water source.
Sludge treatment through sludge
thickening and dewatering prior to final
residue disposal.
Incorporate proper control and
prevention measures in the engineering
design.
Investigation of extent of limestone
deposits in the reservoir.
5. Soils and
land use
6. Noise
-erosion from the land if there is
increased human activity related to
forests and roads
-permanent occupation of land for the
project will reduce available land
resources
-soil contamination
-noise will be mainly generated in the
hydropower station causing
disturbance of adjacent communities or
cause hearing defects
Mitigation by grout curtains and other
engineering measures.
Installation of oil separators at wash
down and refueling areas and
installation of secondary containment at
fuel storage.
Rehabilitation and revegetation of areas
should be monitored to contain erosion.
Undertake noise reduction measures
and include standard occupational
health and safety practices on workers.
3.5 Risk Analysis
It was found out in previous studies that the conditions in the limestone horizon in
Masungit Rock which extends into the reservoir near San Andres could result in
seepage losses. Indications that an intervening groundwater divide exists which
culminate above the envisaged storage level which would prohibit a flow gradient
developing between the reservoir and outlet points. This risk analysis was derived
from the EIS prepared by DARUMA Technologies, Inc. and Norconsult (2007).
3.5.1 Geologic aspects of the foundation of the dam
Due to the morphologic and geologic conditions at the site and in view of the high
earthquake activity, preference is given to the embankment type dam.
3.5.2 Stability of the valley flanks at Laiban Dam site
Both valley flanks at the Laiban dam site appear to be stable. Some superficial
landslides of small extent occur in the loose overburden.
3.5.3 Slope stability in the reservoir
The possibility of slumps and mudflows in the overburden can be observed in many
places which affect small volumes of material. A larger creep or flow is located about
2km north of Barangay Mamuyao. Movements in harder rock could be triggered by
the lake.
3.5.4 Impact of dambreak
Daraitan, General Nakar and some scattered housing along Kaliwa and Agos River
will experience flooding during a catastrophic dam break.
3.5.5 Impacts of tunneling
3.5.5.1 Seismic activity in the project area
The Philippine fault on the east and northeast of the project area with an epicenter
scattered up to 30km on each side of the fault and the central Philippine fault on the
west and southwest of the project area are considered active and could affect the
stability of the dam or other structures.
3.6 Environmental Benefits
Below is a summary of environmental benefits from the proposed Laiban Dam
project:
Table 3.5 Summary of environmental benefits
PROJECT ACTIVITY
Laiban Dam Project
Rehabilitation, revegetation, and support to
community-based forest management plan
Storing and reusing of topsoil and installation of
sediment run-off control devices
Environmental flow in the river should be
released to minimize loss of the river continuum
and provide water for wildlife especially in the
dry season.
Aquaculture introduction to increase fish
productivity
Diversion tunnel to channel water into the
downstream river system to maintain water uses
and ecology
Maintain minimum flows through water release
from reservoirs of 0.85m3\s for ecological
functions downstream of the damsite
Installation of sedimentation tanks, sewage
treatment facility, and portable toilet facilities.
Cleaning of reservoir site before flooding and
control of upstream agricultural non-point
source pollution and domestic wastewater
Enforce ban on nighttime blasting
Undertake noise reduction measures
BENEFITS
(Protection, Conservation and Prevention)
Domestic consumption, irrigation and
hydropower









restored vegetation and biodiversity
improved soil quality
watershed improvement
soil conservation and erosion control
wildlife recovery and genetic value
climate change (microclimate condition)
recreation and aesthetic value
hydroecology and irrigation system benefits
wildlife recovery




protection of coastal resources
aquatic life\habitat restoration
hydrology and flow control regime
flood control




water pollution control
waste management benefits
ecotourism significance
climate change
 ecotourism significance
 noise pollution control
PART 4:
Socio-Economic
Impact
4. VALUATION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL IMPACTS
OF THE PROPOSED LAIBAN DAM
4.0 Introduction
This section of the paper will focus on the socio-economic impacts of the proposed
Laiban Dam on the displaced families. In the following pages, a general description
of the socio-economic characteristics of the directly affected community will be
presented to serve as the basis on which the magnitude of impacts will be assessed.
Constraints in time and financial resources limited the researchers from conducting a
comprehensive data-gathering in the directly affected communities that will quantify
in detail the varied extent of losses of the individual families. To monetize the socioeconomic impacts, the researchers estimated the degree of impact based on
interviews conducted and existing secondary data, and utilized relevant values from
completed studies and previous assessments. These values were adjusted to the
Laiban Dam impact estimates.
The impacts of concern in this section are classified into two: the social impacts and
the economic impacts.
4.1 General Description of the Affected Communities
The Environmental Impact Statement of the project showed that the proposed
Laiban Dam will affect 4,413 families, of which the breakdown by barangay is shown
in Table 4.1.
The figures represent a conservative estimate of the families that will be directly
affected. A number may be indirectly affected. The figures indicated earlier may also
rise due to unexpected factors. Literature on the actual impacts of dams suggests
that most social costs are underestimated and only become apparent in
assessments long after the operation has started.
Underestimation of social costs are characteristics of many dams and literature
suggests that failure to account for an increase in the social costs exceeding the
predicted values become apparent only in assessments conducted long after the
operation was initiated.
Table 4.1 Number of families that will be affected by barangay.
Barangay
San Ysiro
Sta. Ines
Cayabu
Sto. Niño
Tinucan
Daraitan
Mamuyao
Laiban
San Andres
Lumutan
Pantay
Total
Number of Affected Families
643
474
175
318
290
591
323
720
423
390
60
4,413
It is important to note the history of population dynamics in the prospective affected
area. In the 1970s when the project was first conceived, there were only 50 families
living in the watershed. By 1984, the population had grown to 2,567. Some of these
families have also been given compensation, in part or in full, during one of the
many aborted beginnings of the project. The 8 barangays that are to be inundated
are nestled in the Sierra Madre foothills that are barely accessible especially on
rainy days but all attracting bigger number of peoples by the year. Some residents
reveal that this is because some local officials have seen the delay of the project as
an opportunity to make money on the side (Haribon Foundation).
Of the above number earlier cited, there are 844 Indigenous People classified as
Remontados and Dumagats, and a few are Igorots. This minority represents a
valuable part of the indigenous group in the country. Although covered by Republic
Act 8371 known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Acts of 1997 created through the
National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the IPs remain vulnerable to
the impacts of the project. An organization called Cultural Survival cited that almost
all large dams in the Philippines have been constructed in areas occupied by the
country’s indigenous peoples. The institution added that in most cases, those who
were displaced often become economically, culturally and emotionally devastated by
relocation. It appears that the provision of RA 8371 through the NCIP that formulates
and implements policies, plans and programs for the recognition, promotion and
protection of the rights and well-being of the IPs particularly in the establishment of
their domains and in ensuring that they are consulted in decision-making processes
that affect them often become ineffective because decisions by authorities often
favor development and economic growth at the expense of cultural preservation.
The community of affected families was characterized as having a population
dominated by young people with potential to supply labor force in agricultural and
farming activities. Most of the affected households depend on agriculture and
farming for livelihood. Tree farming and root crops production are some of the
specific livelihood engagements of the community. Some are also engaged in coal
production, logging, handicraft (rattan and bamboo). Some are employed in
government and private agencies.
Each household has an average income of P 6,000-P 8,000 per month for an
average of 6 members. The limited livelihood opportunities at the sites make it
difficult for the families to make both ends meet.
Access to quality education in the area is limited due to constraints in financial
resources. There are many out-of-school youths who did not continue secondary
education.
Basic amenities in the area such as roads, bridges, school, day care centers, health
centers, among others, are in need of improvement. The Local Government Unit and
Barangay Council pointed that the pending dam project served to hinder the
improvement of such facilities.
Common illnesses that occur in the area are common colds, flu, fever, diarrhea and
other respiratory diseases.
Fifteen (15) local economic interest or user groups exist in the affected area namely
cooperatives, farmers, Indigenous Peoples, rattan gatherers, charcoal makers,
illegal cutters, kaingineros, gold miners, local traders, bird’s nest collectors, women’s
group, migrants/settlers, livestock raisers and fisherfolks (Cruz, 2003).
General assessment suggests that the prospective affected households are
generally in need of livelihood and economic opportunities to meet the needs of the
growing families (Environmental Impact Statement, March 2007).
4.2 Rehabilitation of the Watershed
The DENR implemented a reforestation project that restored the vegetative cover of
the uplands. The indigenous people are working in cooperation with the department
to monitor the reforested area in order to minimize illegal logging. However, illegal
activities have not been totally stopped.
At present, the area is 50% forest cover with high biodiversity.
4.3 Utilization of Resources
Interviews with the directly affected stakeholders (leaders of the community) were
conducted in this study to validate existing secondary data.
Accounts shared by the interviewees yielded that the residents primarily produce
yantok, rattan, gabi, banana and charcoal. An estimated 50-100 kilos of gabi and 510 sacks of banana are harvested annually. Charcoal is produced from cutting trees
on the other side of the mountain and is sold at P60-80/sack. Other crops include
mango, santol, avocado, jackfruit, kalamansi, kamoteng-baging, kamoteng-kahoy
and coconut.
The livelihood of the residents remains at the subsistence level. Production that
exceeds subsistence remains small-scale and unstable because of the lack of
opportunity to market their produce. The barangays are far from the town proper and
transportation is difficult and costly. This transportation cost bears the risk of not
being recovered because the competition in the market proper and the inability of
the natives to afford renting market stalls make sales difficult and meager. Selling
the produce in the barangay is difficult because of limited accessibility. On the other
hand, when the products are brought to the town market, the price falls by a good
margin. Kamoteng-baging sold at P20 and kamoteng-kahoy and gabi sold at P10 in
the barangay fall to a mere P8 in the town market. For several products, the farmers
bring to town only the volume of goods ordered.
In addition to planting, some residents raise pigs, goats and chicken. Subsistence
fishery also exists in the area. Fishes caught include bakyo, bulag, angis, tilapia,
carpa, dalag, palos and shrimp.
Some species of plants in the forest are used for medicine to remedy fever, colds
and other common ailments.
4.4. Economic Impacts to the Communities
Table 4.2 Magnitude of Impacts and Losses
Lands
a. Farm Lots
b. Home lots
Structures
a. Houses
b. Secondary
structures
Trees
a. Fruit trees
b. Permanent trees
No. of Affected Families
Area (in hectares)
2,147
2,352
7,385.865
262.8966
3,458
2,120
3,452
21,250
14,146
2,681
840.876
1,074.426
Several issues were raised by the stakeholders and they are as follow:



Feared decline of the water supply for the Tanay Water District from rivers,
springs and falls which will affect irrigation and local farm productivity;
Just compensation for affected families; and
Jeopardized provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement with the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources for the community-based
resource programs for sustainable use of the Kaliwa Watershed.
The pending project has worked against the development of the communities for the
last 20 years as the people were not allowed to plant crops because of the prospect
of project implementation. The project delay has caused an economic setback by
disrupting and hampering the farming patterns of the community. In the past, the
farming activities of the residents provided for their subsistence needs for rice. With
the changes and restrictions on farming, their food supply has not been enough and
the residents have been forced to buy their staples. Even before the actual
implementation of the project, the direct stakeholders in the project site had
sustained substantial social costs from the disruption of their livelihoods. This was
because 20 years ago, authorities have directed the residents to stop planting. It is
believed that this directive was pronounced so that compensation will not be too high
when the project is finally implemented.
4.5 Willingness to Pay of Direct Beneficiaries for the Laiban Dam Service
In the earlier part of this report, the team has extensively discussed the payment that
direct stakeholders are willing to accept in exchange of their displacement. This
section discusses the amount that beneficiaries have perceived and are willing to
pay for the service that Laiban dam will provide. Though the results of the WTP
survey conducted in Manila could not be considered conclusive, these data would
present the sentiments and readiness of the beneficiaries to take its share of
responsibility.
4.5.1 Profile of Respondents
Eighteen respondents from Metro Manila, Manila, Quezon City, Rizal and other
nearby towns being served by MWSS were interviewed. Thirty-three percent of the
respondents live in Metro Manila, 27 percent from Manila, 17 percent from nearby
towns and 11 percent each from Quezon City and Rizal. Metro Manila area includes
Paranaque, Muntinlupa, Makati, Bicutan and Taguig City, while Manila area includes
Intramuros, Tondo and Sta. Ana.
Sixty-one percent of the respondents reached college, while 28 percent reached
high school. Respondents were widely represented in terms of their nature of work,
namely: private consultants, government employees, non-government employee,
business/entrepreneur, security guard, pedicab driver, “kutsero”, chemical engineer,
seaman, teacher, development worker and foreman. Their household income ranges
from P3,000 to P120,000 per month.
4.5.2 Water Use and Consumption
To further understand the background and condition of the respondents in relation to
water use and consumption, data on household water consumption, water bill, water
uses, alternative source of income, and issues/problems on water were also
collected. Results of the interview show that respondent’s household water
consumption ranges from 3.0 to 100.0 m3 with a bill ranging from P100 to P3,800 per
month. Water is used basically for drinking, domestic and business purposes.
Alternative sources of water identified are deep well, water pump and refilling station
including bottled water. Regular and/or limited flow of water, bad odor, unclean, and
too expensive rate are among the issues and problems being faced by the
respondents.
4.5.3 Willingness to Pay
Respondents were also asked if they are in favor of the Laiban dam and when they
will be ready to pay the additional cost. Seventy-eight percent (14) of the
respondents are in favor of the Laiban dam and the same percentage is willing to
pay for the prescribed or new water rate. Their bidding amount for the additional cost
ranges from P0.50 to P10.00 per m 3. Among the respondents who signified their
willingness to pay, thirty-three percent are willing to pay additional P0.50-P2.00/m3
per month, 22 percent are willing to pay P2.01-P4.00/m3 per month, and 11 percent
are willing to pay P8.01-P10.00/m3 per month. In terms of the readiness of
respondents to pay the additional charge, thirty-three percent think that they ready to
pay upon the implementation of the project, 28 percent said after one year that the
project was implemented, while 39 percent cannot figure out their time of readiness.
On the other hand, 39 percent of the respondents believe that increase in water rate
would affect their water consumption, while 33 percent cannot tell the difference. As
an adaptive measure, 28% of the respondents said that they will try to save water
and maximize the use of water.
4.5.3.1 Analysis
The team used PASW 18 (SPSS) to run the data on educational attainment,
occupation, monthly income, age, sex and household size to determine if such
characteristics have an influence on the respondent’s willingness to pay. Results
show that educational attainment, occupation and monthly income have significant
influence on the respondent’s willingness and readiness to pay. The reason for this
is that respondents who have higher education, good occupation and higher income
have better understanding of the importance and benefit of efficient water supply
and have the capacity to pay additional amount in exchange for an assured supply,
respectively. On the other hand, household size and water consumption have no
significant effect on respondents’ willingness to pay (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3 Regression analysis of WTP results
Variables
t
Significance
Education
2.975
0.014
Household size
1.115
0.291
Occupation
-3.738
0.004
Income
-2.600
0.027
Water consumption
0.347
0.736
4.5.3.2 From Primary Data
Interviews with several chieftains in the directly affected areas revealed that the
willingness to accept of displaced families is P1.5 M per household to cover house
construction, land title, forgone earnings from crops and forgone opportunity for
livelihood.
A study by Latayan, et al. (2007) identified that the land ownership scheme of the
community is such that there is no individual claim of ownership to land; instead, it is
communally owned. However, the residents expressed that they want to be given
individual land titles in the resettlement area to ascertain ownership of land and
dwellings.
Assuming that the 4,413 families that will be displaced losing either dwelling or
farmland or both are compensated in the terms specified by the chieftains, the
conservative estimate of the compensation cost for the entire project would be
P6,619,500,000. This estimate however, does not specify the relative differences in
compensation for the following groups of people:
A. Households that will lose both houses and farms
B. Households that will lose only their houses
C. Households that will lose only their farms
The value hinges on the assumption that the compensation cost applies to all
regardless of what category of loss they have. This assumption is purely for the
purpose of obtaining a general estimate and may not be the actual reality in
operation.
4.5.3.3 From Secondary Data
Before Laiban Dam, the most expensive resettlement project would have been the
relocation of about 40,000 families for the North Rail project in 2005. The Housing
and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) estimated the cost of
resettling at P 6.6 billion (Haribon Foundation). Data suggests that the mechanism of
implementation for the relocation was that each family was provided with a loan of
US$500 to US$4000 payable within 25-30 years with 6%-9% interest rate per
annum. The mentioned amount was found to be insufficient for building a house
(Centre on Housing Rights and Eviction).
In contrast, the dam project which will affect only a tenth of the number of affected
families of the railroad project was estimated to cost P10-20 billion in relocation (San
Miguel Corp), 50-200% higher than the most expensive resettlement project in the
country. This is even higher than P7.4 billion allotment for resettlement and P2.6
billion budget for right of way estimated by the National Economic and Development
Authority Investment Coordination Committee (NEDA-AIC).
The compensation package for the local residents as related by the local officials, is
100% higher than the amount stated by the chieftains in the interviews conducted by
the researchers. A resolution was passed pegging the compensation amount at P3
million per family and P5 million for those with extended families (Philippine Council
for Investigative Journalism). Using the low figure of P3 million for the 4,413 families
would cost P13.2 billion. In addition, some residents have begun processing their
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT) believing that certificate would add
value to their property and increase the compensation that they will receive.
4.6 Socio-cultural Impacts to the Communities
The socio-cultural impacts of the Laiban Dam are among the most important
considerations in the analysis of project impacts, the Remontados and Dumagats
being among the valued Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines. These impacts
however, are difficult to quantify and monetize. A valuation of the socio-cultural
worth of the above-mentioned IPs is contentious and would necessitate extensive
primary data collection for input to the most appropriate valuation method. However,
the team has been constrained by limited resources from pursuing this. Benefit
transfer was not pursued because the IPs of concern here are unique and the
researchers were not able to find scientific means nor consistency of theory in
transferring one value of a tribal group to another. As such, a descriptive
identification of impacts was employed.
Literature exists on the social impacts of dam constructions on displaced
populations. The impacts arise mainly due to the displacement from the defined
ancestral domains which entail ramifications on the cultural structure, the tribal
framework of leadership, the beliefs, practices, traditions and generally, the group
cohesiveness.
This breakdown in the cultural structure still occurs even when the displaced are
relocated collectively in the same area. Several reasons may cause this. First, the
ancestral domain is an essential component of the culture of the IPs and there is a
link between the stability of the domain and the stability of the group. Ancestral
domains carry a significance that goes beyond the value of usable and extends to
historical significance when the predecessors of the IP first came to establish the
settlement. This importance is often undervalued and is usually lost as it is
something that cannot be recovered nor justly compensated by a new settlement
area.
The IPs follow a framework of leadership where the members are led by a chieftain
with the support of a council that decides on important matters concerning the
community. The chieftain also spearheads negotiations with agencies and
organizations for issues that concern the IP. This leadership does not only provide
stability to the group but also concretizes the channels through which negotiations
are made in behalf of the group.
Experiences in the Philippines and in other countries have shown that most
resettlement schemes have been less than satisfactory and have often failed to
meet one essential criteria of project implementation: to improve the lives of the
stakeholders especially those that will be directly affected. While acceptable
compensation packages and resettlement plans are requirements for approval of the
project, the Laiban experience presents a reason for heightened opposition. The
social acceptability of the project is low and this is confirmed by the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement that lacked a comprehensive documentation of the
necessary public consultation and public hearing outputs. Interviews with those who
will be directly ousted from their dwellings showed that the stakeholders have not
been informed on the resettlement plan and have remained uncertain of their plight.
On a positive note, the IPs expressed in the interviews conducted that they are not
totally against the project. Community leaders have voiced that over their rights to
the ancestral land, they recognize the importance of pursuing an economic activity
that will benefit a larger population. The condition of their demands however, is that
they be duly compensated for displacement from their dwellings and consequent
loss of land and livelihood. The leaders said that they are aware of the fact that not
all members of the community would be able to handle the monetary compensation
wisely since the majority if not all is not used to handling an amount beyond what
subsistence requires. As such, they also stipulated that they would need to be
relocated in an area where they can find a sustainable livelihood. Anent to this, the
displaced IPs would need to be trained for a sustainable alternative livelihood. The
types of training offered must consider the actual resource endowments of the
resettlement site and must be responsive to the opportunities in the area so that the
applicability and relevance of the skills acquired from the training are maximized.
Cultural Survival Incorporated put the usual situation of the IPs succinctly when it
claimed that “…social costs, in particular, have not been fully accounted for in the
estimates and some real costs are externalized out of project calculations and left to
be borne by the displaced populations. Numerous case studies have demonstrated
that forced displacement tears apart communities and disperses the fragments,
disrupts patterns of social interaction and interpersonal ties, destabilizes and renders
useless integral reciprocal help networks, and scatters kin and other social groups.
This dismantling of social ties may leave the individual people physically intact, at
least in the short term, but it destroys communities. The result is widespread
anomie, insecurity, and a loss of cultural identity that compounds the loss of natural
and manmade capital. The great majority of people displaced by dams have
statistically disappeared, swallowed up by urban slums and camps of migrant
laborers. Indigenous groups are more vulnerable than others to the risks discussed
above. Their remote areas of residence are often a last refuge from cultural
assimilation. Evidence suggests that very few indigenous people ever recover from
the economic and psychological disruption caused by dislocation. Displacement
severs what are often strong spiritual and cultural attachments to land and threaten
communal bonds and cultural practices which hold these societies together.”
4.7 Caveats
The economic analyses for many dams in the Philippines have failed to incorporate
the cultural value that is lost from the displacement of IPs and often subsume
compensation of this into the dwelling and livelihood values. This causes
underestimation of the social costs of the project and leans decision-making in favor
of its implementation even when it is economically infeasible and undesirable on
many grounds.
Quantification of the costs associated with social and cultural disruption was not
included in this section of the paper due to uncertainty of the extent of the disruption
and the lack of secondary data on a similar scenario on which to base the monetary
estimates. The descriptive analysis of the social and cultural impacts is included in
order to direct authorized bodies to consider addressing this gap in the overall
economic analysis. Recommendations will be formulated in another section.
4.8 The Inaccuracies of Estimation and Undercompensation
A study by Caspary (2007) noted that under-compensation of costs of displacements
is often in the form of the following:






Undercounting of assets for which compensation is due (Mahapatra,
1999; Parasuraman, 1999)
Arbitrary valuation of assets (Nayak, 2000; Agnihotri, 1996)
Non-recognition of non-physical or non-market losses or
methodological difficulties in measuring these adequately (Koenig and
Diarra, 2000; Pandey, et al., 1998)
Costs arising from temporary assetless-ness due to late payment of
compensation (Mahapatra, 1999; Guha, 2001; Gibson, 1993)
Diversion of compensation money by officials (Maybury-Lewis, 2003;
Parasuraman, 1999)
Upward changes in asset prices after compensation has been paid (e.
g. sudden rise in land price due to sudden rise in demand) (Downing
and Garcia-Downing, 2002)
An unfortunate example in the context of the Philippines for unjust compensation
was that of the san Roque Dam experience where over 160 families at the dam site
in Pangasinan were forcibly displaced in 1998 and for almost a year were living in
desperate conditions at a temporary site. Land, houses, alternative livelihood
sources and social services were promised. Instead, the National Power Corporation
distributed P 10,000 for every family as supposed compensation. Only about a year
later were 147 houses in the new resettlement site handed to the displaced families.
In this section of the paper, emphasis was given to the socio-cultural and economic
impacts of the proposed Laiban Dam to the IPs and other affected stakeholders. The
researchers gave prime importance to these types of impacts in addition to the
valuation of environmental impacts because numerous experiences in the
Philippines and in other countries suggest the deplorable conditions to which most
displaced families are subjected to because of underestimation of use and nonvalues, consequent insufficient compensation packages, and unjust inattention of
most project proponents and government agencies concerned to the welfare of the
affected parties. There remains much to be desired from the proponents and from
the government of the Philippines in ascertaining that the lives of the affected are
made better as is often claimed as the guiding principle of most if not all project
documents.
4.9 Socio-economic Benefits
While the proposed Laiban Dam Project would have potential negative impacts on
the community, the team was also able to identify some of the possible benefits of
the project. Most obvious of these is the generation of a secure water supply for the
majority of residents in Metro Manila and nearby provinces. A secondary benefit is
the generation of a 30 MW power supply. Socio-economic benefits for the
community include improvement on the municipal water supply, improved sanitation
and health, and generation of employment opportunities. These other benefits,
however, were not included in the quantification and monetization for the BCA.
PART 5:
Benefit and
Cost Analysis
5. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
5.0 Introduction
The benefits and costs that were quantified, monetized and used in the Benefit-Cost
Analysis are a composite of primary and secondary data which were aggregated to
yield the partial economic value.
The environmental and socio-economic benefits and the cultural impacts of the
project which are significant considerations for project feasibility were detailed in the
previous chapters but were not monetized due to lack of data and empirical
measures. These values were not incorporated in the BCA but were identified in
other sections.
The BCA of the project involves integrating the financial costs and benefits and the
external costs and benefits discounted at 10% discount rate. This rate was chosen
because it is commonly used in most Asian Development Bank (ADB) projects.
The analysis was done for 50 years which is the assumed life span of the dam. The
costs and benefits were distributed across the years for discounting. Given the
constraints faced by the researchers and the consequent limited scope of the study,
the values in the BCA table are mostly on the project costs while there are some
undetermined project benefits. The calculated Net Present Value is therefore a
partial value derived through the available data and methods under certain
assumptions.
The two main sources of financial benefits are from the water supply and
hydroelectric power generation. The benefit from the water supply is P 6.9 billion/yr
as indicated by the project proposal. The benefit from the 30 megawatt hydroelectric
power is P 87,750,000 computed as follows:
For a consumption of 4 kw for every household, on average, 1000 kw or 1mw,
1000 kw/4 kw = 250 households/mw
250 households/mw x 30 mw = 7,500 households
Assuming that every household spends P 30-35/ day for electric consumption,
the average value will be P 32.5/household/day. The total value of electricity
generated by a 30 mw hydroelectric plant per year is computed as follows:
P 32.5/household/day x 7,500 households = P 243,750/day
P 243,750/day x 30 days/month = P 7,312,500/month
P 7,312,500/month x 12 months/year = P 87,750,000/year
Other benefits from the dam may include irrigation, fisheries, and recreation/tourism.
However, the project proposal did not include plans for these services and no data
was available. In addition, benefits to health and job generation were also not
computed for lack of data.
5.1 Computation of Environmental Costs
The computation for the identified and prioritized environmental impacts is done
using the values presented by various authors in the citation of Francisco, H. A.
2009.
An adjustment factor is derived using the current (2009) foreign exchange rate to 1
Philippine peso and the current Philippine peso exchange rate to 1 foreign currency.
These are as follows:
Biodiversity : Bann (1997), Cambodia - Php 68,470
1 Php 1997 = 91.23056 Cambodian Riel
1 Cambodian Riel 2009 = 0.01139 Php
Adjustment factor for biodiversity = 91.23056*0.01139
= 1.039116078
Existence: Rosales & Francisco (2000), Philippines
1 Php 2000 = 0.02155 USD
1USD 2009 = 46.67196 Php
Adjustment factor for existence
= 0.02155*46.67196
= 1.005780738
Wildlife: Kumari (1994), Malaysia
1 Php 1994 = 0.07427 Malaysian Ringgit
1 Malaysian Ringgit 2009 = 13.88679 Php
Adjustment factor for wildlife
= 0.07427*13.88679
= 1.031371893
Carbon Sequestration: Lasco (1997), Philippines
1 Php 1997 = 0.02155 USD
1USD 2009 = 46.67196 Php
Forest Protection
Adjustment factor for forest protection
= 0.02155*46.67196
= 1.005780738
Tree plantation
Adjustment factor for tree plantation
= 0.02155*46.67196
= 1.005780738
Agroforestry
Adjustment factor for agroforestry
= 0.02155*46.67196
= 1.005780738
Watershed protection: Bann (1997), Cambodia - Php 68,470
1 Php 1997 = 91.23056 Cambodian Riel
1 Cambodian Riel 2009 = 0.01139 Php
Adjustment factor for agroforestry
= 91.23056*0.01139
= 1.039116078
The adjusted value is equal to the product of base value at that year multiplied by
the 2009 computed adjustment factor. These are as follows:
Biodiversity: Bann (1997), Cambodia - Php 68,470
Adjusted value (per ha) of biodiversity
= 68,470*1.039116078
= Php 71,148.27789
Existence: Rosales & Francisco (2000), Philippines - Php 8,791
Adjusted value (per ha) of existence
= 8,791*1.005780738
= Php 8,841.818
Wildlife: Kumari (1994), Malaysia – Php 147
Adjusted value (per ha) of wildlife
= 147*1.031371893
= Php 151.6117
Carbon sequestration: Lasco (1997), Philippines
Forest Protection – Php 10,679
Adjusted value (per ha)
Tree plantation – Php 30,612
Adjusted value (per ha)
Agroforestry – Php 9,377
Adjusted value (per ha)
= 10,679*1.005780738
= Php 10,740.73
= 30,612*1.005780738
= Php 30,788.96
= 9,377*1.005780738
= Php 9,431.206
Watershed Protection: Bann (1997), Cambodia - 9,631
Adjusted current value (per ha) of biodiversity = 9,631*1.039116078
= Php 10,007.73
The total value is the product of the total area of the watershed (28,000 ha)
multiplied by the adjusted/unadjusted current value per ha. These are as follows:
TEV for biodiversity = 71,148.28*28,000
= Php 1,992,151,780.87
TEV for existence
= 8,841.818*28,000
= Php 247,570,917.1
TEV for wildlife
= 151.6117*28,000
= Php 4,245,126.713
TEV for carbon sequestration = ((10,740.73+30,788.96+9,431.206)/3)*28,000)
= Php 475,635,052
TEV for watershed protection
= 10,007.73*28,000
= Php 280,216,354.63
The value of water security is unadjusted as it is based on the 2007 project benefits.
The total economic values (Table 5.0) of the identified and prioritized environmental
impacts are included in the socioeconomic analysis and BCA.
Table 5.0 Total Economic Value of Ecological Impacts.
Ecological Impacts
Biodiversity
Existence
Wildlife
Forest Protection
Tree Plantation
Agroforestry
Watershed Protection
Carbon
sequestration
Source
Bann (1997) - Cambodia
Rosales & Francisco (2000) - Phils
Kumari (1994) - Malaysia
Total Economic
Value
1,992,151,780.87
247,570,917.10
4,245,126.71
Lasco (1997) - Philippines
475,635,052.04
Bann (1997) - Cambodia
280,216,354.63
5.2 Computation of Socio-economic Costs
The socio-economic costs considered are primarily the costs of lost livelihood and
dwellings.
5.2.1 Computation for Replacement Cost of Livelihood Loss
The Replacement Cost Method was used in order to determine the value of the
livelihood and houses that will be displaced due to the project. This valuation method
was chosen because the absence of a stable market for the agricultural products of
the residents and the absence of reliable primary data on which to base the
estimates for the use and non-use values may result to an underestimation of the
values.
To compute for the replacement cost for livelihood, rice farming was chosen as the
alternative livelihood for the following reasons:
a. Majority of the residents that will lose livelihood are engaged in subsistence
farming to meet their needs. This farming experience is assumed to be a
good factor from which one can deduce that the residents will be able to
handle rice farming given the necessary training; and
b. Rice is a staple food for which an established demand and market are
present.
The following computations are based on the assumption that the number of
displaced farmers would indeed be led by the compensating authority to engage in
rice farming as a livelihood to replace what they have lost. This assumption however
may not be implemented in the actual scenario and therefore, values for
replacement may change. Moreover, the computation assumes that the values
derived from secondary sources hold true in the context of Laiban and other affected
barangays.
Real Estate Philippines which posted various lands for sale across the Philippines
showed that presently, farmlands in the province of Rizal are sold at P 200300/sq.m. Three areas in Baras, Jala-jala and Morong were taken and averaged to
yield the result of P 266.67/sq.m. Based on that data, the calculation is as follows:
Price of Land per hectare:
Total Farm Area Lost:
Total Cost for Farmland Acquisition:
Cost of Rice Farming per hectare :
Total Cost for Farming :
Total Cost for Replacing Livelihood:
P 266.67 sq.m. x 10,000 sq.m./ha.
= P 2,666,700/ha
7,385.865 has.
P 19,695,886,195.5 (P 19.7 billion)
P 17,000/ha (value derived from taking the
average of the range P 16,000-P 18,000,
estimates from World Vision)
P 34,000 (cost for a 2-planting season per
year)
7,385.865 has x P 34,000/ha
P 251,119,410
P 19,695,886,195.5 + P 251,119,410
P 19,947,005,605.5
5.2.2 Computation for Replacement Cost of Lost Dwellings
Ocular survey at the site showed that the residents that will be displaced mostly live
in shanties that are crudely built. The materials are mostly made of wood, bamboos
and nipa. Some houses have the ground as floor. Most do not have a toilet inside
the house. These toilets are usually located a few meters from the house and often
look like a makeshift tent.
The calculations for the replacement of dwellings are done under the following
assumptions:
a. The area (in hectares) of residential land lost will be the same area of land
purchased for replacement;
b. The number of new houses that will be built will be equal to the number of
families that will lose their homes; and
c. The new houses will be better than the previous houses of the displaced
residents and will have 2 bedrooms and 1 toilet/bathroom.
Price of Land per hectare
P 266.67 sq.m. x 10,000 sq.m./ha.
= P 2,666,700/ha
Total Residential Area Lost
262.8966 has.
Total Land Acquisition Cost
P 2,666,700/ha x 262.8966 has.
= P 701,066,363.22
Cost of Building per House
P 332,000/house
Number of Houses to be Built
2,352 houses
Total Building Cost
P 332,000/house x 2,352 houses
= P 780,864,000
Total Cost for Replacing Lost Dwellings P 1,481,930,363.22
Table 5.1 Table shows the replacement costs for livelihood and dwellings.
Items
Livelihood Replacement
Dwelling Replacement
Total
Costs
P 19,947,005,605.5
P 1,481,930,363.22
P 21,428,935,960
The result is observed to be nearest to the estimates of the San Miguel Corp. at the
range of P 10-20 billion and is substantially higher than the NEDA estimates, the
willingness to accept expressed by the residents at P 1.5million/family and P 3-5
million/family, respectively.
5.3 Determination of Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio
The Net Present Value (NPV) and the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) are the two decision
criteria used for the study. These were calculated through discounting the costs and
benefits at 10 % discount rate over an estimated 50 years of project lifespan (please
see appendix for cost and benefit distribution across the years).
Table 5.2 The Benefit-Cost Table of the Laiban Dam Project
YEAR
COSTS
BENEFITS
DISCOUNT
FACTOR
DISCOUNTED
COSTS
DISCOUNTED
BENEFITS
DISCOUNTED NET
BENEFITS
0
205000.00
0.00
1.00
205000.00
0.00
-205000.00
1
8076836866.72
280216354.63
0.91
7342578969.74
254742140.57
-7087836829.17
2
8076836866.72
280216354.63
0.83
6675071790.67
231583764.16
-6443488026.52
3
8076836866.72
280216354.63
0.75
6068247082.43
210530694.69
-5857716387.74
4
8076836866.72
280216354.63
0.68
5516588256.76
191391540.63
-5325196716.13
5
2719602876.72
296216354.63
0.62
1688659416.41
183927050.83
-1504732365.58
6
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.56
1535144924.01
161252138.65
-1373892785.36
7
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.51
1395586294.55
146592853.32
-1248993441.23
8
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.47
1268714813.23
133266230.29
-1135448582.94
9
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.42
1153377102.93
121151118.45
-1032225984.49
10
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.39
1048524639.03
110137380.40
-938387258.63
11
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.35
953204217.30
100124891.28
-853079326.02
12
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.32
866549288.46
91022628.43
-775526660.02
13
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.29
787772080.41
82747844.03
-705024236.38
14
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.26
716156436.74
75225312.76
-640931123.99
15
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.24
651051306.13
68386647.96
-582664658.17
16
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.22
591864823.75
62169679.96
-529695143.79
17
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.20
538058930.68
56517890.88
-481541039.81
18
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.18
489144482.44
51379900.80
-437764581.64
19
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.16
444676802.22
46709000.72
-397967801.49
20
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.15
404251638.38
42462727.93
-361788910.45
21
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.14
367501489.44
38602479.94
-328899009.50
22
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.12
334092263.12
35093163.58
-298999099.55
23
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.11
303720239.20
31902875.98
-271817363.22
24
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.10
276109308.37
29002614.53
-247106693.84
25
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.09
251008462.15
26366013.21
-224642448.94
YEAR
COSTS
BENEFITS
DISCOUNT
FACTOR
DISCOUNTED
COSTS
DISCOUNTED
BENEFITS
DISCOUNTED NET
BENEFITS
26
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.08
228189511.05
23969102.92
-204220408.13
27
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.08
207445010.04
21790093.56
-185654916.48
28
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.07
188586372.77
19809175.96
-168777196.80
29
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.06
171442157.06
18008341.78
-153433815.28
30
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.06
155856506.42
16371219.80
-139485286.61
31
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.05
141687733.11
14882927.09
-126804806.01
32
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.05
128807030.10
13529933.72
-115277096.38
33
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.04
117097300.09
12299939.75
-104797360.34
34
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.04
106452090.99
11181763.41
-95270327.58
35
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.04
96774628.17
10165239.46
-86609388.71
36
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.03
87976934.70
9241126.78
-78735807.92
37
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.03
79979031.55
8401024.35
-71578007.20
38
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.03
72708210.50
7637294.86
-65070915.64
39
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.02
66098373.18
6942995.33
-59155377.85
40
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.02
60089430.16
6311813.94
-53777616.23
41
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.02
54626754.69
5738012.67
-48888742.03
42
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.02
49660686.09
5216375.15
-44444310.93
43
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.02
45146078.26
4742159.23
-40403919.03
44
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.02
41041889.33
4311053.85
-36730835.48
45
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.01
37310808.48
3919139.86
-33391668.62
46
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.01
33918916.80
3562854.42
-30356062.38
47
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.01
30835378.91
3238958.56
-27596420.35
48
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.01
28032162.64
2944507.78
-25087654.86
49
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.01
25483784.22
2676825.26
-22806958.96
50
2719602876.72
285668000.00
0.01
23167076.57
2433477.51
-20733599.06
TOTAL
43946273914.42
2821613940.96
-41124659973.46
The NPV is – P 41,124,659,973.46. The BCR is 0.06. Since the NPV is negative and
the BCR is less than 1, the study revealed that the proposed project is economically
not feasible and should not be pursued. Implementation of the project will result to
environmental, socio-economic and cultural losses that will outweigh the expected
benefits.
PART 6:
Conclusions and
Recommendations
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.0 Conclusions
Studies conducted by the World Commission on Dams and the International Rivers
Network have indicated that large dams usually would have costs that far outweighs
its intended benefits. In this study, the Valuation Team found just that. After
conducting a careful and critical environmental, social and economic valuation of the
proposed Laiban Dam Project, the Team concludes that:

Like in any other valuation studies of environmental projects, non use values
such as cultural, social, etc. are undervalued;

The investment cost of the project is too expensive. Thus, the water rates it
will pass on will be too expensive for the consumers to afford as shown by the
results of the WTP survey conducted;

The Laiban Dam project would adversely and negatively impact the World
Bank funded Kaliwa Watershed Management which has been classified as a
forest reserve. A portion of this area has been declared a national park under
Proclamation No. 1636;

The dam is located near a geologic fault line.
This may jeopardize the
stability of the dam structure. Dam breaks may cause flooding that can result
in deaths and loss of properties in Gen. Nakar, Infanta and Real, Quezon;

Directly affected communities fear a decline in their water supply as a result
of the project, affecting their irrigation needs and farm productivity. They are
however amenable to the project if they will be justly compensated;

Based on the valuation study conducted, the NPV is negative and the BCR is
less than 1. This means that the proposed project is economically not
feasible and should not be pursued. Implementation of the project will result
to environmental, socio-economic and cultural losses that will far outweigh the
expected benefits.
6.1 Recommendations
The following are the recommendations by the team on the proposed Laiban
Dam project:
 Conduct more valuation studies to determine further the actual extent of the
project ‘s impact;
 Process of dealing with the indigenous community must be done with
transparency; negotiations must be honest, fair and strictly in accordance with
the agreements;
 Stakeholders of the project should be properly consulted and should always
be engaged in all decision-making processes involving them;
 Socio-cultural impact is a crucial part of the valuation process. Thus, more
studies on this should be conducted and considered in the over-all valuation;
 Consider other source of water for Metro Manila residents. The Wawa Dam
is being proposed as an alternative:
 Wawa Dam is only 4 kms to Montalban town proper, 11 kms by pipelines
to MCWI’s Balara treatment plant and 20 kms by pipelines to MWSI’s
Balara treatment plant; Laiban is 70 kms to MWSS;
 It will not affect any tribal communities and around 27,000 hectares of
ancestral and agricultural lands;
 Less families to relocate and displace; will create thousands of
employment and billions of pesos in the form of taxes for Montalban,
Antipolo and in the entire province of Rizal;
 Can deliver 300 MW to 500 MW of power and not only 25-30 MW of
power as in Laiban Dam;
 Laiban Dam’s proposed relocation site in San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal, has
the challenge of thousands of informal settlers to uproot; Dislocating them
from their schools and livelihood;
 Site is not easily accessible; the area is rugged and mountainous.
Presence in the area will bring about the further denudation of the huge
Wawa Dam’s watershed, aggravating further the flooding in Metro Manila;
 Wawa Dam’s well-managed reforestation program will greatly minimize
flooding in Metro Manila at no cost to the national government;
 Wawa Dam is the fastest and immediate solution to ensure Metro Manila’s
continuing water supply; Angat Dam, which supplies 95 percent of Metro
Manila’s water, has critical leakages, needs immediate repairs and sits on
a major earthquake fault line.;
 There is a great risk that Laiban Dam may not be developed in time, or not
at all due to its financial, engineering and social challenges as mentioned
above;
 MWSS not to consider Wawa Dam first could put Metro Manila and our
entire national economy in great economic jeopardy.
References
CBCP-NASSA Statement on Laiban Dam Project
Center on Housing Rights and Evictions. (2008). Written Comments Concerning the
Philippines. For Consideration by the United Nations Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights at its 41st Session, 3-21 November, 2008.
Center on Housing Rights and Evictions. (2008). The Philippines: Housing Rights
Factsheet.
Chin, J. (2007) What are the costs of building a house in the Philippines? Available
online at www.pinoyprofessionals.com
Cruz, N. (2009). As I See It: Cheaper, Faster Alternative to Laiban Dam. Accessed
Online from the Philippine Daily Inquirer Column
Cultural Survival, Inc. (2009). Going Under: Indigenous Peoples and the Struggle
Against Large Dams. Cambridge, Massachussets.
Dixon, J. A. Economic Analysis of Water Resource Development.
Francisco, H. A. (2009). Land Use and Land Allocation Decisions in Philippine
Forestlands: TEV and BT. Paper presented during the 5th Executive Forum on
Natural Resource Management: Environmental Economics for Decision Making held
on 30 March-3 April 2009, Los Baños, Philippines.
Gacosta, D. Philippines: Rice of Gold in Surallah. World Vision, Asia Pacific.
Goldsmith, E. and Hildyard, N. (1984). Dams and Society: The Problems of
Resettlement. Published as Chapter 2 of The Social and Environmental Effects of
Large Dams: Volume 1. Overview. Wadebridge Ecological Centre, Worthyvale
Manor Camelford, Cornwall, UK.
Haribon Foundation. Costliest Dam Project also Biggest Resettlement Bill. Cubao:
Quezon City. Sourced from www.pcij.org.
Laiban Dam Case Analysis of the class on CED 301 (Philosophy of Development),
1st Semester, SY 2007-2008
MWSS. 2007. Environmental Impact Statement of Manila Water Supply Project III
(Laiban Dam Project)
PCIJ Files on the Laiban Dam Project found at www.pcij.org
Selection/Tender Documents for the Implementation of the Laiban Dam Project
(Manila Water Supply III Project)
Social Action Center of Diocese of Antipolo. 2009. Statement Against the Laiban
Dam
World Rainforest Movement. Philippines: Local people against the San Roque Dam.
Montevideo, Uruguay. Sourced from [email protected].
www.philbuysell.com
www.ecosystemvaluation.org